October 1, 2024 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- The leader of the Longshoreman's union speaks...
- Pete Rose and his hairstyle...
- Military analyst Mike Lyons talks about Israel's announced invasion of Lebanon...
- A pair of pugilists face-off tonight at the VP Debate!
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 (00:02):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Jack Armstrong, Joe Jetty.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
I'm strong and Jetty and he armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Are you worried that this strike is going to hurt
the everyday American? The farmers that need to read. They
reached the export market. They're telling me that they're gonna
hurt them.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
You start to realize who the long Shormen are, right.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Nobody can.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
People never gave a shout us until now when they
finally realize that the chain is being broke. Now, cars
won't come in, food won't come in, clothing won't come in.
You know how many people depend on odd jobs half
the world, and it's time for them and time for
Washington to put so much fresh on them to take
(00:57):
care of us, because we took care of them and
we're here at in thirty five years. It brought tom
where they are today, and they don't want to share.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
So it doesn't sound at all like a guy who'd
crack your head open. That's the leader of the Long Showman.
That's Harold Jay Daggett, the leader of the union.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Yes, but that's the leader of the union.
Speaker 6 (01:17):
That's not just some rank and file guys don't give
a us about us.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
That's the guy in charge.
Speaker 5 (01:24):
Yeah, he's not just a guy who will break open
the head of a scab.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
He ses the head of the union.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (01:29):
I realize I risk getting my teeth kicked in by
saying this, But so often when I hear from the
big unions, I think you sound like thugs. You sound
like people that have gotten your way for so long,
and you're so entitled, you feel like you deserve a
way better deal than anybody else in America gets for
their jobs.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
And you're willing to have leverage and you're willing to
be violent for it.
Speaker 6 (01:53):
And oh, by the way, regularly these big unions, it
turns out the people at the top are crooks.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Happens all the time.
Speaker 6 (01:59):
Not saying that this guy is, but it happens all
the time with the United Auto Workers, for instance.
Speaker 5 (02:04):
Well, here's say headline from Yahu News, no notable conservative
outlet Harold Daggett, how union leader who fought mob tie
allegations is holding the US economy for ransom.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Shocking. I think we would be buried the leading case.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
You're not paying attention and Only Fox is really covering
this story. The longshoreman went on strike last night, forty
five thousand members of this and it's going to cost
the economy about five billion dollars a day, which is
not a ton in our economy. But the whole supply
chain thing could get out of whack really really fast,
and then it would be a full on political issue.
Speaker 5 (02:42):
Port employers, pressed by Biden administration officials to resolve the impass,
raised their offer on wages to a fifty percent increase
over six years from an earlier forty percent increase, along
with other improvements and benefits, in the twenty four hours
before the strike deadline that was rejected. The International long
Shorman's Association is seeking a seventy seven percent wage increase
(03:05):
over six years as a condition to sit down to talks.
You come up with seventy seven percent or we're not
even discussing anything. Well, you think you're gonna get any
sympathy from the average person out there who has taken
a fifteen to thirty percent cut depending on your lifestyle
because of inflation, and they're wanting They're not even gonna
(03:26):
sit down unless they get a seventy someeven percent increase.
The main sticking issue is they're saying, no automation. You
get to rule out the idea of any automation. I
don't care about AI or robots or anything like that.
That's insane, that's absolutely insane. That's just that's never gonna happen.
Speaker 6 (03:44):
You can't compete as a country against the rest of
the world if you're gonna still unload trucks by hand
when everybody else is doing it automatically, much faster, much cheaper.
So yesterday Joe Biden was asked, mister President, will you
intervene in the dock workers strike if they go on
strike on Tuesday, which they did at midnight last night.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
No, said the ancient president.
Speaker 6 (04:03):
Why not because there's no because there's collective bargaining and
I don't believe in taft Hartly. The response to that,
by one of my favorite journalists was the irony here
is at nuclear levels. Biden, who has tried in a
multitude of ways to illegally use executive power to get
what he wants, refuses to invoke executive authority where he
(04:24):
has the statutory right to do so. Taft hardly gives
the President of the United States in a situation where
it's going to harm the economy in a general way
or national security. He can jump in, jump into these
big strikes and say you got to stay at work
while we're working out the deal. He has the right
to do that. But in this case, unlike some stuff
around the immigration or canceling student loans or a number
(04:47):
of other things he's been willing to do illegally, he
has the legal right and is saying no.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Interesting, Oh yeah, I can't wait for him to be gone.
Speaker 5 (04:57):
Coming up later, what do immigrants do for government budgets?
New research has answers. We promised, Yes, we promised that yesterday.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
We didn't get to it. I apologized. We'll squeeze it
in this hour.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
This is interesting and not terribly shocking. Well, I guess
when you get down to the granular details, it is
fairly shocking. But Americans are more reliant than ever on
government aid. An aging population, economic distress, raised dependence on
federal and state support, and it matters a hell of
a lot for our elections. As you might guess. Wall
(05:31):
Street Journal looking into a major study. This is a
little graphics heavy, but I can interpret it for you.
They're talking about the share of personal income from government assistance.
How in how many counties is it twenty five percent
or more? In nineteen seventy, government safety net money accounted
(05:54):
for significant income.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
That's more than twenty five percent.
Speaker 5 (05:58):
Twenty five percent or more in fewer the one percent
of America's counties. So say that again, in what year
In nineteen seventy it was less than one percent? Okay, okay,
In two thousand it went from less than one percent
to roughly ten percent.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
That's the year two than ten percent, which a tenfold
increase is not minor.
Speaker 5 (06:22):
In the year twenty twenty two, fifty three percent, more
than half of US counties drew at least a quarter
of their income from government eight.
Speaker 6 (06:31):
So this is we were talking about this last week,
and now that it's the average person in the bottom quintile.
I know this is a lot of complicated talking, but
the bottom twenty percent of income earners in America get
on average sixty eight thousand dollars per household of transfer payments.
And that's left out of every argument about we have
(06:54):
the highest inequality of any nation in the world. They
never include this stuff. And what you just talked about there,
that's never included in these conversations from Bernie Sanders or
probably Tim Walls tonight in the debate. People live in
paycheck to paycheck. Well, more people are getting the handouts
from the government than ever before by a lot.
Speaker 5 (07:18):
And as we've discussed with Craig the healthcare Guru, socialism
is not a light switch. It's a a fungus oh
that spreads across a country and it's programmed, crafts benefits
and yeah, yeah, sure.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
It starts getting across. There's just no stopping it. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
So the big reasons for this dramatic growth are interesting.
Some of them I think most conservatives would reject out
of hand. But it gets a little complicated when you
dig into it. There are much larger share of Americans
who are seniors. Period, We're living longer, and we've aged
as a population, We're not having kids anymore. And healthcare
raw sorry, healthcare costs have risen fairly dramatically.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
As they've gotten or fantastic.
Speaker 5 (08:02):
The technology we have at our disposal to keep ourselves
healthy and alive is truly awe inspiring, but it costs.
Speaker 6 (08:10):
Yeah, And as my doctor said last week, what exactly
is the point?
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Sometimes he wonders.
