November 12, 2024 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Tim Sandefur talks to A&G
- Tim Sandefur continued and he gives a great explanation of politics!
- Kristi Noem isn't messing around
- Liberal women losing their minds & shaving their heads.
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, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The world's longest snake has been found thirty two feet long.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
That's a long snake.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
That is a very very long snake. Lfs for sure.
So great stuff happening on the sorting out progressive policies
front and one in particular leapt out. It's not made
any well, not made many national headlines anyway, and I
(00:51):
became aware of it when our good friend Tim Sandefer
alerted us to it.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Tim the lawyer.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Sanderfer, vice president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute,
has written more books than I've read, only a slight exaggeration,
including Freedom's Furious How Isabel Patterson, Rose Wilder Lane nine
Rand founded Liberty in Age of Darkness, which is a
fascinating rate.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Anyway, Tim, welcome, How are you, sir?
Speaker 4 (01:12):
I'm great, Thanks for having me Bet, of course.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
So you guys won a big victory in Arizona, and
maybe I just missed it, but I think it's a
little uncomfortable for the mainstream media to report why don't
you tell us about it?
Speaker 4 (01:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:28):
So, you know, in Arizona, like many states, we had
a serious problem with an explosion in homelessness in recent years,
thanks in part to a crazy ruling by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals that tied the hands of police
officers and local governments when it came to clearing out
encampments on the sidewalks and things. Well, the Supreme Court
(01:50):
overruled that, so that case has gone. But nevertheless, a
lot of city progressive city leaders really just thought that
the best thing to do was not to enforce laws
against camping on the sidewalk or on public property or
in public parks and things. And the result here in
Phoenix was the largest homeless encampment in the country. They
called it the Zone, a thousand people living in tents
(02:13):
in downtown Phoenix during the one hundred and twenty degree
summers during the COVID pandemic.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Well, doubt of the great I didn't realize. I didn't
realize that was the biggest homeless camp in America. Did
you witness it with your own eyes?
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (02:24):
Yes, and it's pretty. It's really something to see. I mean,
it's fortunately it is largely cleared away now, but at
the time, I mean, we're talking about entire blocks where
people were just living in tents and doing drugs in
public and defecating and urinating in the streets and things,
and with the city refusing to do anything about it,
because that's what progressives consider to be compassionate right, is
(02:44):
to just let people just wallow in their filth when
they need help.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
So what we did.
Speaker 5 (02:50):
At the gold Winter Institute is we wrote a ballot
initiative and we said, look, if local governments are not
going to enforce the law and protect taxpayers the way
that they're supposed to x payers have to protect themselves
by installing bars on their windows or getting security cameras
or whatever, then they should at least get their tax
money back. And so voters overwhelmingly approved that at this
(03:11):
most recent election. And then it's called Prop three one
two here in Arizona that says, if the city refuses
to enforce these laws and creates a public nuisance like this,
they lose the tax money that was supposed to go
to your police protection that you're not getting and you
get that to deduct that from your tax.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
Wow, we're going to.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
Push this vallid initiative idea in other states. Now we're
starting with four states in the coming year and try
and get some responsibility out of these city officials.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
That sound you hear is millions of Californians turning their
radios up louder and saying.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Wait a minute, this is possible.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Wow, that is that is so awesome and and logically
makes so much sense. How do you draw the line
on when they've not lived up to the responsibility and
it's below the bar where it's just you know, this
is typical live in a big city.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
There's going to be some homeless people around. Where's the cutoff.
Speaker 5 (04:05):
No, that's a very good question, because we do you
can't just make them enforce every single law in every
single circumstance, regardless of you know, equity or individual instances
of you know, understandables, conduct or whatever. Anyway, the way
we did that was we said that if it reaches
the level of a public nuisance, which is a concept
that exists in state law in every state, and if
(04:27):
then the city's are liable. And we have said if
the city has a case by case determination not to
enforce a law in a particular circumstance, they can do
that as long as they give a written explanation of
why they chose not to enforce the law in this
particular case, then they're allowed to do that. They just
have to explain why. But what's really happening in these
(04:49):
cities is just these blanket across the board ideas of well,
we're just never going to enforce the anti camping laws downtown,
and that's the thing that we're trying to push back on.
The real victims of those kinds of policies are both
the homeless people themselves who need help, even sometimes against
their will, and the taxpayers, the hardworking taxpayers of these
(05:09):
communities who pay their money hoping for police protection and then.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Go get it right. A couple of points.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Number one, I'm glad you summed it up the way
you did at the end, because so often these things
are seen first from the point of view of the
quote unquote homeless as opposed to everybody else who has
a specific and undeniable interest in having law and order
and civilization maintained in their towns.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
And it should be said that a huge.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Percentage of these people are simply drug addicts, and the
idea that you can cloak a bunch of drug addicts
living in filth and breaking the law in the righteous
garment of the poor, unfortunate who had medical bills they
couldn't pay. Therefore, society has no power interest in enforcing
(06:03):
the law.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
That's just wrong. And think about what's been portrayed for
a long time.
Speaker 5 (06:07):
Think about what these non enforcement policies do. Like here
in Phoenix, the zone included this one business, a sandwich shop,
that were owned by this couple named the Falacis. And
the Falangis were forced to become homelessness counselors, right because
what happens is these people will wander into the business,
(06:28):
scare away, the customers, threaten the employees, and so forth
and so on, and the Falangis are then forced to
take care of these people or to protect their customers,
or to you know, call the police or do or
intervene in some way. They're not trained to help people
who are either psychotic, which is often the case, or
who are on drugs and a dangerous threat to others.
And yet so by refusing to enforce the law, the
(06:49):
city was basically conscripting the Falacis into protecting themselves and
protecting their employees and protecting the general public and cleaning
up and doing all these things that's their.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Tax dollars are supposed to go for.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
I mentioned the Selachis, by the way, because we just
this past weekend at the Goldwater Institute held our big
annual dinner, and we presented them with an award to
say thank you for standing up for your rights and
championing this ballot initiative Prop three point twelve that now
says if the city refuses to enforce these laws, then
it loses the tax money and people get to get
(07:20):
their money back.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Well, I'm glad this is going this direction.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
But like one thing, that's impossible to measure, because I
have a friend who owns a business in this situation.
He doesn't have homeless in particular in front of his place,
but he's downtown where there's lots of homeless people, and
there's no way to measure how many people have decided
I don't go downtown anymore because of all the homeless.
Speaker 5 (07:40):
Yeah, that's right, And a lot of these communities are
being destroyed by progressive policies that say, well, until you
construct enough shelters to house the entire homeless, population, we're
refusing to do anything to mitigate the problem, and which
is crazy policy making. It reminds me of a lesson
I learned from a friend. One to you said, you
know you are judged by your second best policy option,
(08:05):
because if everybody had their first best policy option, you
would have utopia. You just wave your magic wand and
you'd have perfect society. Well, you have to accept that
a perfect society is never going to happen, and then
ask yourself what is second best and the second best option?
Since we will always have a homelessness problem forever, the
second best option is how do we help these people?
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Now?
Speaker 5 (08:26):
What steps can we take realistically to help particular cases
and not just sit back and fold our arms and
say well, until we have socialist utopia, we refuse to
lift our fingers, which is the progressive approach to solving
the homeless problem.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Yeah, I continue to reject the term homeless because when
you're talking about the lazy and or the drug addicts,
the distinguishing characteristic of their lives is not the lack
of a fixed address. It's that they are junkies and bums.
