May 16, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Meta scams & Facebook Marketplace
- Media bias & avoiding it
- Tim Sandefur talks to A&G
- Tim Sandefur continued!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe, Katty Armstrong and
Jetty and he Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Speaking of the Pope, the trading card company Tops said
that Pope Leo's new card just became their best selling.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Nonsports trading card of all time.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
My guess is, if you collect pope trading cards, you're
probably more celibate than the Pope.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
I'm just saying, boy ouch, I see his point. I'm kidding.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Talking to Tim Sander for this hour of the Goldwater
Institute about the recent Supreme Court oral arguments about ostensibly
the birthright citizenship question the Fourteenth Amendment, But what most
of the hearing was about was can a single federal
judge issue anation wide injunction and stop an administration from
executing its policy for a significant amount of time? What
(01:08):
are the reasons why that's a good idea and what
are the reasons why it's a bad idea?
Speaker 1 (01:11):
And we'll discuss that. Yeah, looking forward to it.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Will be a little cerebral, so you know, get yourself
in the right.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Mood, bring your brain well.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
It sure is tiring to every time the a president
does something, then you get alerts on your phone. A
judge in Minneapolis has said no, Joe Biden can't do that,
and then another judge.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Somewhere else says, yes he can.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
It's back on, and you know the back and forth, right, Yeah, exactly.
It's an interesting challenge because that sort of thing has
been skyrocketing in recent years. They it was practically unknown
for the first one hundred and fifty years of our country,
and then there it happened once or twice here and
there every decade and a half. And now it's like
every three weeks. So anyway, more on that to come.
Headline today. Of more immediate concern, I think to most
(02:00):
folks is from the Wall Street Journal tech department. Meta
battles an epidemic of scams as criminals flood Instagram and Facebook.
And this is by the standards of like six months ago.
It's a flood. Compared to that, fake puppies and phony
offers of mouthwatering bargains are often seated by overseas crime networks.
(02:21):
Employees see say the company is reluctant to impede its
advertising juggernauts.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
So I did start to get into Facebook Marketplace because
somebody told me I mentioned I was using Craigslist for something.
They said, Craigslist. Nobody uses Craigslist anymore. Everything's on Facebook Marketplace.
I thought, okay, I'm probably behind the times. But particularly
I was looking for coincidentally, an Apple Vision pro headset,
and there were so many, so cheap, and it was like,
you know, deal's too good to be true. And then
(02:50):
I started doing a little researching and there's lots of
fake Apple products out there.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
And then so.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Then I just don't know how much of the marketplace
thing is phony, and I just kind of bailed on
the whole deal.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
But wow, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
They open with a guy who runs a like a
wholesale home improvement supplies garden equipment in bulk out of
a suburban Atlanta warehouse, and bunches of people have been
ripped off thinking they're buying from him, and when the
products never arrived, they all call him to complain.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
He has to tell them the bad news they've been swindled.
Oh that sucks.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Yeah, what sucks, he says, is we have to break
it to be layd been scammed.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
We don't even do online sales.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
We keep reporting these pages to Meta, but nothing ever
happens meta platforms.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
The or companies, yes.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Or metas trying and they can't go as fast as
the people keep putting them back up.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
He can probably have.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
An AI bot that puts them up faster than they
could be taken down.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
That's possible, although that's not what the article suggests.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Meta platforms is increasingly a cornerstone of the Internet fraud economy.
According to regulators, banks, and internal documents reviewed by the journal,
The company accounted for nearly half of all reported scams
on Zel. It's a payment service you might use. The
peer to peer payment platform is owned by several banking giants,
including JP Morgan and Wells Fargo. Other banks that offer
Zel have experienced similarly high fraud claims originating on Meta.
(04:17):
British and Australian regulators have found similar levels of fraud
originating on metas platforms. Internal analysis from twenty twenty two
described in company documents Likewise, found that seventy percent of
newly active advertisers on the platform are promoting scams, illicit goods,
or low quality products.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
Yeah, it's interesting because Craigslist was huge for a long time,
destroyed newspapers across the country. We all went to Craigslist,
and I'm sure there were plenty of scams on Craigslist,
but I didn't. I wasn't never I used Crazelist a lot,
never came up against a scam. But on the Facebook
marketplace it seems to be all over the place. I
(04:58):
wonder what the difference is. Just the Internet era that
we're in now.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Is different, yes, and I think the criminal enterprises have
caught up to the opportunities. But again, going back two
and a half years, seven out of ten of newly
active advertisers or scammers of some sort or another account
information for the scam pages from the guy in Atlanta
(05:22):
we talked about show they are run out of China,
Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and the Philippines. But they use stolen
pictures of the warehouse and list its address with more
than three billion daily users on Meta's platforms.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Holy cow.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
So those are advertisers, which is different than like, I
just keep focusing on Facebook.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Marketplace, right advertisers?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Well, like, go on your Facebook marketplace, tap in Apple
Watch near you and try to figure out which of
those ads are real and which are a whole bunch
of them have to be fake.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Like a lot of them.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Okay, well, seventy percent perhaps, But anyway, with more than
three billion daily users on Metas platforms, fraud is hardly
a new phenomenon for the company. But fed by the
rise of cryptocurrencies, generative AI, and vast overseas crime networks
based out of Southeast Asia, the immensity of metas scam
problem is growing and has been regularly flagged by employees
(06:17):
over the last several years. But here's where you get
into the are they really trying hard? As Jack, who's
plainly under the pay of Mark Zuckerberg, tried to claim.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
I wish I could current, Ay, Mark, I could be yeah, Mark,
reach out to I'm.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Sign to our DMS or whatever you do on Facebook,
I'm not on it. But anyway, current and former employees
say Meta is reluctant to add impediments for ad buying clients,
who drove a twenty two percent increase in advertising last
year to over one hundred and sixty billion dollars, even
after users demonstrate a history of scamming. If the checks
keep coming Meta Box and removing.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Them, that's unbelievable. Well, our whole lives of You know,
if you're anywhere near our age, you grew up with.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Radio and TV.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Every single ad you heard, minus like three were legit
and your whole life.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
I mean, just you didn't have endless scam advertisers.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
On radio and TV all day long, right, right, there
was some sort of gatekeeper involved. There's the occasional buyer
be where a question of quality or value or whatever,
but not just a right you give them your money
and never get anything back.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Yeah. Right. So here's here's the really damning part of this.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Current and former employees say Meta is reluctant to add impediments,
et cetera, et cetera. Uh one late last year document
reviewed by The Wall Street Journal shows that the company
will allow advertisers to accrue between eight and thirty two
automated strikes for financial fraud before it bans their accounts.
(08:00):
I mean eight and thirty two.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
In instances where a Meta employee personally escalates the problem,
the limit can drop to between four and sixteen. The
correct number is one, yeah, or zero, depending on how
you look at it.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
You know, one striking, you're out. That's crazy.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
And marketplace is a big part of the problem because
that is advertising, but a meta spokesmans is the company's
working to address the epidemic of scams that has grown
in scale and complexity in recent years, driven by cross
border criminal networks.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
And I hate to come off as a racist or
something here, but.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
I would look at again, looking at applevision pro headsets.
They cost like three thousand dollars new, and I was
seeing them on there sometimes as low as like eight
hundred dollars, nine hundred dollars, and it.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Would be attached to some Middle Eastern name.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
Now that doesn't automatically make it a scam, I know that,
but it seemed like all the really low priced ones
without a box where some foreign name yeah, and so
I don't know, and then the other end of this
and then we can move on.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
And we talked about this, I think a couple of
weeks ago. The report estimated organized scamming operations, often called
pig butchering groups, comprised hundreds of thousands of people. Many
of the scammers trafficked after falling for fraudulent social media
employment adds themselves kept in prison like compounds. The workers
(09:27):
are forced to work under threat of extreme forms of
torture and abuse.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
In the United States. No, in Southeast Asia.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
In Southeast Asia, yeah, I couldn't tell that are just
originated there and they're getting to people there.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Okay, so getting Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
They have warehouses full of people who will be whipped, beaten,
and tortured if they don't try to scam you, you know,
eighteen hours a day.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
And then this law enforcement gal who's looking into this
says the growth of this nightmarish industry stems directly from
the inaction of Meta, and to lesser extent, it's social
media peers.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Well, all I need to hear is you have an
eighteen strikes in your out policy.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I mean, what the hell is that? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Yeah, wow, beyond buyer beware, I'm not sure I'd even
want to wade into that.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Like I said, I bailed.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
I was really interested in buying an Apple product and
finally just decided it's too big a mess for me
to deal with.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
I'd forget. Hey, here's one more example.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
I can't resist because peer to peer sales are trade
of live animals are banned on Meta outside of narrow contexts.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
Peer to peer, So if another talk show host wanted
to buy a goat.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
From me, no, just like another user, okay, another facebooker.