Speaker 6 (08:15):
Well as we just get you know, our brains don't work,
our bodies don't work, but we hang around longer at
a great expense.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
Right, Well, it could be the money is the point
in at least some situations, although it's I understand it's
an odd conundrum that a person could sit around rubbing
their chin thinking about for a long time. You're not
going to turn down medical advances, Nope, because it's every
advance is an incremental step. It can lead toward other
(08:44):
advances or cures or what have you. But at the
same time you and your doctor are quite right, Hey,
good news. We can keep alzheimer suffering Granny alive for
one more year. We can stave off or cancer with
this new gene therapy. Blah blah blah. What are we
doing here anyway? To get back to the major threat
(09:06):
of the thing rouni here. At the same time, many communities,
so it's the aging and the development of medical technology
number one. At the same time, many communities have suffered
from economic declient because of the challenges, including the loss
of manufacturing, leaving government money. Is the larger share of
people's income in such places. I you know, I could
(09:29):
bore you to death. I won't because I do this
for a living and kind of enjoy getting the paycheck.
But one of the big debates in conservative circles these
days is the question of the reagan esque free trade
global economy conservatives versus what's being called the new conservatism
(09:52):
or whatever you want to call it. And everybody's always
government conservatism. People call it, yeah, industrial planning, you know.
Sometimes people even call it central planning, what have you,
And are bellowing at each other about it as if
the solutions and the questions and answers are very simple.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
They're not at all.
Speaker 5 (10:13):
They're trillions of dollars at stake. So I understand why
the people making lots and lots of money want to
keep that money flowing. They don't care how much unemployment
there is in rural Pennsylvania, for instance. At the same time,
oh oh, and the other point I was going to
make the side of the new.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Conservatives.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
Back in Reagan's day, we didn't have the situation where
our chief global adversary is our one of our chief
trading partners, technology partners, and practically indispensable to the world economy.
So if you are pitching free global trade of a
reaganesque sort. You are pitching continued interaction slash dependence with China,
(10:58):
which is just a idea. Times have changed, the arguments
have to change too, So I have sympathy with both sides,
but it is not simple getting back. I'm sorry, it's
tangent after tangent. How about a quick word from our friends?
It simply Save Home Security, and then we'll get into
some of the numbers behind the numbers, which are really interesting,
(11:18):
trust me on that. But scumbag stealing your stuff is
rotten and we hate it. And simply Safe Home Security
has about the best deal I've ever ever seen, not
only on a new system, but on the fast Protect
monitoring live guard protection. It's less than a dollar a day,
no hidden fees, no long term contracts.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
Driving away from your house when you go to work
or leaving for the weekend or whatever, and knowing you've
got the simply Safe system set up is so much
more peace of mind than just hoping nobody breaks in
or steals packages off your porch or whatever. With fast
Protect monitoring and live guard protection, simply Safe agents can
act within five seconds of receiving an alarm, can even
(11:57):
see and speak to intruders, stop their in their tracks.
And you can have all kinds of cameras indoor and outdoor,
and sensors for the windows and doors, and you can
set it up yourself.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
I did, and everybody your rank.
Speaker 5 (12:08):
Security systems makes simply Safe the best or virtually that's
why you hear so much about it. Easy to install
protect your home with fifty percent off a new simply
Safe system as fifty percent off plus a free indoor
security camera when you sign up for that fast protect
monitoring and just visit simply safe dot com, slash armstrong,
simplysafe dot com, slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply Safe.
(12:28):
So for its analysis of government spending, EIG, which is
the folks doing the analysis use the government definition of
income that includes spending on programs that Americans pay into,
such as Medicare and Social Security. Another major government health program, Medicaid.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Is counted.
Speaker 5 (12:45):
The analysis also includes unemployment insurance, food stamps, the Earned
Income Tax Credit, veterans benefits, PELL grants, COVID era payments,
and other income supports. States help pay for some of
these programs, like Medicaid, but the federal government covers the
roughly seventy seventy percent of the cost, and it doesn't
include other ways government spending floods into corners of America,
(13:05):
such as farm subsidies or military bases. So this spending
accounts for big and growing share of not only the
income of the nation, but also our national debt. We
are addicted to government spending slash social programs as a country.
Speaker 6 (13:23):
There's there's no weaning off that either. I don't believe
in no backwards. I don't think it's possible.
Speaker 5 (13:28):
No, but you do have to be honest about the
dollars and cents coming and going, and we're headed for
a cliff.
Speaker 6 (13:32):
So we went from one percent nineteen seventy to over
half now correct.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
That's unbelievable.
Speaker 6 (13:39):
Not very many people could tell you that, and it
won't be a topic tonight in the debate either.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Stay with us. You're like a rare at the live
the thing a lap.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
He made bull the dugout Davy can supt beyond Pollock,
blub way by Pitcher dug the pilla.
Speaker 6 (14:11):
Wait a second, So Pete Rose baseball player, greatest hitter
of all time, all time leader in a whole bunch
of things, hits at bats, doubles, just all kinds of stuff.
But why did that clip from nineteen seventy eight sound
like it was from nineteen thirty nine. I was alive
(14:33):
in nineteen seventy eight. That's not what audio sounded like
in nineteen seventy eight.
Speaker 5 (14:37):
It sounds like he was recorded off of a transistor radio.
Speaker 6 (14:41):
Or they went out of their way to make it
sound old timy. It doesn't need to sound like that.
Things sounded much like they do now in nineteen seventy eight.
But oh, so this thing. So Pete Rose died yesterday.
He got banned from baseball. If you know this at all,
you know this. He was the biggest star in the sport.
Then he got banned for gambling. When he became a manager,
never bet against his team.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
He claims. He always bet for his team because if.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
You're better how he lied about everything all the time,
so it's difficult to say.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
And he never admitted it, but I guess he finally
did admit it at one point to Charlie Gibson, and
I don't remember this because I didn't care.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Here we go, you're now saying for the first time publicly, yes,
I bet on baseball. I've bet on baseball in nineteen
eighty seven, in nineteen eighty eight, did you bet on
your own team?
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Did you ever believe in my team?
Speaker 1 (15:33):
I mean I knew my team.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Did you ever bet against your No, No, that would
be uh, that'd be the last thing I'd ever even
even consider.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
I believe that.
Speaker 6 (15:46):
I believe that too. I think he's too competitive. Yes,
he was competitive to the point of mental illness. And
I just there's no way he would bet against him
or his team.
Speaker 5 (15:55):
He was one of the most driven human beings who's
ever played sports, and everybody's driven in sports.
Speaker 6 (16:00):
Yeah, and he was the manager of the team at
the time, player manager for a while then just manager.
And there's no way he's going to bet against himself.
He's just not that kind of person. Yeah, But uh,
he was trying to get back into the good graces
of baseball when he admitted it, right, so he could
be in the Hall of Fame while he was alive.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
And yeah, he was trying to meet him halfway, you know,
confess his sins and get some measure of forgiveness.
Speaker 6 (16:21):
Also interesting that he was a giant star back at
a time when you made good money.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
But not insane money. So he needed money.
Speaker 6 (16:30):
Yeah, whereas you know, you're that level of star now
and you're so incredibly wealthy, he wouldn't. Okay, kick me
out of the Hall of Fame or whatever. I'm worth
a half a billion dollars. Yeah, you do one significant contract. Yeah,
you're you're set for life and sorry your kids plus endorsement.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
That whole world has changed so much. Yeah, yeah, he had.