And then back to my previous point, very briefly, because
you're the fascinating guest that I'd drawn on for hours
at a time. Is and this is purely an argument
(09:03):
in terms of effectiveness. If your first principle or your
first question is do we maintain law and order and
civilization and the answer is yes, then you break up
the camps, you send people away.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
But wait a minute.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
You have this man who's psychotic, it's not his fault,
or these people who couldn't afford their medical bills. Well,
having dispatched with the lazy, the bums and the junkies,
now we can help those people.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
If we default first.
Speaker 6 (09:31):
To compassion for the quote unquote homeless, we'll never get
to those people. You've got to be not cruel, but
effective to be kind.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Am I wrong?
Speaker 4 (09:44):
No, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
And I say this as a person who has had
homelessness in his family. I've had homeless relatives. I think
most many of your listeners have probably had homeless relatives
that they can testify that what you said is absolutely true.
A lot of people need help, even when they don't
want it and don't see it out. They need intervention
to protect themselves and to protect them and sometimes they
(10:05):
will look back afterwards.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
And say thank you.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
But I will tell you this, Joe, if your answer
to the question is of should we defend ordinary civilization
and enforced law and order, If your answer to that
question is yes, apparently you're some kind of extremist, reactionary
weirdo in today's world.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
That's correct.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Yes, Well, you know, it's a multifaceted problem. All the
things we've mentioned, and then the homelessness industrial complex as
we call it, with the billions and billions of dollars
that are flying around. There's a lot of organizations getting
a lot of people making their living off of this,
(10:44):
and it not being solved gets them more money, not less.
Speaker 5 (10:48):
Yes, and those are primarily government bureaucracies. I mean, when
the make it sorry welfare state was created in the
nineteen thirties, the argument for it was, well, private chair
hasn't solved the problem of poverty.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
So we need to have government.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
Okay, Well, now we've been we had a century now
where government is taking primary responsibility for the for poverty
and the poor and so forth.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
Has it solved the problem? No? I don't think so.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
If the homelessness industrial complex as you call it, and
that's a great terms, absolutely right, if that complex would
devote its money to actually solving this problem on a
community basis, going in there and trying to take this
problem on as a private, charitable matter so that you
can weed out the deserving from the undeserving poor, they
would accomplish a lot more than just saying, well, what
(11:37):
we need is more government bureaucracy and more across the
board rules about no, we're never going to enforce the
law in the public park down in Tucson or Phoenix
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
You know, Tim, can we take.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
A quick break and come back and do five more minutes? Yep,
I'm going to see if I can get some of
your greatest tits out of you.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Tim's in Arizona.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
We're in California, where half the homeless people in America live.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Because of our policies, we got more on the way.
Stay hear.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Here here, Tim Sander, for vice president for Legal Affairs
at Goldwater Institute, is on the line. Tim, I was
going to prompt you with the followings, coming off of
our discussion of the billions of dollars spent on the
quote unquote homeless problem. Government expenditures go to someone or something.
(12:26):
Can you help us understand the relationship between the taxpayer's money,
a government bureaucracy, and a problem to be solved.
Speaker 5 (12:36):
Yes, well, when for one thing, remember that government gets
paid even if it gets the answer wrong. This is
the most important thing you can know about politics, actually,
is that that's how it differs, how government differs from
private business. If private business screws things up, it doesn't
get money. It doesn't get paid. If I go to
you know, to Taco Bell, and I order a burrito
and they give me the wrong burrito, I don't pay
(12:57):
them until they get it right. If the gun does
something and it gets it wrong, it still gets paid
because that money comes from taxpayers against their will. And
in fact, they might even get paid more because they
can convince the some government committee. Oh well, the reason
why we failed is because we didn't have enough funding.
So the incentive is to keep the problem around, or
(13:18):
to redefine the problem more broadly. For example, instead of hunger, now,
instead we're supposed to be concerned about, oh, what is
the term that po food insecurity, which means you are
going to eat.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
It's just you're not sure where. I mean.
Speaker 5 (13:31):
I'm food insecure because I don't where I'm going to
order dinner tonight. So we redefine the problem because there's
an incentive to keep the problem around so that the
government can expand Also, there's the problem that if I'm
spending my own money for my own purposes, I'm going
to really make sure that I get the best bang
for my buck. But if I'm spending somebody else's money
(13:54):
for my purposes, I don't really care so much about that.
I might spend a lot more than I otherwise would
because it's not my money. And if I'm spending somebody
else's money on somebody else's purposes, well, then I'm definitely
not going to care about whether I get the best
possible bang for my buck because it's not my money,
and I don't particularly care about whether I accomplish the purpose.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
So you should.
Speaker 5 (14:16):
The idea that we can trust government to solve these
problems more than we can trust private industry is frankly crazy.
I'm not denying that private businesses do stupid and wrong things.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Of course they do. We know that they do all
the time.
Speaker 5 (14:30):
The question is why would you trust government even more
when government even gets paid when it gets the question wrong,
when it gets the answer wrong. And when government has
no particular incentive to save money because they're not even
spending their own money, you should trust government less than
you trust big business. So if you distrust big business,
you should really distrust big government.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
If rered lobster has all you can eat shrimp and
it drives them out of business, they don't get more money, right,
something new right.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
Whereas if government has all you know, gives away free
food to everybody, then it turns around and says, well,
we ran out of food.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
We need more of your tax money. You need to
feed more people.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Now you know this is a book length answer, you
have ninety seconds. How did what should be a presumption
of deep suspicion that the government's going to solve a
problem become an incredibly widespread assumption that, well, of course,
the government is here and will solve our problems.
Speaker 5 (15:24):
Well, it was a long term, gradual process, primarily through
the New Deal and the Great Society. But remember that
the New Deal in Great Society, neither of those were
terribly popular.
Speaker 4 (15:36):
Even at the time.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
There was a backlash against the New Deal, and there
was a huge backlash against the Great Society. And it
was just during those few years really just between thirty
two and thirty five and between sixties three and sixty six. Really,
those were really the years when you got about half
of the federal government that we now have today.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
So it was a slow process of corruption of the
public morals where government came along and said, well, you
don't have to worry so much about compassion in your
local community because the government will do it better. And
you know a lot of people said, oh good, then
I don't have to worry about it and stop taking
responsibility for themselves. And if you don't take responsibility, you
can't have freedom, because those two things always go together.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Tim Sander for Vice president for Legal Affairs at the
Goldwater Institute Goldwater Institute, Well worthy of your support. You
can find them online very easily. Indeed, Tim, always enlightening.
Thanks for the time, Thank you guys man. It's our pleasure.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Democrats win a couple of big elections where they've got
big time control of the Senate and the House and
the Presidency, and you get the New Deal and the
Great Society ram through, and like Tim said, there's half
your federal government.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Now. Then you add to.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
That the principle that if there's a benefit nobody ever
dreamed of in their lives for a dollar that all
of a sudden they get. If you try to take
that dollar away, they'll burn their city down, right, because.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
I was counting on that dollar. Once the stuff gets started,
it's impossible to end it. Interesting stuff.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
If you miss an hour, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 7 (17:14):
Step away from woke, focus less on who is woke
and more on who is broke.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
Social justice issues, and take a back seat when your
son is in the basement vaping and playing video games
and can't find a job.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
I feel like that last guy was really venting more
about his son.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Everybody else had sort of a broader point, but.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
His was just so specific. John Stewart is a master
of humor.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
His pause was the perfect length to the millisecond to
maximize the humor.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
That he's really good at that.