But a recent search for puppies yielded thousands of ads,
most stating no affiliation with a known dog reader or
rescue organization. As Meta's rules require, other red flags abounded.
Many of the results displayed common hallmarks of scams, including
(10:58):
stolen photos of specific pets and ads from sellers supposedly
near me who are actually operating out of Cameroon checking locations.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
I am not in Cameroon. I'm going to see I'm
going to see the Cameroon puppies tonight.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
They're good, but so loud. Bring earplugs. So you know
Facebook has these, and Instagram the Meta. You know outlets
have these alleged rules, but they have zero interest or
practically no interest in enforcing them.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
Zuckerberg, come on, you're smart, dude. That's some short term thinking.
If enough people like me bail from the marketplace because
they think there's too many fraudsters, then you get nothing.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
It's like the Laffer tax curve. I mean, if everybody.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Decides it's full of frauds, you're you're not gonna make
more money, You're gonna make zero money.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Oh I'm chump. I'm channeling Mark Zuckerberg. I am gifted
in the psychic arts. He's speaking to me, speaking through me, Jack,
I'm all already a billionaire.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Shut up, Mark Zuckerberg waiting in there.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
Or more likely he's just trying to keep these quarterly
numbers up. I'll worry about the next quarter.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Next quarter.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Scammers checks, they cash baby, that's what he's thinking.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
I wonder what we'll go to if Mark if back
to Criggs list, you're back to classified in your local newspaper.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Radio Saturday mornings, I got a sat of snow tires.
I'm willing to trade for a life boat or something similar.
On numbers five, five, twelve.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Twelve, Tim sander for this hour to talk about the
Supreme Court arguments from yesterday, among other things.
Speaker 5 (12:42):
Passenger recently shared a video of roaches in the cabin
of a Spirit Airlines flight.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Wow, they really can survive anything. That's a twist. That's
a good punchline.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
I like that Supreme Court arguments yesterday about whether or
not all these federal judge across the country can say
no to presidents and their executive orders. And we'll discuss
that with Tim Sanderford coming up. It's pretty interesting topic.
This is also an interesting topic, trying to find unbiased
or the least biased news out there. This was sent
(13:16):
to me from Ping Pong Olympics broadcaster Jim Kozmoor of
among other things that he's done in his life, he's
a big fan of News Nation and he's been trying
to get me to watch News Nation for he was
the first person ever turned me on to Fox News,
like twenty five years ago. He said, fair and balanced,
you gotta watch it. So I started watching Fox after
(13:37):
years of CNN and whatever. And then he's been hammering
News Nation for a while and he sent me this.
This is this media bias chart from a company that
does this for a living. And as I've been saying,
I started watching NewsNation a couple of weeks ago, and
it's it's so it's so weirdly non confrontational.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
It almost feels drop.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
I am like boring, and I have to keep reminding
myself that confrontation isn't what you're looking for out of
every news story.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
You're just trying to get the facts.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
And it's just it's we're all so used to everything
being presented in a shouty way from one side anyway,
this company that looks at media bias.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
They're top four slots were all News Nation programs throughout
the day that had the least.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Media bias, with number five being Brettbear Special Report on Fox,
which is another news show we all like around here.
So I just say, give it a look. It is
it is. It is weird if you're used to like
a strong point of view and anger. We've all gotten
so accustomed to it. It just I don't know. I
(14:47):
guess it's like people who are addicted to drama. If you
grew up in a family that had lots of drama
and then you go and hang out with some family
that has zero drama, maybe it seems like uncomfortably boring
to you to where the family if no drama likes
it that way.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Right, Sure, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
I once heard a couple of describing the fact that
he came from a family that was very I can't
remember which was switching, that doesn't matter. That was very
English and hers was very Italian, and if you know
anything about those cultures, that would be a tough thing
to get used to.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Yeah, eat a direction.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
I'm going to both the DMV and The Doctor today
back to back, quick doctor's appointment and then to the DMV,
which will be more bureaucratic, unfulfilling. I'm sorry, you don't
have the right form. It's going to be quite the contest, well,
and which will just be generally be more preferable being
(15:44):
probed and jabbed with short sharp objects or being subjected
to the special mental.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Torture of the DMV.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
Right, this isn't the right form. I don't even know
what to do at this point. And that could happen with.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
The insurance all right, or at the DMV either one. Well,
that's true.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Doctor's offices have really up their game, mostly unintentionally because
now they have such compliance hurdles from the many thousands
of laws and regulations. They're becoming more and more DMV
like in some ways.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
I've been a couple of times in the last few years, unfortunately,
where it's like emergency situation and man, they get that
paperwork in front of you.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Who's paying for this?
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Again? Sorry trying to talk over your screams, but who's
paying for this?
Speaker 1 (16:27):
We need to make sure we know who's paying for
this before we start in on any of these.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
The DMV has got to come up with an excuse
or two to penetrate your body in one way or another.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
If they're going to keep up with doctors.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Offices always have to throw in the caveat if you're
like a working, honest person who's going to follow the law. Now,
if I just said no, I'm here illegally from l. Salvador,
they just go ahead and treat me and write it
off somehow, and tax pers would pick up the bill.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
It's a good point. Yeah, yeah, we are paying for everyone. Congratulations,
We thank you, Tim Sanders joining us. Yeah, the fourteenth Amendment,
birthright citizenship nationwide injunctions by a single federal judge.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
What to make of all this? Coming up next? Stay
with us, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
So I've been living this reality for a while now,
and it's growing as a problem. A president decides to
do something with an executive order or whatever, often that
they promised on the campaign trail, their voters get all excited.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Yay, they did it day one like they.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Promised, And then then I get an alert on my phone.
Some judge somewhere I've never heard of it said no,
you can't do that, and then it stops, and everybody's
like Groan's like, oh, they can do that, and it
keeps happening over and over again, and uh, do we
want that system to continue that way or not? As
part of what the Supreme Court was arguing about yesterday,
(17:53):
and as one of the justices said, there are six
hundred some federal judges and while I do not question
their motives, sometimes there are they are are wrong.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
So do we want them to be able to hold
up the whole country?
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Let us discuss the very interesting and multifaceted oral arguments
yesterday before the Supreme Court with Tim Sandefer, vice president
for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, among other auspicious titles,
author of eight books, including most recently Freedom's Theories, How
Isabel Patterson, Rosewilder and ein Rand Found Liberty and Age
(18:23):
of Darkness.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
I've recommended it many times. It's terrific. Tim. How are you, sir?
Just great?
Speaker 5 (18:28):
Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Guys published poet. Gotta throw that in there. True, Yes,
a polymath as they say.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
Anyway, Tim, so ostensibly everyone's talking about that we are
going to discuss birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court,
and that did come up. But would you agree that
the more significant discussion was about nationwide injunctions by individual
federal judges.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
Oh, yes, absolutely, that was the focus of the argument,
and it was a very interesting argument. But I don't
think that it's a hard question. I think the answer
is obviously nationwide. The injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the
ordinary way of doing business in the courts, and people
who complain about them either don't understand the system or
are trying to get away with something illegal.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Yeah I don't.