Speaker 6 (16:50):
He had an odd haircut throughout most of his career too.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
He had a haircut of like a bowl haircut, the
Prince Valiant. Yeah, Chris Jenner, right right, Well you get
at least Pete's stated, dude. Anyway, Hey, hey, I fight
for team dude. All right. I love women, I treasure women,
but I'm on team dude.
Speaker 6 (17:11):
That's your expert support analysis at least, he stated.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Dude.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Well, you hate it when one of your best dudes
changes teams, you know.
Speaker 6 (17:21):
So we'll get to a little bit later this hour.
There's more info coming out. US officials say they have
knowledge of an imminent attack Iran is planning on Israel
ballistic missiles. The latest is that it's going to be
similar to what happened back in April that was a
big attack that it took an awful lot of technology
(17:43):
in different countries to work together to thwart. So this
could be happening, Well, it means, immin it could be happening.
Speaker 5 (17:50):
You need to and I'm anxious to hear what Mike
has to say about what Israel is going to do
next with Hesbelan how much this means to the region.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Quick look back at baseball.
Speaker 5 (17:58):
Was just made aware of a me that's going around
showing Pete Rose and then show Hey Otani the memes
saying Pete Rose should have had an interpreter.
Speaker 6 (18:07):
Ah, you don't think that wasn't me?
Speaker 1 (18:11):
And that was my interpreter over there.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
You don't think show Hayes Betten, do you? I don't
think he is, probably not. That's pretty funny joke.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Though, Armstrong and Geeddy.
Speaker 6 (18:24):
So if you're into following hotspots around the world and
knowing what's going on on a moment by moment basis,
one of the best sites out there is osint defender.
That's open source intelligence, which is followed by lots of
smart people Barrywise, Tim Sandifer and Mike Lyons who were
about to talk to and this is.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
What they say about today's news.
Speaker 6 (18:44):
US officials have stated that the Iranian attack against Israel
will most likely begin in the next twelve to twenty
four hours, involving hundreds of long rage ballistic missiles, as
well as drones and cruise missiles launched against both military
and intelligence to targets. Great Scott, sounds like quite an attack.
Let's discuss that and other developments in the region. We
(19:07):
seeing a military analyst, Mike Lyons who joins US now. Mike,
how are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Hey, Monny, guys, great to be back.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
First of all, what's your reaction to those headlines?
Speaker 2 (19:18):
I'm going to be a little cynical here, and this
is sounding like an Israeli id FOP. Why would the
White House announce this? Why I'm not following this on
some level, Why would the Why would they come out
and say the level of attack is going to be that?
Speaker 6 (19:36):
Why?
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I just don't understand it. It's almost to the point
are they trying to Maybe they're prepping forces there, but
this is something that they should be somewhat silent about.
Is this a back channel to Iran? We you know,
the senior wide of official. I'm looking at the Water
Journal article says, a direct military attack from Rand against
Israel Carrie severe consequences for a rant. So I think
(19:58):
that's what that's that's what this is. It's it's that
level of messaging. And now we're now hit deep in it.
If we know this is going on, if this is
what's what's happening here, this is what We're past the
point of something that we're able to get out of
here peacefully. This is not good on a lot of
different levels. And I'm just really concerned that the United
(20:20):
States decided to make this statement here. It might be true,
it might not be true, but why the United States
would put this out to me, seems like something that
Israel would wanted us to do, and I'm just not
getting it.
Speaker 6 (20:33):
Well, it certainly runs if if what you're saying is correct.
It certainly runs counter to the things Joe Biden and
the Secretary of State have been saying out loud, which
is all about ceasfire, ceasefires, ceasefire.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Israel don't go.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
In, yeah, I mean, they can't get off a plane
fast enough in the Middle East. And the first thing
that Anthony Lincoln says is we want to cease fire,
and we want we want to de escalate situations. This
comment is basically now an active war saying if you
attack Israel, We're going to do something back at you.
So again the whift song back and forth that the
(21:07):
administration has has been somewhat troubling to begin with. It
just goes back to there's not a consistency within this messaging.
I mean, look, Israel's not a warfitting, no question about it.
There's got minor incourasions now into Lebanon. There stated military
objective is to move sixty thousand people back into the north,
so they're not then I'll call two bar artillery range
(21:28):
and that's within let's say twenty to thirty five kilometers
from the border. They're always going to be subject to
the long range strategic missiles and that's what iron domes
for and all those other things. But going after the
leadership of heads blood, now, you know, Iran is very exposed.
And the only thing I'm thinking is that Uranians, the
Israelis are going, you know what, we definitely this is
(21:50):
the time for more. This is the time to destroy
that nuclear capability. There's no better, no better time to
do it than now. And that may be why I
think they're leaning in that direction, but the United States
is going to get dragged into this.
Speaker 5 (22:02):
It looks like, wow, Well, putting aside the confusing announcement
and the muddled and inconsistent foreign policy of the Biden
administration which has left US muddled and confused, that's interesting.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board also calling for the
US to seize the moment, put Iran and its proxies
on the defensive. But they're talking about, you know, beating
(22:23):
the hell out of the Houthis and Yemen, who, to
my mind, the United States has been incredibly hesitant to.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Do anything about.
Speaker 5 (22:31):
But right, well, why don't we talk about that for
a minute, then we can talk about attacking.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Let's talk about Yeah, I mean, the Houthi's been firing
I guess the other day a couple dozen missiles, and
my sources of the Navy telling me that they continue
to shoot them down and they're working there. And then
the Hoothi's fire at a drone is raelly drone. And
what do the Israelis do? They turn around and destroy
a petroleum plant in Yemen. So it just gets back
to there's a lot of mis signals with regard to
(22:59):
what exacts our postures and if our answers, we're going
to turn around and start hammering people. It's all coming
from the sky, my spear of this whole thing. Also,
is this overreach that ends up happening. The same confidence
that Vladimir Putin had about taking Ukraine three days, Well,
the Israelis might think it's the same thing. They're going
to do here and destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities in
three days. And this over confidence, that's the thing I'm
(23:22):
concerned about. Given right now that they've taken out the
hes blog leadership, they've taken out those second third team levels,
let that kind of let's take a moment see where
that actually goes. And then maybe four the United States
to focus back on who's these focus back on what's
happening there as it continues to impeach shipping lanes across
(23:43):
the Middle East and within the Red Sea.
Speaker 6 (23:45):
Well, we won't even get into because who knows who's
actually making these decisions. I don't know at what moments
and during the day Joe Biden's capable of making these decisions.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
Some days I'm sure he's times some days I think
he is. But some days I'm sure he's not. So
you got that issue out there.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
But is there ever going to be a better time
for Israel to try to take out the nuclear program
in Iran than now?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
No, And I think that's what their calculation is. I
think it's exactly right as they They've done it in
the past. They took out you know, OSRIC and eighty one,
they took out the capability there than this in Syria.
They've taken it out before in Iraq. So I think
I don't think that there's a better time for it. Frankly,
if I was, if I was the military advisor to
(24:29):
the to the Prime Minsiter, I'd say, if we're going
to do it now at the time, I mean last
time when they fired back, when Iran fired three hundred
missiles our way. Uh, they basically put a posted note
on where the nuclear facilities was because they attacked the town,
but they didn't attack the facility itself. It's going to
be a difficult mission though, it's not going to once
again get rid of the program, and we'll set it back,
(24:49):
which is all all that's really happening is this is
these attacks. Set back has bled, they set back well,
God's I think is different I think Hamas has been
pretty much stripped of all capability there there there, they
would have a very difficult time in the army. But
Hesbela is still different because of the amount of weapons
they have and the amount of support they've gotten from Iran.