Speaker 8 (18:02):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
That's pretty good line though, from that guy who's lifting
weights with what's his name?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Cuomo?
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Chris Cuomo, your training partner, My training partner. Although he
took way more selfies than I was taking.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
That was so funny. Uh, I've never seen anybody do
that before. After every rep.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
He get his pump on it, and he get the
angle right and smile and take the pictures like who
he's sending these to?
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Man? That is so foreign to me.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
Was I gonna say, Oh, that's pretty good line. We
need to focus on more on who is broke and
not who is woke, which is a pretty good line. Uh,
before we get to some of the news of the day.
I keep seeing this headline. And the economy has been
roaring pretty good since Trump got elected for a variety
of reasons. Cryptocurrency keeps setting new records. Bitcoin broke another
(18:49):
record yesterday, eighty seven thousand dollars for one bitcoin.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
It was sixty eight thousand a week ago.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
I mean, if I could have bought a handful of
bitcoin a week ago and changed my life, there is
nothing I understand less than this.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
I will not I'm not going to try either.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
It's like I'm putting it in that category like climate change,
of things I don't read about. I'll just let other
people handle those topics. I've never looked into climate change.
I'm not looking into bitcoin.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Yeah, I just wish i'd thrown a few bucks at
that myself.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
Oh good lord, And is that gonna last or I mean,
is there. I know Trump's a big crypto honk. Is
that enough for it to go up? Of course stocks
can go up for all kinds of reasons.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Sure, the amount of speculation in cryptocurrency too, So man,
crypto just just from my observation from Afar is like
the all time if you can, if you can ride
the wave of emotion, you could really make a lot
of money fast.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
And of course it can go the other direction the
wave of emotion. Trump has named several people that are
going to be in his cabinet or close advisors.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Here's one.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
He's gonna Secretary of State, a job first held by
Thomas Jefferson, now held by Marco Rubio. Here's him yesterday,
somebody uh asking him a question in the hallway. The
clips that I asked for which sounded something like this,
It was the one I asked for, Remember that one
(20:20):
twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
On the contrary, I want you guys to get this.
Speaker 8 (20:27):
I want them to destroy every element of hamas they
can get their hands on. These people are vicious animals
who did horrifying crimes, and I hope you guys post that.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
What about the civilians? Every day?
Speaker 8 (20:38):
Amasa stopped hiding behind civilians, putting civilians in the way.
Hamas knew that this was going to lead to this.
Hamas has stopped building their military installations underneath hospital.
Speaker 9 (20:47):
So you don't care the fifteen thousand, you don't care
about the babies that are every day.
Speaker 8 (20:52):
I think it's terrible, and I think AMAS is one
hundred percent to blame.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
That's what I think.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Make sure you post that plane.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Marco Rubio not going to shrink from that or a
note of caution.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Raw Trump is expected to name Marco Rubio Secretary of State.
Three people familiar with this thinking set on Monday, cautioning
that he could still change his mind at the last minute.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Yeah, we've got a new Homeland Security Secretary, Christy Noome
of South Dakota. So f you are illegals and no
disobedient dogs be allowed into this country, right, She'll round
up the illegals and shoot the dogs.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Next to a pit. Tell you what rover she says, sit,
I'd go ahead and sit. Fetch means fetch Huh? Did
I stutter?
Speaker 1 (21:46):
What I know?
Speaker 3 (21:46):
You go?
Speaker 2 (21:48):
I go ahead and fetch sniffing? Can wait that itch
right behind your ear?
Speaker 3 (21:52):
I'd get to that later. You might want to sit. Wow,
that's some dark pet humor right there.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Yes, it is Trump willing to look past that unfortunate
incident from her autobiography and.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Might actually be the vice president of the United States
if it weren't for that anecdote that ain't she included
in her autobiography.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
But shooting the dog right, it's possible anyway.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Yeah, speaking of his cabinet and specifically in the realm
of immigration, we will be getting into that again next hour.
If you don't get next hour, you got to do
something whatever, that's fine, just grab it later via podcast
Armstrong you're getting on demand.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
In fact, you probably ought to just subscribe. Makes it easy.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Roll over now do the dishes thumbs figure it out? Wow,
too much now, West, She's.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Not messing around.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
There's one other Oh I wanted to get to some
of these. Actually I haven't heard him yet because this
has been breaking while we're on the air today, some
of this stuff around the Trump legal cases trying to
do him in. Here's Andy McCarthy on Fox explaining some
of the latest developments.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Fifty one there, Michael. What's going to.
Speaker 7 (23:09):
Happen is the Biden Harris administration is going to dismiss
the Trump cases. They've already sort of laid the groundwork
for that. Judge shuck In has said, I think December
second as a date for Smith's to get Jack Smith
to get back to her on how he sees the
case proceeding in the future. I think what he'll come
back with his emotion to dismiss the case.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Okay, that's interesting. Now, which cases are those? Because I
don't have them all memorized. Which one's Chuckkin?
Speaker 1 (23:36):
The federal ones, I think she's on documents classificat document
that's the one he was probably guilt for the election
interference and stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
But the federal stuff is over over over.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
And the documents one was the one he was in
serious trouble on if he lost, probably arguably Yeah. And
then the whole Stormy Daniel thing. That was the one
where he had what was it forty felonies charged to
him or someone, yeah, convicted of thirty four felonies. Is
they reminded us over and over again in the final
(24:10):
days of the campaign, utterly phony, according to even the
most moderate of lefties, trumping up note pun intended of
local paperwork charges into somehow being felonies.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
The Supreme Court was going to smack that. I'm not
the Supreme Court, the appeals court. He's going to smack
that down like that fella playing for the San Jose
State women's volleyball team. Just whack it out of the air.
And so the judge burchon on that is now looking
to say, maybe never mind on that case, avoiding the
humiliation of being overturned.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Yeah, treat that like the Secretary of Homeland Security. Treat
to dogheat's chickens. That's what you do again with that.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Wow, barboy, Speaking of the volleyball player, you know, I've
been avoiding using this person.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
One more Andy McCarthy on and then we'll be done
with this. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
So the other thing Andy McCarty he weighed in on
is the legal guy for National Review is on whether
or not Biden is going to pardon Hunter.
Speaker 7 (25:06):
My sense of this is that, and I continue to
think this, even though the White House pushes back the
other way. I think that President Biden is going to
pardon his son, and that he will get a lot
of criticism if that's done in a vacuum because it's
a former self dealing. And he also said he wouldn't
do it, so he'll look terrible. But I think if
(25:28):
it's pitched to the country is kind of a clemency
package where we're turning the page from the Trump prosecutions
and turning the pati from the hunts of the country
will take it a lot better.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
Wow, that's interesting, just emotionally. And yeah, you put those
all together. It's time to move on. All that stuff
about Trump and everything. Bygone's begun, end Hunter, and bygones
be bygones.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
We got a new administration.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
So the Trump cases, I'm going to end that, end Hunter,
and we'll just.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Million the millions of dollars that filtered into my family
through dozens of LC's from the communist Chinese and the
previous Ukrainian regime.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Let's let's not get hung up on that otherwise, can't
move on with the country's future. Okay, you're a loser.
What does what would Biden care?
Speaker 3 (26:18):
What is this thirty seven percent approval rating going to
go down to twenty seven on his final month of
being president?