Speaker 4 (19:12):
I don't always like that it happened, but I can't
see what the alternative would be. As somebody pointed out,
so you're gonna let me. I guess it was you
that pointed it out yesterday in Twitter. The idea that
so every time a president does something, it's got to
work its way all the way through the courts up
to the Supreme Court, and then a decision by the
Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court might say sometimes nine nothing,
(19:35):
you can't do that.
Speaker 5 (19:37):
Oh wait, and during that whole period of time, the
government is still doing the illegal thing.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
Right right, Wow, So clearly it's two to one for
a judicial takeover of the government.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
But I will stand up for liberty.
Speaker 4 (19:49):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Is there no middle ground.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
It's got to be three judge panel and not a
single ya who in a rural Tennessee.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
Yeah, I think. I think having a single unit ya
who in rural Tennessee is perckly fine, because that's what
the appellate process is sort of, that's why you appeal cases.
And by the way, that's why you should avoid appointing
yahoos to the federal bench. Might mention that too. The argument,
the argument against nation right injunctions always seems to boil
down to, well, this is a democracy and the majority
(20:18):
should always get what it wants. And the answer to
that is no where what happened to all of my
friends who used to say, this is a republic, not
a democracy. The whole point of our system is that
the majority has to act lawfully, and if it acts unlawfully,
I can go in front of a judge and get
that given order from that judge prohibiting the government from
violating my rights. And the idea that this that we
(20:39):
should do this piece meal, that only a judge down here,
that his order only applies there. Meanwhile, the government can
do illegal things to everybody else in the country until
the case reaches the US Supreme court makes no sense
at all.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
The underlying theme here being, folks that what we really
need to fear is the power of the government in
this country is kind of the idea of forming it.
So there's no question that these nationwide injunctions were relatively
or practically completely unknown for one hundred and fifty years.
Then there were a handful of them, and the number
of them is now skyrocks every day.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
It seems like on my phone, I see a judge
jumped in.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
Someone Actually right, I actually don't think that that's true.
I think that what happened was we just started calling
them by a different name. You know, there were been
injunction injunctions against unconstitutional government actions since before there was
a constitution. One of the points that was brought up
during the arguments was that British judges used to do
this before the American Revolution, and that was considered perfectly legitimate.
(21:36):
It's just that nowadays we call them nation right injunctions,
or we have some judges who write sloppily and don't
explain what they're actually saying or something, And okay, that's
a problem, I suppose. But the idea that you should
limit the injunction power of federal courts. Is what that
is is that's open door to the majority violating individual
rights on a scale that I mean, they already do it,
(21:58):
but you can imagine what it would be if we
took away one of the most important protections for individual
rights in this country, which is getting an injunction from
our federal court to protect their freedom. And that's insane.
Speaker 4 (22:10):
So I didn't want to get to this part too
fast because you're a lawyer, and this part can't be
fixed with the law.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
It seems to me.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
That we've got a cultural problem in that presidents are
way more likely than they used to be to want
to challenge the Supreme Court, either to like legitimately they
don't think the law is correct, or they don't care
if they're wrong.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
They just want to get the political credit for trying.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
And perhaps I don't know this, but it seems like
a likely response. The six hundred some federal judges out there,
there's a lot more of them who are willing to
let their politics get ahead of their judge reasoning and
jump in and stop somebody they hate.
Speaker 5 (22:48):
Yes, you're absolutely right about that, and especially the thing
about the President and Congress being willing to do things
that they know are unconstitutional because they know that the
judges are going to strike it down, and they can
blame the judges and say all those evil activist judges,
or they can get away with their unconstitutional things. So
it's win when if you want to do something unconstitutional.
And honestly, every president's done this to some degree. Obviously
(23:11):
Franklin Roosevelt did this a lot. But the one that
I always six in my memory is George W. Bush
when he signed the McCain fine Gold campaign finance law
and said when he signed it that he thought it
was unconstitutional, but that he would leave it to the
courts to deal with. Well, I'm sorry, but if you're
the president, you take an oath to support and defend
(23:32):
the constitution of the United States. And if you ignore
that oath and sign something that you know is unconstitutional
just because you think the courts will clean up your
mess for you, I think that's disgraceful.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
Yeah, a lot of the pieces I've read that have
been following the growth of this use that as kind
of like the patient zero because he said it out loud,
and then other presidents thought.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Hey, I can do that.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
I just won't say it out loud, and Obama did it,
and Biden did it, and Trump did it in whichever order,
and then Trump again, and and and it's how do
we fix this?
Speaker 5 (24:02):
Well, there's a long answer and the short answer. The
short answer is elect good presidents. The long answer is
that we have to restore respect for the Constitution in
this country. I think it's the long term damage that's
been done to Americans understanding and appreciation of the Constitution
is horrifying. We have prominent law professors. There was a
(24:24):
law professor at at Georgetown Law School a few years
ago published an article in The Washington Post saying, the
Constitution is obsolete. I don't respect it at all. Well,
you're a teacher of constitutional law for crying out loud.
And if we don't respect the Constitution, we don't love it.
It cannot protect us. The Constitution is just a promise,
and if we don't honor that promise, then it's not
worth the paper it's written on.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
We should have written a law specifically putting him in jail.
In my opinion, Tim Sandefer is online from the Goldwater
Institute Little Constitutional Humor for.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Exactly punish one man.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
That's a good idea now so you know, blah blah blah,
disclaimer about it's difficult to read the tea leaves of
the oral arguments, blah blah blah. Did it strike you
that the justices, the sane ones that we like, were
leaning in any particular direction as to the nationwide injunctions judges,
et cetera that we've been discussing.
Speaker 5 (25:18):
Some of the judges have made clear for a long
time that they're against these what they call nationwide injunctions.
Justice Thomas in particular. Some of the others are a
little harder to read. Justice Barrett, for example, and Justice Roberts,
who have become really the swing judges on this issue.
I thought the most interesting judge if you want to
if anybody wants to go and listen to the argument online,
I thought Justice Jackson was the one who is the
(25:40):
most interesting. She clearly understands how this area of the
law works, and she rightly says there's no there there
that nationwide injunctions are perfectly legitimate. They always have been
and there's no problem. So she'd be the one that
I find most interesting. But how to predict I think
you're going to get. I think Justice Roberts and Justice
Barrett are going to a side with the liberals and
say we don't have a problem per se with nationwide injunction.
(26:03):
But maybe some of them aren't very good, but as
a blanket matter, they're okay. And then they're going to
want to hear the underlying case about birthright citizenship, which
obviously is a huge deal.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
That sound about right to me.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Is it even worth getting into what happened on that
topic yesterday or do you think it's.
Speaker 5 (26:22):
Well, they really just talked about whether or not they
have a legitimate case in the first place, and they
haven't really briefed it or argued it yet. But that's
important because in order to get an injunction, you kind
of have to first show that you have even an
arguable point to make, and that was what they were
arguing about. And I will say, I know this is
talk radio, and we're all supposed to think that we
clearly have the right answer and everything. I think the
(26:44):
birthright citizenship question is a very hard question. I don't
think it's an easy question on either side.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Let's talk about that when we come back from the break.
I want to hear the arguments on both sides.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Of that.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
That's interesting And clearly you've probably seen the breakdown who
speaks the most.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
The chicks talk too much? Is that given?
Speaker 5 (27:03):
Well, Jessic so to my r does love cutting off
lawyers and not letting them answer her questions.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
Yeah, the chicks talk too so much.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
I think that's been in the new Gal talks more
than anybody. That shouldn't happen in any organization. All right,
more with Tim Sandefert in just a moment or two.