(25:09):
They've been Iran's proxy jewel for the last twenty years,
built specifically to do nothing but antagonized Israel. So this
is where Israel said we've had enough and this is
why they're going to try to destroy them. So Iran's
explosed and now the time to do it well.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
And from the Israeli point of view, if Harris were
winning to win the election, the lack of support would continue,
and if Trump were to get elected, they would get
a high five for having done what they did. So
I don't see any reason to hesitate and wait for
the US to come along. Hey, I want to go
back to the Hesbela and their impressive arms, which we've
talked about through the recent months. We've talked with you
(25:47):
in the past about decapitation operations, you know, taking out leadership,
but I mean this took out some of the key
leadership and two levels below them.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Has Bolas got to be an utter disarray right now.
Don't you think.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
It's one thing to take out the one guy that's
sitting in the answers the phone and whatever and gets
blown up. But it's right, they've taken out multiple levels
of command and control within within has a lot. I mean,
if you saw those pictures on CNN of the attack
where they were, you know, they just didn't take out
the top ten guys there. They took out their staff,
They took out all the other people that all the communications,
(26:21):
I mean, the entire the casualties from that attack are
have to be off the charts. And so yeah, there
as they try to scramble, and again let's take a
moment here and see what exactly comes of it, which
is why Israel wants to take advantage of it right now,
given the fact that lines of communications are cut within
within Lebanon from there and Iran is very much exposed.
(26:44):
So there's maybe small little militia groups that could go
after you know, US forces maybe in certain places, but
everything right now is very strategic over the horizon because again,
if you look at a map, there's no other allies
Ron has to go to war against Israel. All these
other Arab entries don't have they don't have any military.
They're not going to Gypsians aren't going to talk to
Jordanians aren't going to There's no If this was forty
(27:06):
years ago, yeah, the Syrians had a military and there
was that capability, but that doesn't exist anymore. It's just
a Ron versus Israel at this point, and it's going
to come down to hooplinks first. I don't think it's
going to be Israel.
Speaker 6 (27:18):
So if they're going to try to take out the
nuclear facilities in Iran, they would use the same method
they used to take out the leader Hesblo, wouldn't they
Just the succession of those two thousand pounds bombs until
you finally get far enough underground.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
It's likely what they would do. The program is very
much spread out, though it's dispersed. They would have eleven
or twelve targets there would They would take advantage of
a very weak Iranian air defense system that is completely aged,
hasn't been upgraded, hasn't hasn't had any kind of advances
to it, So they would have that going for them,
(27:54):
but eventually they wouldn't get it all. But that's likely
what it would be. I think it's about eleven or
twelve targets, so to speak. The place where they attacked
last time was probably the most important place. That's where
uranium is enriched. Right, three levels of creating a nuclear bomb.
You know, mine it, enrich it, and then you obviously
create the bomb. The enrichment is the key part of it.
If they can take out that plan close to fourdoh,
(28:15):
I think that's what it's called, that would be very significant,
setting their program back.
Speaker 5 (28:21):
I know this sort of prediction making is silly, but
in your mind, is it at one out of ten
prospect that the Israelis do it, nine out of ten
somewhere in between?
Speaker 2 (28:30):
I'd say six, six out of ten. I think it's
going to depend on the next forty eight hours, what
the what the Uranians do. If they don't follow through
with this attack that we're saying is going to happen,
I think it doesn't give Israel cause to do it.
Israel won't necessarily preemptively strike just yet, as they've done
in the past. Israel has preemptively struck its enemies in
(28:50):
the past, but it's going to if they do strike.
If the Iranians do strike, well, then that's going to
open the door for or Israel to respond back, and
it'll be a Tehrana. It'll be at this nuclear capability,
I think.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Quick exit question before we think and.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
When we're saying in the United States forms is now
part of this because they'll will provide air defense systems
of anything. That's eventually, once a round figures out it's
getting attacked, it's going to start unleashing its missiles. The
US will be hip deep in it to trying to
defend Israel at that point.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
All right, quick exit question a different topic before we
let you go, Mike. Given the lack of change, certainly
for the Ukrainian side on the battlefield of late how
soon do you expect to see serious negotiations for a
peace deal taking place?
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Yeah, Russia seems to be digging in. Saw a report
that said they want to fight this until twenty twenty six.
It's going to take a negotiator to come in and
see what Ukraine is willing to give up. As Russia
continues to grind away and get the rest of Europe involved.
Ukraine did taking that land in a few months back.
(30:04):
Now it's going back in a couple of months. It
hasn't really made a difference with regards to Russia's calculation.
They still have more capacity, capability, and they can still
you know, pretty much do what they want. They could
grind Ukraine down. The question is whether Ukraine would be
willing to give up those areas in the Dombas and Crimea.
The number one thing that Russia wants is Crimea. They
want complete control over its about to pull. They want
(30:25):
complete control over that of the back sea, and that
gives them a one more report. They have to have it.
Speaker 6 (30:31):
We keep asking you more questions when we tell you
you're done. So I don't know if you saw this.
I didn't see it till yesterday. Apparently Trump told a
reporter recently, and he reiterated it yesterday that his deal
with Putin is going to be here's the deal, and
if you don't take it, I'm going to give Ukraine
whatever they want.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Okay, Yeah again that so that means, yeah, that would
be pretty amazing. But I'm not sure the deal that
would be. Well, So the question is whether the Ukrainians
would give would want the deal, because that deal involves
giving up land. The question about it, right, so whether
Ukraine agrees with it remains to be seen. That might
(31:10):
be true, but but Ukraine might not be willing to
take their side of the deal. That's the only thing
I could think of for that one.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
CNN military analyst Mike lyons, Mike, thanks so much for
the time and and the thoughts, and we'll talk again soon.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
Great, I think for me.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
Yep, of course. Wow, that's something.
Speaker 6 (31:32):
So in the eighty one, monockem Began was Prime Minister
at the time and he bombed the but Jesus out
of their nuclear facilities or they would have gotten a
bomb way way back then, and we went nuts over
it in public. Eventually gave him a medal years later
for doing what he did. So what the administration says
(31:53):
out loud about Israel going aps is not necessarily what
we think, right.
Speaker 5 (32:03):
And they're terrible at their jobs, so it is difficult
to assess what they're doing and what they mean and
what they don't need. You mean the White House, yes, boy,
this is their their whole foreign policy team. So this
is the level of attack that Open Sources reporting on.
And then Mike Client says, well, we got to be
(32:24):
in it because we're providing the air support to make
this whole thing go away, Holy cow.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
This next twenty four or forty eight hours could be
pretty exciting.
Speaker 5 (32:34):
And not because J. D. Vance is wrestling with the
old coach on TV tonight talking about cat ladies and whatnot.
Cat eaton the whole debate.
Speaker 6 (32:44):
If it happens before the debate, the whole debate, half
the debate could be about this.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
It's entirely possible. Yes, heck of a thing.