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Who cares? He's going to be dead next year.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Probably, And any guy who can convince himself hete you
do another term, can convince himself that this.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Is the right move, right, sure, yeah, please.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Anyway, I want to congratulate this transgender You know what,
oh man, don't have time for this tangent.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Be disciplined, joke, be disciplined.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
The fellow that's playing on the San Jose State women's
volleyball team. And if you're new to this issue, you
might be thinking, wait a minute, there's a there's a
man playing on the team. Yeah, that's that's permitted in
some places these days.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
I know it sounds crazy.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
And they're underfellow, the Spartans, that's right, Blair. Is this
fellow's name? Congratulations Blair steadily breaking women's volleyball records at
San Jose State in spite of all of those games
that they've forfeited because the other teams don't want to
play against a women's team with a dude. For instance,
despite San Jose State's lost to San Diego State on Saturday,
(27:23):
San Diego State, you should not have played the game,
Blair achieved his two hundred and fiftieth kill shot, a
record that puts him in the upper reaches of women's volleyball.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
I didn't realize they lost.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Yeah, he achieved that mark. In twenty twenty two, as
well as the first team year with the team. So
I mean, really, that's an incredible woman's volleyball player considering
they've had seven games canceled this season.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Will there be because of the forfeits?
Speaker 3 (27:52):
Will there'll be an asterisk in the record book and
then you look down to the bottom page and next
to the asterisk it says has a penis?
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Dude?
Speaker 1 (27:59):
It'll just say is a dude? Yeah, yeah, that's just great,
I tell you what, ladies.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
And the fact that the.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Vast majority of quote unquote progressive women don't see this
as a women's right issue has just further deepened my
cynicism about mankind. But look at that men are better
at everything, including being women.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
Oh you don't like the way that you don't like
the way that sits. We'll get on the right side
of this issue.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
A great gift under your Christmas tree would be a
T shirt that says hot dogs are dogs from the
Armstrong ngetdy dot com website. That's right, part of our
fall collection, right with fall colors like whatever fall colors
are green and pumpkin spice.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
San Jose State bravely also forcing aside the player and
assistant coach who joined in the Title nine lawsuit against
the Biden administrations. Really anyway, Yeah, this this fight is
nowhere near over for a return to sanity, but it's
starting to go pretty well.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
Hey Hanson, is that clip from The Lady that runs NPR?
Is that new or was that old that Elon grabbed
and retweeted today?
Speaker 2 (29:12):
It's old?
Speaker 3 (29:14):
Yeah, it's old but good, That's what Hanson says.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
That and other stuff on the way. Stay here, armstrong.
Speaker 9 (29:21):
And in the wake of Donald Trump's historic win, there's
a new movement sweeping America. Disappointed women are actually swearing
off men.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
There's no way I am letting any man near me
for the next few years.
Speaker 9 (29:36):
They're saying no to dating, no to marriage, no to.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Sex celibacy at least to me, isn't that hard?
Speaker 9 (29:43):
And no to having children like so many other women
in America who have been considering trying to get pregnant.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
I woke up today and said, Nope, not anymore.
Speaker 9 (29:55):
This woman is actually shaving her head in protest.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Yeah. I'm thinking some of you chicks didn't exactly have
a line outside your door before the election.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Oh wow, I was going to talk about the sociological
implications and electoral consequences. But Jack, we're going to personal shots.
That's disappointing U Roland Michael.
Speaker 9 (30:14):
It's being called the four B movement, and women are
taking to social media declaring their allegiance. The four B
movement was actually started by women in South Korea back
in twenty nineteen as part of their version of the
Meet Too movement. The number four refers to dating, marriage, sex,
and children.
Speaker 7 (30:34):
This movement is way more important now than ever.
Speaker 9 (30:37):
Twenty six year old Alexa Argus joined the movement two
years ago and expects a surge of interest in the
wake of the Trump victory. So you in twenty twenty
two swore off dating forever.
Speaker 4 (30:49):
Not forever.
Speaker 9 (30:50):
We're not going to settle for low value men that
don't respect us anymore.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
Boy, and are we men will just have to live
without you. I guess somehow her I mean, I don't
mean women kind as a whole, I mean her right, Yeah?
Speaker 1 (31:07):
So the uh I'm picturing historians looking back and saying.
And then the United States endured a huge drop in
the birth rate after three quarters of young women lost
their fing minds over a man called Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Yeah, yeah, we need a woman's opinion.
Speaker 10 (31:28):
Yes, if anybody could just hear me shaking my head. Uh,
low value men will go for those women, you know.
The feminist guys will be like, you're right, and then
they'll stick together and the rest of us alone.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
The Tim Walls is of the world.
Speaker 3 (31:41):
Yeah, yeah, no kidding, mind your own business.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Here's here's Katie's cistern represented in the next clip.
Speaker 9 (31:51):
But lots of women are mocking then no marriage, no
sex movement?
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Why that woman was cutting her hair off?
Speaker 4 (31:57):
Oh bold wild.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
The fact of these crazes are out here.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
They're like, we're not touching men.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
I hope that means the more for me.
Speaker 10 (32:03):
Yeah exactly, yeah, yeah, and hey, if they're refusing to
have sex, they won't make more of.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Them the whole.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Any descent from my whole list of issues means you're
evil and I hate you. Totalitarian lefty movement. Right now,
How that gets unraveled and how quickly it is such
an interesting question to me, because it is, I mean,
it's really it's it's counterproductive. It's counter happiness, it's counter sanity,
(32:37):
it's counter the way human beings have behaved for for
years and years outside of a cult environment.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
And I'm more more than partly serious about that first
comment that no one think there's a line of guys
outside your door anyway. It is a sad version of
that crowd. It's like the in cell dudes on the
other side. You're doing the whole I don't like women
for these reasons because they weren't. They're not popular with
girls for whatever reasons of looks or personality or whatever,
(33:03):
and so they go with you can't fire me. I
quit sort of attitude that these women are doing, and
I think it gives you a shield against, you know,
the hurt that you're experiencing from for whatever reason not
being that desirable in.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Your current life.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
I think, yeah, I'm less likely to buy it, just
having seen the statistics on the percentage of Democrats, and
in particular women who will not be friends with dot
dot dot, will not date dot dot dot, won't even
patronize a business dot dot dot. That is a pretty
crazy way to live your life.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
Yeah, i'd say, what did that one person say about
shaving off your hair?
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Oh? Bold, bold, all right? What is women have gone
full blown? Britney two thousand and seven.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
Yeah, good for you, But we played the audio from
a young black man who's active with helping young boys
mentoring young boys in this community posted the two videos,
one in which he said, I've decided to vote for
Trump and the other I decided to vote for Kamala,
And the reactions to the two videos were completely different.
And then you've got the Nate Silver's screed who he said, look,
(34:12):
during a very easy even campaign, we put out newsletters
that say, hey, Trump is doing well, and some that
said hey Harris is doing well. And the vitriol and
hate they got it. They got anytime they said Trump
was doing pretty well compared to when Harris was doing well,
it was like, oh, that's interesting, y'all. Are are It's
like the classic description of holding a grudge. You take
(34:36):
poison and wait for the other person to die. You're
gonna make yourselves nuts. Don't make yourself nuts. Listen to
the Armstrong in Getty show. We do four hours every
single day. If you miss an hour or segment, or
you want to replay it for your friends and family,
you can find it in podcast form at Armstrong in
Geeddy dot com. No, you can't Armstrong in Getty on demand.
(34:57):
That's refine it or you can probably find it in
our website. I don't know where you find him. I
don't ever look forward. I'm here, I don't need to
listen to it.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
This is one of the worst promos I've ever heard.
What is the whovil knows?