But first word from our friends at Prize Picks. The
best place to get in on the action is the
basketball playoffs. Build in intensity, whether it's points, rebounds, or assists.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
She's more or less on two.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
To six player projections for your shot to win up
to two thousand times your cage.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
I'm all over my man Brunson tonight for the nixt
game at Madison Square Garden against the Celtics.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
That's gonna be awesome.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
I wish there was a more or less on which
celebrities are going to be in the front row. I
got a good story about that coming up in a
little bit.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
But man, that is going to be some game tonight
and during the basketball playoffs, every lineup you make on
Prize Picks will enter you in the Takes two ticket sweepstakes,
which could get you and a plus one a VIP
trip to the Championship Series Holy Cats.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Download the Prize Picks app today.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
Use the code armstrong to get fifty bucks instantly after
you play dollar lineup again.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
That's the code Armstrong.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
You get fifty dollars instantly after you play a modest
five dollars lineup.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
It's automatic.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
You do not have to win withdrawals fast safe and
scare some hit your account as little as fifteen minutes.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Prize Picks run your game.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
Tim's gonna stick around, and I got this question for
him when we come back. He can think on should
the media attached to every judge what president appointed him?
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Does that help us or hurt us? I love that one.
On the way stay here.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
Strong.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
On the actual case itself, I've always thought.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
It's obvious that now is designed for slaves, and you
shouldn't be able to be like a Chinese. A rich
Chinese family that comes the United States, has your baby
in San Francisco and then gets all the benefits of
being a US citizen forever. But a lot of really
smart people I like think there's a good reason for that.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
So I'm looking forward to hearing that.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
Discussing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday with
Tim Sanderfervice, President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute.
It was advertised as a birthright citizenship hearing it or discussion.
It really was much more a discussion of individual federal
judges and nationwide in junctions and that sort of thing.
But to the question of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tim, you
(29:16):
said before the break that it's not an easy call.
I'm glad to hear you agree. I've thought the same thing.
What should we know about the fourteenth Amendment even come
to a semi intelligent opinion on this?
Speaker 5 (29:27):
Well, the first sentence of the fourteenth Amendment says, all
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are US citizens.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
And all of this.
Speaker 5 (29:37):
Case, all of these arguments turn on that phrase subject
to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that phrase mean? It's
really tough because the word jurisdiction is one of those
words that can mean all sorts of different things. It
basically means power, but there's all sorts of different kinds
of power, and so that's what the argument turns on.
Some people think that it means you have to follow
(29:59):
the law born here, and you have to follow the law,
then you're subject of the jurisdiction thereof, and then that
means you're a citizen. But that doesn't really make a
lot of sense because even foreign tourists who come here
for a vacation have to follow the law. I mean,
they have to stop at red lights and they can't
steal things, So that can't be what that means, right. Instead,
the other side argues jurisdiction thereof means some kind of
(30:21):
loyalty or allegiance, that there's citizenship jurisdiction, as opposed to
follow the law jurisdiction, and that difference. You can see
that difference for example, in this if you're a foreign spy.
Now you sneak into the country and you spy for
some foreign country and you get it arrested, you can
be prosecuted for espionage, but you cannot be prosecuted for treason.
(30:44):
Why because you're not a US citizen and you don't
owe loyalty to the US, so you cannot commit treason
against the US. And so there's two different kinds of jurisdiction,
is the argument. And so those who are against birthright
citizenships say, subject of the jurisdiction means that your parents
owed loyalty to the United States as opposed to some
(31:04):
foreign country, and that would mean that illegal aliens if
they have a child here, that child is not a
sistant in the United States. Now, that's also there's a
problem with that. There's a couple problems that. One of
the problems of that argument is that nobody has ever
said that that's what it means. In the one hundred
and fifty years since this has been in the Constitution,
everybody has active like if you're born here, you're a
citizen all of that time. And so suddenly discovering that
(31:28):
we're at it turns out that we've been misreading the
Constitution for one hundred and fifty years would be a huge,
enormously radical transformation and how our system works. That would
cause tremendous disruption nationwide, and that would be a real problem.
But all of this, the real problem here in answering
this question is that when the amendment was adopted, there
(31:49):
were no such things as illegal aliens, because there were
no laws against immigration, and that means if you're an
originalist and you think the competition should be understood the
way it was originally intended, the Framers didn't ever think
about this because it wasn't against the law back then,
So we don't know.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
What they would have thought about this question right right well,
at the point that this enormously radical, disruptive president has overturned,
that's when you tag me and Tim and I come
in and explain to the good folks that look, the
nature of global transportation, the movement of people or peoples
from one place to another has changed so vastly.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
Joe's a living constitution guy. You can hear it coming.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
Out of what No, don't you dare know that the
very nature of comings and goings from countries has been
so radically transformed.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
A Chinese national with not the slightest.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Notion of making life in the United States can can
depart China, arrive here, give birth, go back to China,
all in the span of.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Seventy two hours.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
I'm inducing labor in this case, probably getting very lucky,
and that.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Child had citizenship.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
That's the eventuality unimaginable back in the day.
Speaker 5 (33:04):
Is the kids I think that that's sort of true.
But on the other hand, the Chinese question came up
back then because there were so many Chinese in California
in the eighteen sixties, and senators rasked, well, isn't this
going to make the children of the Chinese immigrants who
back then did not intend to sty in the United States.
They intended to go back to China. The senator's rast,
does this make their kids us? Senator US citizens? And
(33:26):
the senator from California said yes, and then he was
immediately thrown out of office. So what does that mean?
Nobody knows what that.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Means a single case from eighteen ninety eight, or is
there more precedent?
Speaker 5 (33:38):
Really, there really isn't. There's really just a handful of
presidents and no Supreme Court case has ever said that
birthright citizenship is the is in the Constitution. There have
been some that have kind of mentioned it or kind
of assumed it, but none has said so outright.
Speaker 4 (33:52):
I am surprised the polling shows that only about a
third of Americans want to do away with the way
we do it now. I'm surprised by that. I do
want to get this. This is a journalistic question. But
I think it has an effect on people's respect for
the law. It has come up recently. It has become
a pattern that anytime the media mentions a judge, they
mentioned what president appointed them. Do you think that's a
(34:14):
good idea or not? They didn't just barely got a minute.
Speaker 5 (34:17):
I think I think it's fine. I think people should
know where these For instance, I think it would help
a lot of judges. You know, a lot of Republican
appointed judges have been ruling against the Trump administration, and
I think it would be helpful for people to know
that these questions are not things where it's all partisan.
The law is not just partisan politics. It's something much
more profound and much more important.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Yeah, well, I.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Agree, But it implies that judges I don't know.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
True.
Speaker 5 (34:42):
I didn't used to think.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
I didn't used to think about it. Ever.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
If a judge ruled, I just thought, all, that's interesting,
Now it's all who appointed him?
Speaker 1 (34:49):
Oh of course he said that. That is true.
Speaker 5 (34:52):
That is a risk, But I think we should err
on the side of informing people as opposed to keeping
people in the dark.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
So that's always Trump.
Speaker 3 (35:02):
Tim Sander for the Goldwater Institute On the Line, Tim
final question, I've called for a monarchy.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
You in favor of it? Yes or no?
Speaker 5 (35:09):
No, I'm against him monarchy. I'm for the constitution, Joe.
Speaker 4 (35:12):
One more question. As a published poet, I was thinking
about this. Yesterday he won the Nobel Prize. Bob Dylan
good poet or not lousy poet?
Speaker 5 (35:20):
Now read Robert Hayden or Richard Wilbur instead.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
Hmm, how about Ringo Star Octopus's Garden was creative?
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Tim, It's always great and enlightening. Thanks Millian for the time.
Let's talk again soon. Thanks guys.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
All right, I was actually thinking about this listening to
Dylan lyrics. Why do they stick in everybody's head so much?
Why do people keep going back to them?
Speaker 1 (35:44):
If it's just.
Speaker 4 (35:45):
Gobbledegook, like a lot of real poets claim, it can't be.
It wouldn't lodge, It wouldn't it wouldn't make the market made,
would it?
Speaker 5 (35:54):
All?
Speaker 1 (35:55):
Right?
Speaker 3 (35:55):
He was famously moody about his career and his music
in his Life's Philosophy. I think some of his stuff
is absolutely brilliant, and I think some of it's gobbledegook.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
Hum.
Speaker 4 (36:08):
Maybe maybe more on that another day, or maybe not.