Speaker 6 (32:52):
What are your thoughts text line four one five two
nine five k FDC.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
In terms of the polling, you know, I don't. I
don't believe any of the polls. I don't believe the
polls that I like. I don't believe the polls I
don't like.
Speaker 6 (33:11):
That's Charlie Hurt of Washington Examiner. Doesn't believe the poles
he likes, doesn't believe the polls you don't like. Who
knows how accurate the polls are, But we got a tied.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Racing all of them. Okay, okay, okay. We have a
debate tonight between the vice presidential candidates, which I don't
think in the history of debates has ever moved the
needle at all. I keep seeing.
Speaker 5 (33:32):
Will it entertain me? Is my only question? And I
think it will on one level or enough for ninety minutes.
Speaker 7 (33:40):
No, no, no, I predict at the very end of
the debate, they could all just sit there scrolling through
their phones and nobody would notice because there'll be nobody
watching the last half hour.
Speaker 5 (33:55):
Margaret Brennan could just say to JD, Hey, do you
see this about Pete Rose.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
No, I didn't see that.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
What is it?
Speaker 1 (34:02):
In a little two feet chat.
Speaker 6 (34:04):
An hour in Margaret Brennan could say, Okay, I just
got the word from the producers. There's nobody currently watching.
We have the datus, so let's just let's just hang
out here until the end. You start scrolling through your phone.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
I guess I can put my legs back behind the
desk because there's nobody looking at them.
Speaker 6 (34:23):
That is something the modern news show where the women
wear super short skirts, but they gotta have a glass
desk and a high stool so that their legs can show. Yes,
he wouldn't have thought we'd have gone that direction in
the modern world. I got Harry legs. My point was
going to be, if you haven't heard this, CBS announced
(34:44):
that Margaret Brennan will not be doing fact checking. They're
gonna leave the fact checking up to the candidates, which
is what a debate is. So it's interesting that they're
having to step out a line to get back in
line with what debates are. That's the whole point of
a debate is the two candidates argue with each other
(35:04):
and present different facts.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
Yeah, if you hear that, David Muir, hope you choke
on your kale shake in.
Speaker 6 (35:10):
Terms as opposed to the moderators jumping in with their
facts randomly, uh uh and not accurately. I had another point.
What was the point do oh? It just came across this.
I don't know if this will come out in the
debate tonight. The Harris price fixing campaign and all that
sort of stuff. The economy's got to be part of it.
It's the number one issue in America. Gallup poll just
(35:33):
out more Americans give a negative view of grocery stores
than a positive view for the first time since Gallup
started asking about this many many decades ago. How would
a majority of Americans have a negative view of grocery stores.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Well, they do for the first.
Speaker 6 (35:50):
Time ever because of Kamala Harrison, Joe Biden coming out
and saying it's the grocery stores that are screwing you.
That's why the price of price of bacon is so high,
That's why eggs are so high. The grocery stores are
just greedy bastards stealing from you, and it drove down
their positive ratings.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
There is no limit to the dishonesty in politics. I
mean that's stating the obvious, but I mean they will
lie about everything.
Speaker 6 (36:11):
And in this case it worked unbelievable. That sort of
stuff polls well. Price fixing, rent control, claiming you're being
gouged really polls well.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
I stand up for the humble grocery store.
Speaker 5 (36:23):
I don't care who's with me and who's against me.
You can get a cucumber over there, yogurt over there,
A delicious chunk of meat there in the back. Grocery store.
Thumbs up, chunk of meat. Do you know what
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Jack Armstrong, Joe Jetty.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
I'm strong and Jetty and he armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Are you worried that this strike is going to hurt
the everyday American? The farmers that need to read. They
reached the export market. They're telling me that they're gonna
hurt them.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
You start to realize who the long Shormen are, right.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Nobody can.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
People never gave a shout us until now when they
finally realize that the chain is being broke. Now, cars
won't come in, food won't come in, clothing won't come in.
You know how many people depend on odd jobs half
the world, and it's time for them and time for
Washington to put so much fresh on them to take
(00:57):
care of us, because we took care of them and
we're here at in thirty five years. It brought tom
where they are today, and they don't want to share.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
So it doesn't sound at all like a guy who'd
crack your head open. That's the leader of the Long Showman.
That's Harold Jay Daggett, the leader of the union.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Yes, but that's the leader of the union.
Speaker 6 (01:17):
That's not just some rank and file guys don't give
a us about us.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
That's the guy in charge.
Speaker 5 (01:24):
Yeah, he's not just a guy who will break open
the head of a scab.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
He ses the head of the union.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (01:29):
I realize I risk getting my teeth kicked in by
saying this, But so often when I hear from the
big unions, I think you sound like thugs. You sound
like people that have gotten your way for so long,
and you're so entitled, you feel like you deserve a
way better deal than anybody else in America gets for
their jobs.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
And you're willing to have leverage and you're willing to
be violent for it.
Speaker 6 (01:53):
And oh, by the way, regularly these big unions, it
turns out the people at the top are crooks.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Happens all the time.
Speaker 6 (01:59):
Not saying that this guy is, but it happens all
the time with the United Auto Workers, for instance.
Speaker 5 (02:04):
Well, here's say headline from Yahu News, no notable conservative
outlet Harold Daggett, how union leader who fought mob tie
allegations is holding the US economy for ransom.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Shocking. I think we would be buried the leading case.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
You're not paying attention and Only Fox is really covering
this story. The longshoreman went on strike last night, forty
five thousand members of this and it's going to cost
the economy about five billion dollars a day, which is
not a ton in our economy. But the whole supply
chain thing could get out of whack really really fast,
and then it would be a full on political issue.
Speaker 5 (02:42):
Port employers, pressed by Biden administration officials to resolve the impass,
raised their offer on wages to a fifty percent increase
over six years from an earlier forty percent increase, along
with other improvements and benefits, in the twenty four hours
before the strike deadline that was rejected. The International long
Shorman's Association is seeking a seventy seven percent wage increase
(03:05):
over six years as a condition to sit down to talks.
You come up with seventy seven percent or we're not
even discussing anything. Well, you think you're gonna get any
sympathy from the average person out there who has taken
a fifteen to thirty percent cut depending on your lifestyle
because of inflation, and they're wanting They're not even gonna
(03:26):
sit down unless they get a seventy someeven percent increase.
The main sticking issue is they're saying, no automation. You
get to rule out the idea of any automation. I
don't care about AI or robots or anything like that.
That's insane, that's absolutely insane. That's just that's never gonna happen.
Speaker 6 (03:44):
You can't compete as a country against the rest of
the world if you're gonna still unload trucks by hand
when everybody else is doing it automatically, much faster, much cheaper.
So yesterday Joe Biden was asked, mister President, will you
intervene in the dock workers strike if they go on
strike on Tuesday, which they did at midnight last night.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
No, said the ancient president.
Speaker 6 (04:03):
Why not because there's no because there's collective bargaining and
I don't believe in taft Hartly. The response to that,
by one of my favorite journalists was the irony here
is at nuclear levels. Biden, who has tried in a
multitude of ways to illegally use executive power to get
what he wants, refuses to invoke executive authority where he
(04:24):
has the statutory right to do so. Taft hardly gives
the President of the United States in a situation where
it's going to harm the economy in a general way
or national security. He can jump in, jump into these
big strikes and say you got to stay at work
while we're working out the deal. He has the right
to do that. But in this case, unlike some stuff
around the immigration or canceling student loans or a number
(04:47):
of other things he's been willing to do illegally, he
has the legal right and is saying no.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Interesting, Oh yeah, I can't wait for him to be gone.