Speaker 1 (35:10):
It's very controversial and placks to scourge of plastic surgery.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
That and more next hour if you get Armstrong and
Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The world's longest snake has been found thirty two feet long.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
That's a long snake.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
That is a very very long snake. Lfs for sure.
So great stuff happening on the sorting out progressive policies
front and one in particular leapt out. It's not made
any well, not made many national headlines anyway, and I
(00:51):
became aware of it when our good friend Tim Sandefer
alerted us to it.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Tim the lawyer.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Sanderfer, vice president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute,
has written more books than I've read, only a slight exaggeration,
including Freedom's Furious How Isabel Patterson, Rose Wilder Lane nine
Rand founded Liberty in Age of Darkness, which is a
fascinating rate.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Anyway, Tim, welcome, How are you, sir?
Speaker 4 (01:12):
I'm great, Thanks for having me Bet, of course.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
So you guys won a big victory in Arizona, and
maybe I just missed it, but I think it's a
little uncomfortable for the mainstream media to report why don't
you tell us about it?
Speaker 4 (01:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:28):
So, you know, in Arizona, like many states, we had
a serious problem with an explosion in homelessness in recent years,
thanks in part to a crazy ruling by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals that tied the hands of police
officers and local governments when it came to clearing out
encampments on the sidewalks and things. Well, the Supreme Court
(01:50):
overruled that, so that case has gone. But nevertheless, a
lot of city progressive city leaders really just thought that
the best thing to do was not to enforce laws
against camping on the sidewalk or on public property or
in public parks and things. And the result here in
Phoenix was the largest homeless encampment in the country. They
called it the Zone, a thousand people living in tents
(02:13):
in downtown Phoenix during the one hundred and twenty degree
summers during the COVID pandemic.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Well, doubt of the great I didn't realize. I didn't
realize that was the biggest homeless camp in America. Did
you witness it with your own eyes?
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (02:24):
Yes, and it's pretty. It's really something to see. I mean,
it's fortunately it is largely cleared away now, but at
the time, I mean, we're talking about entire blocks where
people were just living in tents and doing drugs in
public and defecating and urinating in the streets and things,
and with the city refusing to do anything about it,
because that's what progressives consider to be compassionate right, is
(02:44):
to just let people just wallow in their filth when
they need help.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
So what we did.
Speaker 5 (02:50):
At the gold Winter Institute is we wrote a ballot
initiative and we said, look, if local governments are not
going to enforce the law and protect taxpayers the way
that they're supposed to x payers have to protect themselves
by installing bars on their windows or getting security cameras
or whatever, then they should at least get their tax
money back. And so voters overwhelmingly approved that at this
(03:11):
most recent election. And then it's called Prop three one
two here in Arizona that says, if the city refuses
to enforce these laws and creates a public nuisance like this,
they lose the tax money that was supposed to go
to your police protection that you're not getting and you
get that to deduct that from your tax.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
Wow, we're going to.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
Push this vallid initiative idea in other states. Now we're
starting with four states in the coming year and try
and get some responsibility out of these city officials.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
That sound you hear is millions of Californians turning their
radios up louder and saying.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Wait a minute, this is possible.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Wow, that is that is so awesome and and logically
makes so much sense. How do you draw the line
on when they've not lived up to the responsibility and
it's below the bar where it's just you know, this
is typical live in a big city.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
There's going to be some homeless people around. Where's the cutoff.
Speaker 5 (04:05):
No, that's a very good question, because we do you
can't just make them enforce every single law in every
single circumstance, regardless of you know, equity or individual instances
of you know, understandables, conduct or whatever. Anyway, the way
we did that was we said that if it reaches
the level of a public nuisance, which is a concept
that exists in state law in every state, and if
(04:27):
then the city's are liable. And we have said if
the city has a case by case determination not to
enforce a law in a particular circumstance, they can do
that as long as they give a written explanation of
why they chose not to enforce the law in this
particular case, then they're allowed to do that. They just
have to explain why. But what's really happening in these
(04:49):
cities is just these blanket across the board ideas of well,
we're just never going to enforce the anti camping laws downtown,
and that's the thing that we're trying to push back on.
The real victims of those kinds of policies are both
the homeless people themselves who need help, even sometimes against
their will, and the taxpayers, the hardworking taxpayers of these
(05:09):
communities who pay their money hoping for police protection and then.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Go get it right. A couple of points.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Number one, I'm glad you summed it up the way
you did at the end, because so often these things
are seen first from the point of view of the
quote unquote homeless as opposed to everybody else who has
a specific and undeniable interest in having law and order
and civilization maintained in their towns.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
And it should be said that a huge.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Percentage of these people are simply drug addicts, and the
idea that you can cloak a bunch of drug addicts
living in filth and breaking the law in the righteous
garment of the poor, unfortunate who had medical bills they
couldn't pay. Therefore, society has no power interest in enforcing
(06:03):
the law.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
That's just wrong. And think about what's been portrayed for
a long time.
Speaker 5 (06:07):
Think about what these non enforcement policies do. Like here
in Phoenix, the zone included this one business, a sandwich shop,
that were owned by this couple named the Falacis. And
the Falangis were forced to become homelessness counselors, right because
what happens is these people will wander into the business,
(06:28):
scare away, the customers, threaten the employees, and so forth
and so on, and the Falangis are then forced to
take care of these people or to protect their customers,
or to you know, call the police or do or
intervene in some way. They're not trained to help people
who are either psychotic, which is often the case, or
who are on drugs and a dangerous threat to others.
And yet so by refusing to enforce the law, the
(06:49):
city was basically conscripting the Falacis into protecting themselves and
protecting their employees and protecting the general public and cleaning
up and doing all these things that's their.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Tax dollars are supposed to go for.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
I mentioned the Selachis, by the way, because we just
this past weekend at the Goldwater Institute held our big
annual dinner, and we presented them with an award to
say thank you for standing up for your rights and
championing this ballot initiative Prop three point twelve that now
says if the city refuses to enforce these laws, then
it loses the tax money and people get to get
(07:20):
their money back.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Well, I'm glad this is going this direction.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
But like one thing, that's impossible to measure, because I
have a friend who owns a business in this situation.
He doesn't have homeless in particular in front of his place,
but he's downtown where there's lots of homeless people, and
there's no way to measure how many people have decided
I don't go downtown anymore because of all the homeless.
Speaker 5 (07:40):
Yeah, that's right, And a lot of these communities are
being destroyed by progressive policies that say, well, until you
construct enough shelters to house the entire homeless, population, we're
refusing to do anything to mitigate the problem, and which
is crazy policy making. It reminds me of a lesson
I learned from a friend. One to you said, you
know you are judged by your second best policy option,
(08:05):
because if everybody had their first best policy option, you
would have utopia. You just wave your magic wand and
you'd have perfect society. Well, you have to accept that
a perfect society is never going to happen, and then
ask yourself what is second best and the second best option?
Since we will always have a homelessness problem forever, the
second best option is how do we help these people?
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Now?
Speaker 5 (08:26):
What steps can we take realistically to help particular cases
and not just sit back and fold our arms and
say well, until we have socialist utopia, we refuse to
lift our fingers, which is the progressive approach to solving
the homeless problem.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Yeah, I continue to reject the term homeless because when
you're talking about the lazy and or the drug addicts,
the distinguishing characteristic of their lives is not the lack
of a fixed address. It's that they are junkies and bums.