We got plenty of stuff to tell you. I hope
you can stick around if you missus, Sigmann, I thought
that Tim thing was really, really good, and you want
to listen to it again. Get the podcast Armstrong You
Getty on demand
Speaker 5 (36:21):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe, Katty Armstrong and
Jetty and he Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Speaking of the Pope, the trading card company Tops said
that Pope Leo's new card just became their best selling.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Nonsports trading card of all time.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
My guess is, if you collect pope trading cards, you're
probably more celibate than the Pope.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
I'm just saying, boy ouch, I see his point. I'm kidding.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Talking to Tim Sander for this hour of the Goldwater
Institute about the recent Supreme Court oral arguments about ostensibly
the birthright citizenship question the Fourteenth Amendment, But what most
of the hearing was about was can a single federal
judge issue anation wide injunction and stop an administration from
executing its policy for a significant amount of time? What
(01:08):
are the reasons why that's a good idea and what
are the reasons why it's a bad idea?
Speaker 1 (01:11):
And we'll discuss that. Yeah, looking forward to it.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Will be a little cerebral, so you know, get yourself
in the right.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Mood, bring your brain well.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
It sure is tiring to every time the a president
does something, then you get alerts on your phone. A
judge in Minneapolis has said no, Joe Biden can't do that,
and then another judge.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Somewhere else says, yes he can.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
It's back on, and you know the back and forth, right, Yeah, exactly.
It's an interesting challenge because that sort of thing has
been skyrocketing in recent years. They it was practically unknown
for the first one hundred and fifty years of our country,
and then there it happened once or twice here and
there every decade and a half. And now it's like
every three weeks. So anyway, more on that to come.
Headline today. Of more immediate concern, I think to most
(02:00):
folks is from the Wall Street Journal tech department. Meta
battles an epidemic of scams as criminals flood Instagram and Facebook.
And this is by the standards of like six months ago.
It's a flood. Compared to that, fake puppies and phony
offers of mouthwatering bargains are often seated by overseas crime networks.
(02:21):
Employees see say the company is reluctant to impede its
advertising juggernauts.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
So I did start to get into Facebook Marketplace because
somebody told me I mentioned I was using Craigslist for something.
They said, Craigslist. Nobody uses Craigslist anymore. Everything's on Facebook Marketplace.
I thought, okay, I'm probably behind the times. But particularly
I was looking for coincidentally, an Apple Vision pro headset,
and there were so many, so cheap, and it was like,
you know, deal's too good to be true. And then
(02:50):
I started doing a little researching and there's lots of
fake Apple products out there.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
And then so.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Then I just don't know how much of the marketplace
thing is phony, and I just kind of bailed on
the whole deal.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
But wow, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
They open with a guy who runs a like a
wholesale home improvement supplies garden equipment in bulk out of
a suburban Atlanta warehouse, and bunches of people have been
ripped off thinking they're buying from him, and when the
products never arrived, they all call him to complain.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
He has to tell them the bad news they've been swindled.
Oh that sucks.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Yeah, what sucks, he says, is we have to break
it to be layd been scammed.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
We don't even do online sales.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
We keep reporting these pages to Meta, but nothing ever
happens meta platforms.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
The or companies, yes.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Or metas trying and they can't go as fast as
the people keep putting them back up.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
He can probably have.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
An AI bot that puts them up faster than they
could be taken down.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
That's possible, although that's not what the article suggests.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Meta platforms is increasingly a cornerstone of the Internet fraud economy.
According to regulators, banks, and internal documents reviewed by the journal,
The company accounted for nearly half of all reported scams
on Zel. It's a payment service you might use. The
peer to peer payment platform is owned by several banking giants,
including JP Morgan and Wells Fargo. Other banks that offer
Zel have experienced similarly high fraud claims originating on Meta.
(04:17):
British and Australian regulators have found similar levels of fraud
originating on metas platforms. Internal analysis from twenty twenty two
described in company documents Likewise, found that seventy percent of
newly active advertisers on the platform are promoting scams, illicit goods,
or low quality products.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
Yeah, it's interesting because Craigslist was huge for a long time,
destroyed newspapers across the country. We all went to Craigslist,
and I'm sure there were plenty of scams on Craigslist,
but I didn't. I wasn't never I used Crazelist a lot,
never came up against a scam. But on the Facebook
marketplace it seems to be all over the place. I
(04:58):
wonder what the difference is. Just the Internet era that
we're in now.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Is different, yes, and I think the criminal enterprises have
caught up to the opportunities. But again, going back two
and a half years, seven out of ten of newly
active advertisers or scammers of some sort or another account
information for the scam pages from the guy in Atlanta
(05:22):
we talked about show they are run out of China,
Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and the Philippines. But they use stolen
pictures of the warehouse and list its address with more
than three billion daily users on Meta's platforms.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Holy cow.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
So those are advertisers, which is different than like, I
just keep focusing on Facebook.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Marketplace, right advertisers?
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Well, like, go on your Facebook marketplace, tap in Apple
Watch near you and try to figure out which of
those ads are real and which are a whole bunch
of them have to be fake.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Like a lot of them.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Okay, well, seventy percent perhaps, But anyway, with more than
three billion daily users on Metas platforms, fraud is hardly
a new phenomenon for the company. But fed by the
rise of cryptocurrencies, generative AI, and vast overseas crime networks
based out of Southeast Asia, the immensity of metas scam
problem is growing and has been regularly flagged by employees
(06:17):
over the last several years. But here's where you get
into the are they really trying hard? As Jack, who's
plainly under the pay of Mark Zuckerberg, tried to claim.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
I wish I could current, Ay, Mark, I could be yeah, Mark,
reach out to I'm.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Sign to our DMS or whatever you do on Facebook,
I'm not on it. But anyway, current and former employees
say Meta is reluctant to add impediments for ad buying clients,
who drove a twenty two percent increase in advertising last
year to over one hundred and sixty billion dollars, even
after users demonstrate a history of scamming. If the checks
keep coming Meta Box and removing.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Them, that's unbelievable. Well, our whole lives of You know,
if you're anywhere near our age, you grew up with.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Radio and TV.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Every single ad you heard, minus like three were legit
and your whole life.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
I mean, just you didn't have endless scam advertisers.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
On radio and TV all day long, right, right, there
was some sort of gatekeeper involved. There's the occasional buyer
be where a question of quality or value or whatever,
but not just a right you give them your money
and never get anything back.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Yeah. Right. So here's here's the really damning part of this.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Current and former employees say Meta is reluctant to add impediments,
et cetera, et cetera. Uh one late last year document
reviewed by The Wall Street Journal shows that the company
will allow advertisers to accrue between eight and thirty two
automated strikes for financial fraud before it bans their accounts.
(08:00):
I mean eight and thirty two.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
In instances where a Meta employee personally escalates the problem,
the limit can drop to between four and sixteen. The
correct number is one, yeah, or zero, depending on how
you look at it.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
You know, one striking, you're out. That's crazy.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
And marketplace is a big part of the problem because
that is advertising, but a meta spokesmans is the company's
working to address the epidemic of scams that has grown
in scale and complexity in recent years, driven by cross
border criminal networks.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
And I hate to come off as a racist or
something here, but.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
I would look at again, looking at applevision pro headsets.
They cost like three thousand dollars new, and I was
seeing them on there sometimes as low as like eight
hundred dollars, nine hundred dollars, and it.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Would be attached to some Middle Eastern name.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
Now that doesn't automatically make it a scam, I know that,
but it seemed like all the really low priced ones
without a box where some foreign name yeah, and so
I don't know, and then the other end of this
and then we can move on.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
And we talked about this, I think a couple of
weeks ago. The report estimated organized scamming operations, often called
pig butchering groups, comprised hundreds of thousands of people. Many
of the scammers trafficked after falling for fraudulent social media
employment adds themselves kept in prison like compounds. The workers
(09:27):
are forced to work under threat of extreme forms of
torture and abuse.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
In the United States. No, in Southeast Asia.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
In Southeast Asia, yeah, I couldn't tell that are just
originated there and they're getting to people there.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Okay, so getting Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
They have warehouses full of people who will be whipped, beaten,
and tortured if they don't try to scam you, you know,
eighteen hours a day.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
And then this law enforcement gal who's looking into this
says the growth of this nightmarish industry stems directly from
the inaction of Meta, and to lesser extent, it's social
media peers.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Well, all I need to hear is you have an
eighteen strikes in your out policy.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I mean, what the hell is that? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Yeah, wow, beyond buyer beware, I'm not sure I'd even
want to wade into that.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Like I said, I bailed.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
I was really interested in buying an Apple product and
finally just decided it's too big a mess for me
to deal with.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
I'd forget. Hey, here's one more example.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
I can't resist because peer to peer sales are trade
of live animals are banned on Meta outside of narrow contexts.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
Peer to peer, So if another talk show host wanted
to buy a goat.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
From me, no, just like another user, okay, another facebooker.