Speaker 5 (04:57):
Coming up later, what do immigrants do for government budgets?
New research has answers. We promised, Yes, we promised that yesterday.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
We didn't get to it. I apologized. We'll squeeze it
in this hour.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
This is interesting and not terribly shocking. Well, I guess
when you get down to the granular details, it is
fairly shocking. But Americans are more reliant than ever on
government aid. An aging population, economic distress, raised dependence on
federal and state support, and it matters a hell of
a lot for our elections. As you might guess. Wall
(05:31):
Street Journal looking into a major study. This is a
little graphics heavy, but I can interpret it for you.
They're talking about the share of personal income from government assistance.
How in how many counties is it twenty five percent
or more? In nineteen seventy, government safety net money accounted
(05:54):
for significant income.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
That's more than twenty five percent.
Speaker 5 (05:58):
Twenty five percent or more in fewer the one percent
of America's counties. So say that again, in what year
In nineteen seventy it was less than one percent? Okay, okay,
In two thousand it went from less than one percent
to roughly ten percent.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
That's the year two than ten percent, which a tenfold
increase is not minor.
Speaker 5 (06:22):
In the year twenty twenty two, fifty three percent, more
than half of US counties drew at least a quarter
of their income from government eight.
Speaker 6 (06:31):
So this is we were talking about this last week,
and now that it's the average person in the bottom quintile.
I know this is a lot of complicated talking, but
the bottom twenty percent of income earners in America get
on average sixty eight thousand dollars per household of transfer payments.
And that's left out of every argument about we have
(06:54):
the highest inequality of any nation in the world. They
never include this stuff. And what you just talked about there,
that's never included in these conversations from Bernie Sanders or
probably Tim Walls tonight in the debate. People live in
paycheck to paycheck. Well, more people are getting the handouts
from the government than ever before by a lot.
Speaker 5 (07:18):
And as we've discussed with Craig the healthcare Guru, socialism
is not a light switch. It's a a fungus oh
that spreads across a country and it's programmed, crafts benefits
and yeah, yeah, sure.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
It starts getting across. There's just no stopping it. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
So the big reasons for this dramatic growth are interesting.
Some of them I think most conservatives would reject out
of hand. But it gets a little complicated when you
dig into it. There are much larger share of Americans
who are seniors. Period, We're living longer, and we've aged
as a population, We're not having kids anymore. And healthcare
raw sorry, healthcare costs have risen fairly dramatically.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
As they've gotten or fantastic.
Speaker 5 (08:02):
The technology we have at our disposal to keep ourselves
healthy and alive is truly awe inspiring, but it costs.
Speaker 6 (08:10):
Yeah, And as my doctor said last week, what exactly
is the point?
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Sometimes he wonders.
Speaker 6 (08:15):
Well as we just get you know, our brains don't work,
our bodies don't work, but we hang around longer at
a great expense.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
Right, Well, it could be the money is the point
in at least some situations, although it's I understand it's
an odd conundrum that a person could sit around rubbing
their chin thinking about for a long time. You're not
going to turn down medical advances, Nope, because it's every
advance is an incremental step. It can lead toward other
(08:44):
advances or cures or what have you. But at the
same time you and your doctor are quite right, Hey,
good news. We can keep alzheimer suffering Granny alive for
one more year. We can stave off or cancer with
this new gene therapy. Blah blah blah. What are we
doing here anyway? To get back to the major threat
(09:06):
of the thing rouni here. At the same time, many communities,
so it's the aging and the development of medical technology
number one. At the same time, many communities have suffered
from economic declient because of the challenges, including the loss
of manufacturing, leaving government money. Is the larger share of
people's income in such places. I you know, I could
(09:29):
bore you to death. I won't because I do this
for a living and kind of enjoy getting the paycheck.
But one of the big debates in conservative circles these
days is the question of the reagan esque free trade
global economy conservatives versus what's being called the new conservatism
(09:52):
or whatever you want to call it. And everybody's always
government conservatism. People call it, yeah, industrial planning, you know.
Sometimes people even call it central planning, what have you,
And are bellowing at each other about it as if
the solutions and the questions and answers are very simple.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
They're not at all.
Speaker 5 (10:13):
They're trillions of dollars at stake. So I understand why
the people making lots and lots of money want to
keep that money flowing. They don't care how much unemployment
there is in rural Pennsylvania, for instance. At the same time,
oh oh, and the other point I was going to
make the side of the new.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Conservatives.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
Back in Reagan's day, we didn't have the situation where
our chief global adversary is our one of our chief
trading partners, technology partners, and practically indispensable to the world economy.
So if you are pitching free global trade of a
reaganesque sort. You are pitching continued interaction slash dependence with China,
(10:58):
which is just a idea. Times have changed, the arguments
have to change too, So I have sympathy with both sides,
but it is not simple getting back. I'm sorry, it's
tangent after tangent. How about a quick word from our friends?
It simply Save Home Security, and then we'll get into
some of the numbers behind the numbers, which are really interesting,
(11:18):
trust me on that. But scumbag stealing your stuff is
rotten and we hate it. And simply Safe Home Security
has about the best deal I've ever ever seen, not
only on a new system, but on the fast Protect
monitoring live guard protection. It's less than a dollar a day,
no hidden fees, no long term contracts.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
Driving away from your house when you go to work
or leaving for the weekend or whatever, and knowing you've
got the simply Safe system set up is so much
more peace of mind than just hoping nobody breaks in
or steals packages off your porch or whatever. With fast
Protect monitoring and live guard protection, simply Safe agents can
act within five seconds of receiving an alarm, can even
(11:57):
see and speak to intruders, stop their in their tracks.
And you can have all kinds of cameras indoor and outdoor,
and sensors for the windows and doors, and you can
set it up yourself.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
I did, and everybody your rank.
Speaker 5 (12:08):
Security systems makes simply Safe the best or virtually that's
why you hear so much about it. Easy to install
protect your home with fifty percent off a new simply
Safe system as fifty percent off plus a free indoor
security camera when you sign up for that fast protect
monitoring and just visit simply safe dot com, slash armstrong,
simplysafe dot com, slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply Safe.
(12:28):
So for its analysis of government spending, EIG, which is
the folks doing the analysis use the government definition of
income that includes spending on programs that Americans pay into,
such as Medicare and Social Security. Another major government health program, Medicaid.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Is counted.
Speaker 5 (12:45):
The analysis also includes unemployment insurance, food stamps, the Earned
Income Tax Credit, veterans benefits, PELL grants, COVID era payments,
and other income supports. States help pay for some of
these programs, like Medicaid, but the federal government covers the
roughly seventy seventy percent of the cost, and it doesn't
include other ways government spending floods into corners of America,
(13:05):
such as farm subsidies or military bases. So this spending
accounts for big and growing share of not only the
income of the nation, but also our national debt. We
are addicted to government spending slash social programs as a country.
Speaker 6 (13:23):
There's there's no weaning off that either. I don't believe
in no backwards. I don't think it's possible.