And then back to my previous point, very briefly, because
you're the fascinating guest that I'd drawn on for hours
at a time. Is and this is purely an argument
(09:03):
in terms of effectiveness. If your first principle or your
first question is do we maintain law and order and
civilization and the answer is yes, then you break up
the camps, you send people away.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
But wait a minute.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
You have this man who's psychotic, it's not his fault,
or these people who couldn't afford their medical bills. Well,
having dispatched with the lazy, the bums and the junkies,
now we can help those people.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
If we default first.
Speaker 6 (09:31):
To compassion for the quote unquote homeless, we'll never get
to those people. You've got to be not cruel, but
effective to be kind.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Am I wrong?
Speaker 4 (09:44):
No, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
And I say this as a person who has had
homelessness in his family. I've had homeless relatives. I think
most many of your listeners have probably had homeless relatives
that they can testify that what you said is absolutely true.
A lot of people need help, even when they don't
want it and don't see it out. They need intervention
to protect themselves and to protect them and sometimes they
(10:05):
will look back afterwards.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
And say thank you.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
But I will tell you this, Joe, if your answer
to the question is of should we defend ordinary civilization
and enforced law and order, If your answer to that
question is yes, apparently you're some kind of extremist, reactionary
weirdo in today's world.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
That's correct.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Yes, Well, you know, it's a multifaceted problem. All the
things we've mentioned, and then the homelessness industrial complex as
we call it, with the billions and billions of dollars
that are flying around. There's a lot of organizations getting
a lot of people making their living off of this,
(10:44):
and it not being solved gets them more money, not less.
Speaker 5 (10:48):
Yes, and those are primarily government bureaucracies. I mean, when
the make it sorry welfare state was created in the
nineteen thirties, the argument for it was, well, private chair
hasn't solved the problem of poverty.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
So we need to have government.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
Okay, Well, now we've been we had a century now
where government is taking primary responsibility for the for poverty
and the poor and so forth.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
Has it solved the problem? No? I don't think so.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
If the homelessness industrial complex as you call it, and
that's a great terms, absolutely right, if that complex would
devote its money to actually solving this problem on a
community basis, going in there and trying to take this
problem on as a private, charitable matter so that you
can weed out the deserving from the undeserving poor, they
would accomplish a lot more than just saying, well, what
(11:37):
we need is more government bureaucracy and more across the
board rules about no, we're never going to enforce the
law in the public park down in Tucson or Phoenix
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
You know, Tim, can we take.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
A quick break and come back and do five more minutes? Yep,
I'm going to see if I can get some of
your greatest tits out of you.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Tim's in Arizona.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
We're in California, where half the homeless people in America live.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Because of our policies, we got more on the way.
Stay hear.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Here here, Tim Sander, for vice president for Legal Affairs
at Goldwater Institute, is on the line. Tim, I was
going to prompt you with the followings, coming off of
our discussion of the billions of dollars spent on the
quote unquote homeless problem. Government expenditures go to someone or something.
(12:26):
Can you help us understand the relationship between the taxpayer's money,
a government bureaucracy, and a problem to be solved.
Speaker 5 (12:36):
Yes, well, when for one thing, remember that government gets
paid even if it gets the answer wrong. This is
the most important thing you can know about politics, actually,
is that that's how it differs, how government differs from
private business. If private business screws things up, it doesn't
get money. It doesn't get paid. If I go to
you know, to Taco Bell, and I order a burrito
and they give me the wrong burrito, I don't pay
(12:57):
them until they get it right. If the gun does
something and it gets it wrong, it still gets paid
because that money comes from taxpayers against their will. And
in fact, they might even get paid more because they
can convince the some government committee. Oh well, the reason
why we failed is because we didn't have enough funding.
So the incentive is to keep the problem around, or
(13:18):
to redefine the problem more broadly. For example, instead of hunger, now,
instead we're supposed to be concerned about, oh, what is
the term that po food insecurity, which means you are
going to eat.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
It's just you're not sure where. I mean.
Speaker 5 (13:31):
I'm food insecure because I don't where I'm going to
order dinner tonight. So we redefine the problem because there's
an incentive to keep the problem around so that the
government can expand Also, there's the problem that if I'm
spending my own money for my own purposes, I'm going
to really make sure that I get the best bang
for my buck. But if I'm spending somebody else's money
(13:54):
for my purposes, I don't really care so much about that.
I might spend a lot more than I otherwise would
because it's not my money. And if I'm spending somebody
else's money on somebody else's purposes, well, then I'm definitely
not going to care about whether I get the best
possible bang for my buck because it's not my money,
and I don't particularly care about whether I accomplish the purpose.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
So you should.
Speaker 5 (14:16):
The idea that we can trust government to solve these
problems more than we can trust private industry is frankly crazy.
I'm not denying that private businesses do stupid and wrong things.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Of course they do. We know that they do all
the time.
Speaker 5 (14:30):
The question is why would you trust government even more
when government even gets paid when it gets the question wrong,
when it gets the answer wrong. And when government has
no particular incentive to save money because they're not even
spending their own money, you should trust government less than
you trust big business. So if you distrust big business,
you should really distrust big government.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
If rered lobster has all you can eat shrimp and
it drives them out of business, they don't get more money, right,
something new right.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
Whereas if government has all you know, gives away free
food to everybody, then it turns around and says, well,
we ran out of food.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
We need more of your tax money. You need to
feed more people.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Now you know this is a book length answer, you
have ninety seconds. How did what should be a presumption
of deep suspicion that the government's going to solve a
problem become an incredibly widespread assumption that, well, of course,
the government is here and will solve our problems.
Speaker 5 (15:24):
Well, it was a long term, gradual process, primarily through
the New Deal and the Great Society. But remember that
the New Deal in Great Society, neither of those were
terribly popular.
Speaker 4 (15:36):
Even at the time.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
There was a backlash against the New Deal, and there
was a huge backlash against the Great Society. And it
was just during those few years really just between thirty
two and thirty five and between sixties three and sixty six. Really,
those were really the years when you got about half
of the federal government that we now have today.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
So it was a slow process of corruption of the
public morals where government came along and said, well, you
don't have to worry so much about compassion in your
local community because the government will do it better. And
you know a lot of people said, oh good, then
I don't have to worry about it and stop taking
responsibility for themselves. And if you don't take responsibility, you
can't have freedom, because those two things always go together.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Tim Sander for Vice president for Legal Affairs at the
Goldwater Institute Goldwater Institute, Well worthy of your support. You
can find them online very easily. Indeed, Tim, always enlightening.
Thanks for the time, Thank you guys man. It's our pleasure.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Democrats win a couple of big elections where they've got
big time control of the Senate and the House and
the Presidency, and you get the New Deal and the
Great Society ram through, and like Tim said, there's half
your federal government.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Now. Then you add to.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
That the principle that if there's a benefit nobody ever
dreamed of in their lives for a dollar that all
of a sudden they get. If you try to take
that dollar away, they'll burn their city down, right, because.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
I was counting on that dollar. Once the stuff gets started,
it's impossible to end it. Interesting stuff.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
If you miss an hour, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 7 (17:14):
Step away from woke, focus less on who is woke
and more on who is broke.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
Social justice issues, and take a back seat when your
son is in the basement vaping and playing video games
and can't find a job.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
I feel like that last guy was really venting more
about his son.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Everybody else had sort of a broader point, but.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
His was just so specific. John Stewart is a master
of humor.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
His pause was the perfect length to the millisecond to
maximize the humor.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
That he's really good at that.
Speaker 8 (18:02):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
That's pretty good line though, from that guy who's lifting
weights with what's his name?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Cuomo?