But a recent search for puppies yielded thousands of ads,
most stating no affiliation with a known dog reader or
rescue organization. As Meta's rules require, other red flags abounded.
Many of the results displayed common hallmarks of scams, including
(10:58):
stolen photos of specific pets and ads from sellers supposedly
near me who are actually operating out of Cameroon checking locations.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
I am not in Cameroon. I'm going to see I'm
going to see the Cameroon puppies tonight.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
They're good, but so loud. Bring earplugs. So you know
Facebook has these, and Instagram the Meta. You know outlets
have these alleged rules, but they have zero interest or
practically no interest in enforcing them.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
Zuckerberg, come on, you're smart, dude. That's some short term thinking.
If enough people like me bail from the marketplace because
they think there's too many fraudsters, then you get nothing.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
It's like the Laffer tax curve. I mean, if everybody.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Decides it's full of frauds, you're you're not gonna make
more money, You're gonna make zero money.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Oh I'm chump. I'm channeling Mark Zuckerberg. I am gifted
in the psychic arts. He's speaking to me, speaking through me, Jack,
I'm all already a billionaire.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Shut up, Mark Zuckerberg waiting in there.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
Or more likely he's just trying to keep these quarterly
numbers up. I'll worry about the next quarter.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Next quarter.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Scammers checks, they cash baby, that's what he's thinking.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
I wonder what we'll go to if Mark if back
to Criggs list, you're back to classified in your local newspaper.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Radio Saturday mornings, I got a sat of snow tires.
I'm willing to trade for a life boat or something similar.
On numbers five, five, twelve.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Twelve, Tim sander for this hour to talk about the
Supreme Court arguments from yesterday, among other things.
Speaker 5 (12:42):
Passenger recently shared a video of roaches in the cabin
of a Spirit Airlines flight.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Wow, they really can survive anything. That's a twist. That's
a good punchline.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
I like that Supreme Court arguments yesterday about whether or
not all these federal judge across the country can say
no to presidents and their executive orders. And we'll discuss
that with Tim Sanderford coming up. It's pretty interesting topic.
This is also an interesting topic, trying to find unbiased
or the least biased news out there. This was sent
(13:16):
to me from Ping Pong Olympics broadcaster Jim Kozmoor of
among other things that he's done in his life, he's
a big fan of News Nation and he's been trying
to get me to watch News Nation for he was
the first person ever turned me on to Fox News,
like twenty five years ago. He said, fair and balanced,
you gotta watch it. So I started watching Fox after
(13:37):
years of CNN and whatever. And then he's been hammering
News Nation for a while and he sent me this.
This is this media bias chart from a company that
does this for a living. And as I've been saying,
I started watching NewsNation a couple of weeks ago, and
it's it's so it's so weirdly non confrontational.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
It almost feels drop.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
I am like boring, and I have to keep reminding
myself that confrontation isn't what you're looking for out of
every news story.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
You're just trying to get the facts.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
And it's just it's we're all so used to everything
being presented in a shouty way from one side anyway,
this company that looks at media bias.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
They're top four slots were all News Nation programs throughout
the day that had the least.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Media bias, with number five being Brettbear Special Report on Fox,
which is another news show we all like around here.
So I just say, give it a look. It is
it is. It is weird if you're used to like
a strong point of view and anger. We've all gotten
so accustomed to it. It just I don't know. I
(14:47):
guess it's like people who are addicted to drama. If you
grew up in a family that had lots of drama
and then you go and hang out with some family
that has zero drama, maybe it seems like uncomfortably boring
to you to where the family if no drama likes
it that way.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Right, Sure, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
I once heard a couple of describing the fact that
he came from a family that was very I can't
remember which was switching, that doesn't matter. That was very
English and hers was very Italian, and if you know
anything about those cultures, that would be a tough thing
to get used to.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Yeah, eat a direction.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
I'm going to both the DMV and The Doctor today
back to back, quick doctor's appointment and then to the DMV,
which will be more bureaucratic, unfulfilling. I'm sorry, you don't
have the right form. It's going to be quite the contest, well,
and which will just be generally be more preferable being
(15:44):
probed and jabbed with short sharp objects or being subjected
to the special mental.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Torture of the DMV.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
Right, this isn't the right form. I don't even know
what to do at this point. And that could happen with.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
The insurance all right, or at the DMV either one. Well,
that's true.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Doctor's offices have really up their game, mostly unintentionally because
now they have such compliance hurdles from the many thousands
of laws and regulations. They're becoming more and more DMV
like in some ways.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
I've been a couple of times in the last few years, unfortunately,
where it's like emergency situation and man, they get that
paperwork in front of you.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Who's paying for this?
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Again? Sorry trying to talk over your screams, but who's
paying for this?
Speaker 1 (16:27):
We need to make sure we know who's paying for
this before we start in on any of these.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
The DMV has got to come up with an excuse
or two to penetrate your body in one way or another.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
If they're going to keep up with doctors.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Offices always have to throw in the caveat if you're
like a working, honest person who's going to follow the law. Now,
if I just said no, I'm here illegally from l. Salvador,
they just go ahead and treat me and write it
off somehow, and tax pers would pick up the bill.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
It's a good point. Yeah, yeah, we are paying for everyone. Congratulations,
We thank you, Tim Sanders joining us. Yeah, the fourteenth Amendment,
birthright citizenship nationwide injunctions by a single federal judge.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
What to make of all this? Coming up next? Stay
with us, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
So I've been living this reality for a while now,
and it's growing as a problem. A president decides to
do something with an executive order or whatever, often that
they promised on the campaign trail, their voters get all excited.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Yay, they did it day one like they.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Promised, And then then I get an alert on my phone.
Some judge somewhere I've never heard of it said no,
you can't do that, and then it stops, and everybody's
like Groan's like, oh, they can do that, and it
keeps happening over and over again, and uh, do we
want that system to continue that way or not? As
part of what the Supreme Court was arguing about yesterday,
(17:53):
and as one of the justices said, there are six
hundred some federal judges and while I do not question
their motives, sometimes there are they are are wrong.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
So do we want them to be able to hold
up the whole country?
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Let us discuss the very interesting and multifaceted oral arguments
yesterday before the Supreme Court with Tim Sandefer, vice president
for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, among other auspicious titles,
author of eight books, including most recently Freedom's Theories, How
Isabel Patterson, Rosewilder and ein Rand Found Liberty and Age
(18:23):
of Darkness.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
I've recommended it many times. It's terrific. Tim. How are you, sir?
Just great?
Speaker 5 (18:28):
Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Guys published poet. Gotta throw that in there. True, Yes,
a polymath as they say.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
Anyway, Tim, so ostensibly everyone's talking about that we are
going to discuss birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court,
and that did come up. But would you agree that
the more significant discussion was about nationwide injunctions by individual
federal judges.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
Oh, yes, absolutely, that was the focus of the argument,
and it was a very interesting argument. But I don't
think that it's a hard question. I think the answer
is obviously nationwide. The injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the
ordinary way of doing business in the courts, and people
who complain about them either don't understand the system or
are trying to get away with something illegal.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Yeah I don't.
Speaker 4 (19:12):
I don't always like that it happened, but I can't
see what the alternative would be. As somebody pointed out,
so you're gonna let me. I guess it was you
that pointed it out yesterday in Twitter. The idea that
so every time a president does something, it's got to
work its way all the way through the courts up
to the Supreme Court, and then a decision by the
Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court might say sometimes nine nothing,
(19:35):
you can't do that.