Speaker 5 (13:28):
No, but you do have to be honest about the
dollars and cents coming and going, and we're headed for
a cliff.
Speaker 6 (13:32):
So we went from one percent nineteen seventy to over
half now correct.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
That's unbelievable.
Speaker 6 (13:39):
Not very many people could tell you that, and it
won't be a topic tonight in the debate either.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Stay with us. You're like a rare at the live
the thing a lap.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
He made bull the dugout Davy can supt beyond Pollock,
blub way by Pitcher dug the pilla.
Speaker 6 (14:11):
Wait a second, So Pete Rose baseball player, greatest hitter
of all time, all time leader in a whole bunch
of things, hits at bats, doubles, just all kinds of stuff.
But why did that clip from nineteen seventy eight sound
like it was from nineteen thirty nine. I was alive
(14:33):
in nineteen seventy eight. That's not what audio sounded like
in nineteen seventy eight.
Speaker 5 (14:37):
It sounds like he was recorded off of a transistor radio.
Speaker 6 (14:41):
Or they went out of their way to make it
sound old timy. It doesn't need to sound like that.
Things sounded much like they do now in nineteen seventy eight.
But oh, so this thing. So Pete Rose died yesterday.
He got banned from baseball. If you know this at all,
you know this. He was the biggest star in the sport.
Then he got banned for gambling. When he became a manager,
never bet against his team.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
He claims. He always bet for his team because if.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
You're better how he lied about everything all the time,
so it's difficult to say.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
And he never admitted it, but I guess he finally
did admit it at one point to Charlie Gibson, and
I don't remember this because I didn't care.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Here we go, you're now saying for the first time publicly, yes,
I bet on baseball. I've bet on baseball in nineteen
eighty seven, in nineteen eighty eight, did you bet on
your own team?
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Did you ever believe in my team?
Speaker 1 (15:33):
I mean I knew my team.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Did you ever bet against your No, No, that would
be uh, that'd be the last thing I'd ever even
even consider.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
I believe that.
Speaker 6 (15:46):
I believe that too. I think he's too competitive. Yes,
he was competitive to the point of mental illness. And
I just there's no way he would bet against him
or his team.
Speaker 5 (15:55):
He was one of the most driven human beings who's
ever played sports, and everybody's driven in sports.
Speaker 6 (16:00):
Yeah, and he was the manager of the team at
the time, player manager for a while then just manager.
And there's no way he's going to bet against himself.
He's just not that kind of person. Yeah, But uh,
he was trying to get back into the good graces
of baseball when he admitted it, right, so he could
be in the Hall of Fame while he was alive.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
And yeah, he was trying to meet him halfway, you know,
confess his sins and get some measure of forgiveness.
Speaker 6 (16:21):
Also interesting that he was a giant star back at
a time when you made good money.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
But not insane money. So he needed money.
Speaker 6 (16:30):
Yeah, whereas you know, you're that level of star now
and you're so incredibly wealthy, he wouldn't. Okay, kick me
out of the Hall of Fame or whatever. I'm worth
a half a billion dollars. Yeah, you do one significant contract. Yeah,
you're you're set for life and sorry your kids plus endorsement.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
That whole world has changed so much. Yeah, yeah, he had.
Speaker 6 (16:50):
He had an odd haircut throughout most of his career too.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
He had a haircut of like a bowl haircut, the
Prince Valiant. Yeah, Chris Jenner, right right, Well you get
at least Pete's stated, dude. Anyway, Hey, hey, I fight
for team dude. All right. I love women, I treasure women,
but I'm on team dude.
Speaker 6 (17:11):
That's your expert support analysis at least, he stated.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Dude.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Well, you hate it when one of your best dudes
changes teams, you know.
Speaker 6 (17:21):
So we'll get to a little bit later this hour.
There's more info coming out. US officials say they have
knowledge of an imminent attack Iran is planning on Israel
ballistic missiles. The latest is that it's going to be
similar to what happened back in April that was a
big attack that it took an awful lot of technology
(17:43):
in different countries to work together to thwart. So this
could be happening, Well, it means, immin it could be happening.
Speaker 5 (17:50):
You need to and I'm anxious to hear what Mike
has to say about what Israel is going to do
next with Hesbelan how much this means to the region.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Quick look back at baseball.
Speaker 5 (17:58):
Was just made aware of a me that's going around
showing Pete Rose and then show Hey Otani the memes
saying Pete Rose should have had an interpreter.
Speaker 6 (18:07):
Ah, you don't think that wasn't me?
Speaker 1 (18:11):
And that was my interpreter over there.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
You don't think show Hayes Betten, do you? I don't
think he is, probably not. That's pretty funny joke.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Though, Armstrong and Geeddy.
Speaker 6 (18:24):
So if you're into following hotspots around the world and
knowing what's going on on a moment by moment basis,
one of the best sites out there is osint defender.
That's open source intelligence, which is followed by lots of
smart people Barrywise, Tim Sandifer and Mike Lyons who were
about to talk to and this is.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
What they say about today's news.
Speaker 6 (18:44):
US officials have stated that the Iranian attack against Israel
will most likely begin in the next twelve to twenty
four hours, involving hundreds of long rage ballistic missiles, as
well as drones and cruise missiles launched against both military
and intelligence to targets. Great Scott, sounds like quite an attack.
Let's discuss that and other developments in the region. We
(19:07):
seeing a military analyst, Mike Lyons who joins US now. Mike,
how are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Hey, Monny, guys, great to be back.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
First of all, what's your reaction to those headlines?
Speaker 2 (19:18):
I'm going to be a little cynical here, and this
is sounding like an Israeli id FOP. Why would the
White House announce this? Why I'm not following this on
some level, Why would the Why would they come out
and say the level of attack is going to be that?
Speaker 6 (19:36):
Why?
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I just don't understand it. It's almost to the point
are they trying to Maybe they're prepping forces there, but
this is something that they should be somewhat silent about.
Is this a back channel to Iran? We you know,
the senior wide of official. I'm looking at the Water
Journal article says, a direct military attack from Rand against
Israel Carrie severe consequences for a rant. So I think
(19:58):
that's what that's that's what this is. It's it's that
level of messaging. And now we're now hit deep in it.
If we know this is going on, if this is
what's what's happening here, this is what We're past the
point of something that we're able to get out of
here peacefully. This is not good on a lot of
different levels. And I'm just really concerned that the United
(20:20):
States decided to make this statement here. It might be true,
it might not be true, but why the United States
would put this out to me, seems like something that
Israel would wanted us to do, and I'm just not
getting it.
Speaker 6 (20:33):
Well, it certainly runs if if what you're saying is correct.
It certainly runs counter to the things Joe Biden and
the Secretary of State have been saying out loud, which
is all about ceasfire, ceasefires, ceasefire.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Israel don't go.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
In, yeah, I mean, they can't get off a plane
fast enough in the Middle East. And the first thing
that Anthony Lincoln says is we want to cease fire,
and we want we want to de escalate situations. This
comment is basically now an active war saying if you
attack Israel, We're going to do something back at you.
So again the whift song back and forth that the
(21:07):
administration has has been somewhat troubling to begin with. It
just goes back to there's not a consistency within this messaging.
I mean, look, Israel's not a warfitting, no question about it.