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Chris Cuomo, your training partner, My training partner. Although he
took way more selfies than I was taking.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
That was so funny. Uh, I've never seen anybody do
that before. After every rep.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
He get his pump on it, and he get the
angle right and smile and take the pictures like who
he's sending these to?
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Man? That is so foreign to me.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
Was I gonna say, Oh, that's pretty good line. We
need to focus on more on who is broke and
not who is woke, which is a pretty good line. Uh,
before we get to some of the news of the day.
I keep seeing this headline. And the economy has been
roaring pretty good since Trump got elected for a variety
of reasons. Cryptocurrency keeps setting new records. Bitcoin broke another
(18:49):
record yesterday, eighty seven thousand dollars for one bitcoin.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
It was sixty eight thousand a week ago.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
I mean, if I could have bought a handful of
bitcoin a week ago and changed my life, there is
nothing I understand less than this.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
I will not I'm not going to try either.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
It's like I'm putting it in that category like climate change,
of things I don't read about. I'll just let other
people handle those topics. I've never looked into climate change.
I'm not looking into bitcoin.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Yeah, I just wish i'd thrown a few bucks at
that myself.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
Oh good lord, And is that gonna last or I mean,
is there. I know Trump's a big crypto honk. Is
that enough for it to go up? Of course stocks
can go up for all kinds of reasons.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Sure, the amount of speculation in cryptocurrency too, So man,
crypto just just from my observation from Afar is like
the all time if you can, if you can ride
the wave of emotion, you could really make a lot
of money fast.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
And of course it can go the other direction the
wave of emotion. Trump has named several people that are
going to be in his cabinet or close advisors.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Here's one.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
He's gonna Secretary of State, a job first held by
Thomas Jefferson, now held by Marco Rubio. Here's him yesterday,
somebody uh asking him a question in the hallway. The
clips that I asked for which sounded something like this,
It was the one I asked for, Remember that one
(20:20):
twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
On the contrary, I want you guys to get this.
Speaker 8 (20:27):
I want them to destroy every element of hamas they
can get their hands on. These people are vicious animals
who did horrifying crimes, and I hope you guys post that.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
What about the civilians? Every day?
Speaker 8 (20:38):
Amasa stopped hiding behind civilians, putting civilians in the way.
Hamas knew that this was going to lead to this.
Hamas has stopped building their military installations underneath hospital.
Speaker 9 (20:47):
So you don't care the fifteen thousand, you don't care
about the babies that are every day.
Speaker 8 (20:52):
I think it's terrible, and I think AMAS is one
hundred percent to blame.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
That's what I think.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Make sure you post that plane.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Marco Rubio not going to shrink from that or a
note of caution.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Raw Trump is expected to name Marco Rubio Secretary of State.
Three people familiar with this thinking set on Monday, cautioning
that he could still change his mind at the last minute.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Yeah, we've got a new Homeland Security Secretary, Christy Noome
of South Dakota. So f you are illegals and no
disobedient dogs be allowed into this country, right, She'll round
up the illegals and shoot the dogs.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Next to a pit. Tell you what rover she says, sit,
I'd go ahead and sit. Fetch means fetch Huh? Did
I stutter?
Speaker 1 (21:46):
What I know?
Speaker 3 (21:46):
You go?
Speaker 2 (21:48):
I go ahead and fetch sniffing? Can wait that itch
right behind your ear?
Speaker 3 (21:52):
I'd get to that later. You might want to sit. Wow,
that's some dark pet humor right there.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Yes, it is Trump willing to look past that unfortunate
incident from her autobiography and.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Might actually be the vice president of the United States
if it weren't for that anecdote that ain't she included
in her autobiography.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
But shooting the dog right, it's possible anyway.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Yeah, speaking of his cabinet and specifically in the realm
of immigration, we will be getting into that again next hour.
If you don't get next hour, you got to do
something whatever, that's fine, just grab it later via podcast
Armstrong you're getting on demand.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
In fact, you probably ought to just subscribe. Makes it easy.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Roll over now do the dishes thumbs figure it out? Wow,
too much now, West, She's.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Not messing around.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
There's one other Oh I wanted to get to some
of these. Actually I haven't heard him yet because this
has been breaking while we're on the air today, some
of this stuff around the Trump legal cases trying to
do him in. Here's Andy McCarthy on Fox explaining some
of the latest developments.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Fifty one there, Michael. What's going to.
Speaker 7 (23:09):
Happen is the Biden Harris administration is going to dismiss
the Trump cases. They've already sort of laid the groundwork
for that. Judge shuck In has said, I think December
second as a date for Smith's to get Jack Smith
to get back to her on how he sees the
case proceeding in the future. I think what he'll come
back with his emotion to dismiss the case.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Okay, that's interesting. Now, which cases are those? Because I
don't have them all memorized. Which one's Chuckkin?
Speaker 1 (23:36):
The federal ones, I think she's on documents classificat document
that's the one he was probably guilt for the election
interference and stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
But the federal stuff is over over over.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
And the documents one was the one he was in
serious trouble on if he lost, probably arguably Yeah. And
then the whole Stormy Daniel thing. That was the one
where he had what was it forty felonies charged to
him or someone, yeah, convicted of thirty four felonies. Is
they reminded us over and over again in the final
(24:10):
days of the campaign, utterly phony, according to even the
most moderate of lefties, trumping up note pun intended of
local paperwork charges into somehow being felonies.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
The Supreme Court was going to smack that. I'm not
the Supreme Court, the appeals court. He's going to smack
that down like that fella playing for the San Jose
State women's volleyball team. Just whack it out of the air.
And so the judge burchon on that is now looking
to say, maybe never mind on that case, avoiding the
humiliation of being overturned.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Yeah, treat that like the Secretary of Homeland Security. Treat
to dogheat's chickens. That's what you do again with that.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Wow, barboy, Speaking of the volleyball player, you know, I've
been avoiding using this person.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
One more Andy McCarthy on and then we'll be done
with this. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
So the other thing Andy McCarty he weighed in on
is the legal guy for National Review is on whether
or not Biden is going to pardon Hunter.
Speaker 7 (25:06):
My sense of this is that, and I continue to
think this, even though the White House pushes back the
other way. I think that President Biden is going to
pardon his son, and that he will get a lot
of criticism if that's done in a vacuum because it's
a former self dealing. And he also said he wouldn't
do it, so he'll look terrible. But I think if
(25:28):
it's pitched to the country is kind of a clemency
package where we're turning the page from the Trump prosecutions
and turning the pati from the hunts of the country
will take it a lot better.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
Wow, that's interesting, just emotionally. And yeah, you put those
all together. It's time to move on. All that stuff
about Trump and everything. Bygone's begun, end Hunter, and bygones
be bygones.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
We got a new administration.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
So the Trump cases, I'm going to end that, end Hunter,
and we'll just.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Million the millions of dollars that filtered into my family
through dozens of LC's from the communist Chinese and the
previous Ukrainian regime.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Let's let's not get hung up on that otherwise, can't
move on with the country's future. Okay, you're a loser.
What does what would Biden care?
Speaker 3 (26:18):
What is this thirty seven percent approval rating going to
go down to twenty seven on his final month of
being president?