Speaker 5 (19:37):
Oh wait, and during that whole period of time, the
government is still doing the illegal thing.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
Right right, Wow, So clearly it's two to one for
a judicial takeover of the government.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
But I will stand up for liberty.
Speaker 4 (19:49):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Is there no middle ground.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
It's got to be three judge panel and not a
single ya who in a rural Tennessee.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
Yeah, I think. I think having a single unit ya
who in rural Tennessee is perckly fine, because that's what
the appellate process is sort of, that's why you appeal cases.
And by the way, that's why you should avoid appointing
yahoos to the federal bench. Might mention that too. The argument,
the argument against nation right injunctions always seems to boil
down to, well, this is a democracy and the majority
(20:18):
should always get what it wants. And the answer to
that is no where what happened to all of my
friends who used to say, this is a republic, not
a democracy. The whole point of our system is that
the majority has to act lawfully, and if it acts unlawfully,
I can go in front of a judge and get
that given order from that judge prohibiting the government from
violating my rights. And the idea that this that we
(20:39):
should do this piece meal, that only a judge down here,
that his order only applies there. Meanwhile, the government can
do illegal things to everybody else in the country until
the case reaches the US Supreme court makes no sense
at all.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
The underlying theme here being, folks that what we really
need to fear is the power of the government in
this country is kind of the idea of forming it.
So there's no question that these nationwide injunctions were relatively
or practically completely unknown for one hundred and fifty years.
Then there were a handful of them, and the number
of them is now skyrocks every day.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
It seems like on my phone, I see a judge
jumped in.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
Someone Actually right, I actually don't think that that's true.
I think that what happened was we just started calling
them by a different name. You know, there were been
injunction injunctions against unconstitutional government actions since before there was
a constitution. One of the points that was brought up
during the arguments was that British judges used to do
this before the American Revolution, and that was considered perfectly legitimate.
(21:36):
It's just that nowadays we call them nation right injunctions,
or we have some judges who write sloppily and don't
explain what they're actually saying or something, And okay, that's
a problem, I suppose. But the idea that you should
limit the injunction power of federal courts. Is what that
is is that's open door to the majority violating individual
rights on a scale that I mean, they already do it,
(21:58):
but you can imagine what it would be if we
took away one of the most important protections for individual
rights in this country, which is getting an injunction from
our federal court to protect their freedom. And that's insane.
Speaker 4 (22:10):
So I didn't want to get to this part too
fast because you're a lawyer, and this part can't be
fixed with the law.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
It seems to me.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
That we've got a cultural problem in that presidents are
way more likely than they used to be to want
to challenge the Supreme Court, either to like legitimately they
don't think the law is correct, or they don't care
if they're wrong.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
They just want to get the political credit for trying.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
And perhaps I don't know this, but it seems like
a likely response. The six hundred some federal judges out there,
there's a lot more of them who are willing to
let their politics get ahead of their judge reasoning and
jump in and stop somebody they hate.
Speaker 5 (22:48):
Yes, you're absolutely right about that, and especially the thing
about the President and Congress being willing to do things
that they know are unconstitutional because they know that the
judges are going to strike it down, and they can
blame the judges and say all those evil activist judges,
or they can get away with their unconstitutional things. So
it's win when if you want to do something unconstitutional.
And honestly, every president's done this to some degree. Obviously
(23:11):
Franklin Roosevelt did this a lot. But the one that
I always six in my memory is George W. Bush
when he signed the McCain fine Gold campaign finance law
and said when he signed it that he thought it
was unconstitutional, but that he would leave it to the
courts to deal with. Well, I'm sorry, but if you're
the president, you take an oath to support and defend
(23:32):
the constitution of the United States. And if you ignore
that oath and sign something that you know is unconstitutional
just because you think the courts will clean up your
mess for you, I think that's disgraceful.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
Yeah, a lot of the pieces I've read that have
been following the growth of this use that as kind
of like the patient zero because he said it out loud,
and then other presidents thought.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Hey, I can do that.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
I just won't say it out loud, and Obama did it,
and Biden did it, and Trump did it in whichever order,
and then Trump again, and and and it's how do
we fix this?
Speaker 5 (24:02):
Well, there's a long answer and the short answer. The
short answer is elect good presidents. The long answer is
that we have to restore respect for the Constitution in
this country. I think it's the long term damage that's
been done to Americans understanding and appreciation of the Constitution
is horrifying. We have prominent law professors. There was a
(24:24):
law professor at at Georgetown Law School a few years
ago published an article in The Washington Post saying, the
Constitution is obsolete. I don't respect it at all. Well,
you're a teacher of constitutional law for crying out loud.
And if we don't respect the Constitution, we don't love it.
It cannot protect us. The Constitution is just a promise,
and if we don't honor that promise, then it's not
worth the paper it's written on.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
We should have written a law specifically putting him in jail.
In my opinion, Tim Sandefer is online from the Goldwater
Institute Little Constitutional Humor for.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Exactly punish one man.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
That's a good idea now so you know, blah blah blah,
disclaimer about it's difficult to read the tea leaves of
the oral arguments, blah blah blah. Did it strike you
that the justices, the sane ones that we like, were
leaning in any particular direction as to the nationwide injunctions judges,
et cetera that we've been discussing.
Speaker 5 (25:18):
Some of the judges have made clear for a long
time that they're against these what they call nationwide injunctions.
Justice Thomas in particular. Some of the others are a
little harder to read. Justice Barrett, for example, and Justice Roberts,
who have become really the swing judges on this issue.
I thought the most interesting judge if you want to
if anybody wants to go and listen to the argument online,
I thought Justice Jackson was the one who is the
(25:40):
most interesting. She clearly understands how this area of the
law works, and she rightly says there's no there there
that nationwide injunctions are perfectly legitimate. They always have been
and there's no problem. So she'd be the one that
I find most interesting. But how to predict I think
you're going to get. I think Justice Roberts and Justice
Barrett are going to a side with the liberals and
say we don't have a problem per se with nationwide injunction.
(26:03):
But maybe some of them aren't very good, but as
a blanket matter, they're okay. And then they're going to
want to hear the underlying case about birthright citizenship, which
obviously is a huge deal.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
That sound about right to me.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Is it even worth getting into what happened on that
topic yesterday or do you think it's.
Speaker 5 (26:22):
Well, they really just talked about whether or not they
have a legitimate case in the first place, and they
haven't really briefed it or argued it yet. But that's
important because in order to get an injunction, you kind
of have to first show that you have even an
arguable point to make, and that was what they were
arguing about. And I will say, I know this is
talk radio, and we're all supposed to think that we
clearly have the right answer and everything. I think the
(26:44):
birthright citizenship question is a very hard question. I don't
think it's an easy question on either side.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Let's talk about that when we come back from the break.
I want to hear the arguments on both sides.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Of that.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
That's interesting And clearly you've probably seen the breakdown who
speaks the most.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
The chicks talk too much? Is that given?
Speaker 5 (27:03):
Well, Jessic so to my r does love cutting off
lawyers and not letting them answer her questions.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
Yeah, the chicks talk too so much.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
I think that's been in the new Gal talks more
than anybody. That shouldn't happen in any organization. All right,
more with Tim Sandefert in just a moment or two.
But first word from our friends at Prize Picks. The
best place to get in on the action is the
basketball playoffs. Build in intensity, whether it's points, rebounds, or assists.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
She's more or less on two.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
To six player projections for your shot to win up
to two thousand times your cage.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
I'm all over my man Brunson tonight for the nixt
game at Madison Square Garden against the Celtics.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
That's gonna be awesome.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
I wish there was a more or less on which
celebrities are going to be in the front row. I
got a good story about that coming up in a
little bit.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
But man, that is going to be some game tonight
and during the basketball playoffs, every lineup you make on
Prize Picks will enter you in the Takes two ticket sweepstakes,
which could get you and a plus one a VIP
trip to the Championship Series Holy Cats.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Download the Prize Picks app today.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
Use the code armstrong to get fifty bucks instantly after
you play dollar lineup again.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
That's the code Armstrong.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
You get fifty dollars instantly after you play a modest
five dollars lineup.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
It's automatic.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
You do not have to win withdrawals fast safe and
scare some hit your account as little as fifteen minutes.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Prize Picks run your game.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
Tim's gonna stick around, and I got this question for
him when we come back. He can think on should
the media attached to every judge what president appointed him?
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Does that help us or hurt us? I love that one.
On the way stay here.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
Strong.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
On the actual case itself, I've always thought.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
It's obvious that now is designed for slaves, and you
shouldn't be able to be like a Chinese. A rich
Chinese family that comes the United States, has your baby
in San Francisco and then gets all the benefits of
being a US citizen forever. But a lot of really
smart people I like think there's a good reason for that.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
So I'm looking forward to hearing that.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
Discussing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday with
Tim Sanderfervice, President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute.
It was advertised as a birthright citizenship hearing it or discussion.
It really was much more a discussion of individual federal
judges and nationwide in junctions and that sort of thing.
But to the question of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tim, you
(29:16):
said before the break that it's not an easy call.
I'm glad to hear you agree. I've thought the same thing.
What should we know about the fourteenth Amendment even come
to a semi intelligent opinion on this?
Speaker 5 (29:27):
Well, the first sentence of the fourteenth Amendment says, all
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are US citizens.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
And all of this.
Speaker 5 (29:37):
Case, all of these arguments turn on that phrase subject
to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that phrase mean? It's
really tough because the word jurisdiction is one of those
words that can mean all sorts of different things. It
basically means power, but there's all sorts of different kinds
of power, and so that's what the argument turns on.
Some people think that it means you have to follow
(29:59):
the law born here, and you have to follow the law,
then you're subject of the jurisdiction thereof, and then that
means you're a citizen. But that doesn't really make a
lot of sense because even foreign tourists who come here
for a vacation have to follow the law. I mean,
they have to stop at red lights and they can't
steal things, So that can't be what that means, right. Instead,
the other side argues jurisdiction thereof means some kind of
(30:21):
loyalty or allegiance, that there's citizenship jurisdiction, as opposed to
follow the law jurisdiction, and that difference. You can see
that difference for example, in this if you're a foreign spy.
Now you sneak into the country and you spy for
some foreign country and you get it arrested, you can
be prosecuted for espionage, but you cannot be prosecuted for treason.
(30:44):
Why because you're not a US citizen and you don't
owe loyalty to the US, so you cannot commit treason
against the US. And so there's two different kinds of jurisdiction,
is the argument. And so those who are against birthright
citizenships say, subject of the jurisdiction means that your parents
owed loyalty to the United States as opposed to some
(31:04):
foreign country, and that would mean that illegal aliens if
they have a child here, that child is not a
sistant in the United States. Now, that's also there's a
problem with that. There's a couple problems that. One of
the problems of that argument is that nobody has ever
said that that's what it means. In the one hundred
and fifty years since this has been in the Constitution,
everybody has active like if you're born here, you're a
citizen all of that time. And so suddenly discovering that
(31:28):
we're at it turns out that we've been misreading the
Constitution for one hundred and fifty years would be a huge,
enormously radical transformation and how our system works. That would
cause tremendous disruption nationwide, and that would be a real problem.
But all of this, the real problem here in answering
this question is that when the amendment was adopted, there
(31:49):
were no such things as illegal aliens, because there were
no laws against immigration, and that means if you're an
originalist and you think the competition should be understood the
way it was originally intended, the Framers didn't ever think
about this because it wasn't against the law back then,
So we don't know.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
What they would have thought about this question right right well,
at the point that this enormously radical, disruptive president has overturned,
that's when you tag me and Tim and I come
in and explain to the good folks that look, the
nature of global transportation, the movement of people or peoples
from one place to another has changed so vastly.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
Joe's a living constitution guy. You can hear it coming.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
Out of what No, don't you dare know that the
very nature of comings and goings from countries has been
so radically transformed.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
A Chinese national with not the slightest.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Notion of making life in the United States can can
depart China, arrive here, give birth, go back to China,
all in the span of.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Seventy two hours.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
I'm inducing labor in this case, probably getting very lucky,
and that.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Child had citizenship.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
That's the eventuality unimaginable back in the day.
Speaker 5 (33:04):
Is the kids I think that that's sort of true.
But on the other hand, the Chinese question came up
back then because there were so many Chinese in California
in the eighteen sixties, and senators rasked, well, isn't this
going to make the children of the Chinese immigrants who
back then did not intend to sty in the United States.
They intended to go back to China. The senator's rast,
does this make their kids us? Senator US citizens? And
(33:26):
the senator from California said yes, and then he was
immediately thrown out of office. So what does that mean?
Nobody knows what that.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Means a single case from eighteen ninety eight, or is
there more precedent?
Speaker 5 (33:38):
Really, there really isn't. There's really just a handful of
presidents and no Supreme Court case has ever said that
birthright citizenship is the is in the Constitution. There have
been some that have kind of mentioned it or kind
of assumed it, but none has said so outright.
Speaker 4 (33:52):
I am surprised the polling shows that only about a
third of Americans want to do away with the way
we do it now. I'm surprised by that. I do
want to get this. This is a journalistic question. But
I think it has an effect on people's respect for
the law. It has come up recently. It has become
a pattern that anytime the media mentions a judge, they
mentioned what president appointed them. Do you think that's a
(34:14):
good idea or not? They didn't just barely got a minute.
Speaker 5 (34:17):
I think I think it's fine. I think people should
know where these For instance, I think it would help
a lot of judges. You know, a lot of Republican
appointed judges have been ruling against the Trump administration, and
I think it would be helpful for people to know
that these questions are not things where it's all partisan.
The law is not just partisan politics. It's something much
more profound and much more important.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Yeah, well, I.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Agree, But it implies that judges I don't know.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
True.
Speaker 5 (34:42):
I didn't used to think.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
I didn't used to think about it. Ever.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
If a judge ruled, I just thought, all, that's interesting,
Now it's all who appointed him?
Speaker 1 (34:49):
Oh of course he said that. That is true.
Speaker 5 (34:52):
That is a risk, But I think we should err
on the side of informing people as opposed to keeping
people in the dark.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
So that's always Trump.
Speaker 3 (35:02):
Tim Sander for the Goldwater Institute On the Line, Tim
final question, I've called for a monarchy.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
You in favor of it? Yes or no?
Speaker 5 (35:09):
No, I'm against him monarchy. I'm for the constitution, Joe.
Speaker 4 (35:12):
One more question. As a published poet, I was thinking
about this. Yesterday he won the Nobel Prize. Bob Dylan
good poet or not lousy poet?
Speaker 5 (35:20):
Now read Robert Hayden or Richard Wilbur instead.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
Hmm, how about Ringo Star Octopus's Garden was creative?
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Tim, It's always great and enlightening. Thanks Millian for the time.
Let's talk again soon. Thanks guys.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
All right, I was actually thinking about this listening to
Dylan lyrics. Why do they stick in everybody's head so much?
Why do people keep going back to them?
Speaker 1 (35:44):
If it's just.
Speaker 4 (35:45):
Gobbledegook, like a lot of real poets claim, it can't be.
It wouldn't lodge, It wouldn't it wouldn't make the market made,
would it?
Speaker 5 (35:54):
All?
Speaker 1 (35:55):
Right?
Speaker 3 (35:55):
He was famously moody about his career and his music
in his Life's Philosophy. I think some of his stuff
is absolutely brilliant, and I think some of it's gobbledegook.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
Hum.
Speaker 4 (36:08):
Maybe maybe more on that another day, or maybe not.
We got plenty of stuff to tell you. I hope
you can stick around if you missus, Sigmann, I thought
that Tim thing was really, really good, and you want
to listen to it again. Get the podcast Armstrong You
Getty on demand
Speaker 5 (36:21):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.