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Who cares? He's going to be dead next year.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Probably, And any guy who can convince himself hete you
do another term, can convince himself that this.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Is the right move, right, sure, yeah, please.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Anyway, I want to congratulate this transgender You know what,
oh man, don't have time for this tangent.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Be disciplined, joke, be disciplined.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
The fellow that's playing on the San Jose State women's
volleyball team. And if you're new to this issue, you
might be thinking, wait a minute, there's a there's a
man playing on the team. Yeah, that's that's permitted in
some places these days.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
I know it sounds crazy.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
And they're underfellow, the Spartans, that's right, Blair. Is this
fellow's name? Congratulations Blair steadily breaking women's volleyball records at
San Jose State in spite of all of those games
that they've forfeited because the other teams don't want to
play against a women's team with a dude. For instance,
despite San Jose State's lost to San Diego State on Saturday,
(27:23):
San Diego State, you should not have played the game,
Blair achieved his two hundred and fiftieth kill shot, a
record that puts him in the upper reaches of women's volleyball.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
I didn't realize they lost.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Yeah, he achieved that mark. In twenty twenty two, as
well as the first team year with the team. So
I mean, really, that's an incredible woman's volleyball player considering
they've had seven games canceled this season.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Will there be because of the forfeits?
Speaker 3 (27:52):
Will there'll be an asterisk in the record book and
then you look down to the bottom page and next
to the asterisk it says has a penis?
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Dude?
Speaker 1 (27:59):
It'll just say is a dude? Yeah, yeah, that's just great,
I tell you what, ladies.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
And the fact that the.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Vast majority of quote unquote progressive women don't see this
as a women's right issue has just further deepened my
cynicism about mankind. But look at that men are better
at everything, including being women.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
Oh you don't like the way that you don't like
the way that sits. We'll get on the right side
of this issue.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
A great gift under your Christmas tree would be a
T shirt that says hot dogs are dogs from the
Armstrong ngetdy dot com website. That's right, part of our
fall collection, right with fall colors like whatever fall colors
are green and pumpkin spice.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
San Jose State bravely also forcing aside the player and
assistant coach who joined in the Title nine lawsuit against
the Biden administrations. Really anyway, Yeah, this this fight is
nowhere near over for a return to sanity, but it's
starting to go pretty well.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
Hey Hanson, is that clip from The Lady that runs NPR?
Is that new or was that old that Elon grabbed
and retweeted today?
Speaker 2 (29:12):
It's old?
Speaker 3 (29:14):
Yeah, it's old but good, That's what Hanson says.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
That and other stuff on the way. Stay here, armstrong.
Speaker 9 (29:21):
And in the wake of Donald Trump's historic win, there's
a new movement sweeping America. Disappointed women are actually swearing
off men.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
There's no way I am letting any man near me
for the next few years.
Speaker 9 (29:36):
They're saying no to dating, no to marriage, no to.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Sex celibacy at least to me, isn't that hard?
Speaker 9 (29:43):
And no to having children like so many other women
in America who have been considering trying to get pregnant.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
I woke up today and said, Nope, not anymore.
Speaker 9 (29:55):
This woman is actually shaving her head in protest.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Yeah. I'm thinking some of you chicks didn't exactly have
a line outside your door before the election.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Oh wow, I was going to talk about the sociological
implications and electoral consequences. But Jack, we're going to personal shots.
That's disappointing U Roland Michael.
Speaker 9 (30:14):
It's being called the four B movement, and women are
taking to social media declaring their allegiance. The four B
movement was actually started by women in South Korea back
in twenty nineteen as part of their version of the
Meet Too movement. The number four refers to dating, marriage, sex,
and children.
Speaker 7 (30:34):
This movement is way more important now than ever.
Speaker 9 (30:37):
Twenty six year old Alexa Argus joined the movement two
years ago and expects a surge of interest in the
wake of the Trump victory. So you in twenty twenty
two swore off dating forever.
Speaker 4 (30:49):
Not forever.
Speaker 9 (30:50):
We're not going to settle for low value men that
don't respect us anymore.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
Boy, and are we men will just have to live
without you. I guess somehow her I mean, I don't
mean women kind as a whole, I mean her right, Yeah?
Speaker 1 (31:07):
So the uh I'm picturing historians looking back and saying.
And then the United States endured a huge drop in
the birth rate after three quarters of young women lost
their fing minds over a man called Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Yeah, yeah, we need a woman's opinion.
Speaker 10 (31:28):
Yes, if anybody could just hear me shaking my head. Uh,
low value men will go for those women, you know.
The feminist guys will be like, you're right, and then
they'll stick together and the rest of us alone.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
The Tim Walls is of the world.
Speaker 3 (31:41):
Yeah, yeah, no kidding, mind your own business.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Here's here's Katie's cistern represented in the next clip.
Speaker 9 (31:51):
But lots of women are mocking then no marriage, no
sex movement?
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Why that woman was cutting her hair off?
Speaker 4 (31:57):
Oh bold wild.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
The fact of these crazes are out here.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
They're like, we're not touching men.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
I hope that means the more for me.
Speaker 10 (32:03):
Yeah exactly, yeah, yeah, and hey, if they're refusing to
have sex, they won't make more of.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Them the whole.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Any descent from my whole list of issues means you're
evil and I hate you. Totalitarian lefty movement. Right now,
How that gets unraveled and how quickly it is such
an interesting question to me, because it is, I mean,
it's really it's it's counterproductive. It's counter happiness, it's counter sanity,
(32:37):
it's counter the way human beings have behaved for for
years and years outside of a cult environment.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
And I'm more more than partly serious about that first
comment that no one think there's a line of guys
outside your door anyway. It is a sad version of
that crowd. It's like the in cell dudes on the
other side. You're doing the whole I don't like women
for these reasons because they weren't. They're not popular with
girls for whatever reasons of looks or personality or whatever,
(33:03):
and so they go with you can't fire me. I
quit sort of attitude that these women are doing, and
I think it gives you a shield against, you know,
the hurt that you're experiencing from for whatever reason not
being that desirable in.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Your current life.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
I think, yeah, I'm less likely to buy it, just
having seen the statistics on the percentage of Democrats, and
in particular women who will not be friends with dot
dot dot, will not date dot dot dot, won't even
patronize a business dot dot dot. That is a pretty
crazy way to live your life.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
Yeah, i'd say, what did that one person say about
shaving off your hair?
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Oh? Bold, bold, all right? What is women have gone
full blown? Britney two thousand and seven.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
Yeah, good for you, But we played the audio from
a young black man who's active with helping young boys
mentoring young boys in this community posted the two videos,
one in which he said, I've decided to vote for
Trump and the other I decided to vote for Kamala,
And the reactions to the two videos were completely different.
And then you've got the Nate Silver's screed who he said, look,
(34:12):
during a very easy even campaign, we put out newsletters
that say, hey, Trump is doing well, and some that
said hey Harris is doing well. And the vitriol and
hate they got it. They got anytime they said Trump
was doing pretty well compared to when Harris was doing well,
it was like, oh, that's interesting, y'all. Are are It's
like the classic description of holding a grudge. You take
(34:36):
poison and wait for the other person to die. You're
gonna make yourselves nuts. Don't make yourself nuts. Listen to
the Armstrong in Getty show. We do four hours every
single day. If you miss an hour or segment, or
you want to replay it for your friends and family,
you can find it in podcast form at Armstrong in
Geeddy dot com. No, you can't Armstrong in Getty on demand.
(34:57):
That's refine it or you can probably find it in
our website. I don't know where you find him. I
don't ever look forward. I'm here, I don't need to
listen to it.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
This is one of the worst promos I've ever heard.
What is the whovil knows?
Speaker 1 (35:10):
It's very controversial and placks to scourge of plastic surgery.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
That and more next hour if you get Armstrong and
Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.