There's got minor incourasions now into Lebanon. There stated military
objective is to move sixty thousand people back into the north,
so they're not then I'll call two bar artillery range
(21:28):
and that's within let's say twenty to thirty five kilometers
from the border. They're always going to be subject to
the long range strategic missiles and that's what iron domes
for and all those other things. But going after the
leadership of heads blood, now, you know, Iran is very exposed.
And the only thing I'm thinking is that Uranians, the
Israelis are going, you know what, we definitely this is
(21:50):
the time for more. This is the time to destroy
that nuclear capability. There's no better, no better time to
do it than now. And that may be why I
think they're leaning in that direction, but the United States
is going to get dragged into this.
Speaker 5 (22:02):
It looks like, wow, Well, putting aside the confusing announcement
and the muddled and inconsistent foreign policy of the Biden
administration which has left US muddled and confused, that's interesting.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board also calling for the
US to seize the moment, put Iran and its proxies
on the defensive. But they're talking about, you know, beating
(22:23):
the hell out of the Houthis and Yemen, who, to
my mind, the United States has been incredibly hesitant to.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Do anything about.
Speaker 5 (22:31):
But right, well, why don't we talk about that for
a minute, then we can talk about attacking.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Let's talk about Yeah, I mean, the Houthi's been firing
I guess the other day a couple dozen missiles, and
my sources of the Navy telling me that they continue
to shoot them down and they're working there. And then
the Hoothi's fire at a drone is raelly drone. And
what do the Israelis do? They turn around and destroy
a petroleum plant in Yemen. So it just gets back
to there's a lot of mis signals with regard to
(22:59):
what exacts our postures and if our answers, we're going
to turn around and start hammering people. It's all coming
from the sky, my spear of this whole thing. Also,
is this overreach that ends up happening. The same confidence
that Vladimir Putin had about taking Ukraine three days, Well,
the Israelis might think it's the same thing. They're going
to do here and destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities in
three days. And this over confidence, that's the thing I'm
(23:22):
concerned about. Given right now that they've taken out the
hes blog leadership, they've taken out those second third team levels,
let that kind of let's take a moment see where
that actually goes. And then maybe four the United States
to focus back on who's these focus back on what's
happening there as it continues to impeach shipping lanes across
(23:43):
the Middle East and within the Red Sea.
Speaker 6 (23:45):
Well, we won't even get into because who knows who's
actually making these decisions. I don't know at what moments
and during the day Joe Biden's capable of making these decisions.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
Some days I'm sure he's times some days I think
he is. But some days I'm sure he's not. So
you got that issue out there.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
But is there ever going to be a better time
for Israel to try to take out the nuclear program
in Iran than now?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
No, And I think that's what their calculation is. I
think it's exactly right as they They've done it in
the past. They took out you know, OSRIC and eighty one,
they took out the capability there than this in Syria.
They've taken it out before in Iraq. So I think
I don't think that there's a better time for it. Frankly,
if I was, if I was the military advisor to
(24:29):
the to the Prime Minsiter, I'd say, if we're going
to do it now at the time, I mean last
time when they fired back, when Iran fired three hundred
missiles our way. Uh, they basically put a posted note
on where the nuclear facilities was because they attacked the town,
but they didn't attack the facility itself. It's going to
be a difficult mission though, it's not going to once
again get rid of the program, and we'll set it back,
(24:49):
which is all all that's really happening is this is
these attacks. Set back has bled, they set back well,
God's I think is different I think Hamas has been
pretty much stripped of all capability there there there, they
would have a very difficult time in the army. But
Hesbela is still different because of the amount of weapons
they have and the amount of support they've gotten from Iran.
(25:09):
They've been Iran's proxy jewel for the last twenty years,
built specifically to do nothing but antagonized Israel. So this
is where Israel said we've had enough and this is
why they're going to try to destroy them. So Iran's
explosed and now the time to do it well.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
And from the Israeli point of view, if Harris were
winning to win the election, the lack of support would continue,
and if Trump were to get elected, they would get
a high five for having done what they did. So
I don't see any reason to hesitate and wait for
the US to come along. Hey, I want to go
back to the Hesbela and their impressive arms, which we've
talked about through the recent months. We've talked with you
(25:47):
in the past about decapitation operations, you know, taking out leadership,
but I mean this took out some of the key
leadership and two levels below them.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Has Bolas got to be an utter disarray right now.
Don't you think.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
It's one thing to take out the one guy that's
sitting in the answers the phone and whatever and gets
blown up. But it's right, they've taken out multiple levels
of command and control within within has a lot. I mean,
if you saw those pictures on CNN of the attack
where they were, you know, they just didn't take out
the top ten guys there. They took out their staff,
They took out all the other people that all the communications,
(26:21):
I mean, the entire the casualties from that attack are
have to be off the charts. And so yeah, there
as they try to scramble, and again let's take a
moment here and see what exactly comes of it, which
is why Israel wants to take advantage of it right now,
given the fact that lines of communications are cut within
within Lebanon from there and Iran is very much exposed.
(26:44):
So there's maybe small little militia groups that could go
after you know, US forces maybe in certain places, but
everything right now is very strategic over the horizon because again,
if you look at a map, there's no other allies
Ron has to go to war against Israel. All these
other Arab entries don't have they don't have any military.
They're not going to Gypsians aren't going to talk to
Jordanians aren't going to There's no If this was forty
(27:06):
years ago, yeah, the Syrians had a military and there
was that capability, but that doesn't exist anymore. It's just
a Ron versus Israel at this point, and it's going
to come down to hooplinks first. I don't think it's
going to be Israel.
Speaker 6 (27:18):
So if they're going to try to take out the
nuclear facilities in Iran, they would use the same method
they used to take out the leader Hesblo, wouldn't they
Just the succession of those two thousand pounds bombs until
you finally get far enough underground.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
It's likely what they would do. The program is very
much spread out, though it's dispersed. They would have eleven
or twelve targets there would They would take advantage of
a very weak Iranian air defense system that is completely aged,
hasn't been upgraded, hasn't hasn't had any kind of advances
to it, So they would have that going for them,
(27:54):
but eventually they wouldn't get it all. But that's likely
what it would be. I think it's about eleven or
twelve targets, so to speak. The place where they attacked
last time was probably the most important place. That's where
uranium is enriched. Right, three levels of creating a nuclear bomb.
You know, mine it, enrich it, and then you obviously
create the bomb. The enrichment is the key part of it.
If they can take out that plan close to fourdoh,
(28:15):
I think that's what it's called, that would be very significant,
setting their program back.
Speaker 5 (28:21):
I know this sort of prediction making is silly, but
in your mind, is it at one out of ten
prospect that the Israelis do it, nine out of ten
somewhere in between?
Speaker 2 (28:30):
I'd say six, six out of ten. I think it's
going to depend on the next forty eight hours, what
the what the Uranians do. If they don't follow through
with this attack that we're saying is going to happen,
I think it doesn't give Israel cause to do it.
Israel won't necessarily preemptively strike just yet, as they've done
in the past. Israel has preemptively struck its enemies in
(28:50):
the past, but it's going to if they do strike.
If the Iranians do strike, well, then that's going to
open the door for or Israel to respond back, and
it'll be a Tehrana. It'll be at this nuclear capability,
I think.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Quick exit question before we think and.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
When we're saying in the United States forms is now
part of this because they'll will provide air defense systems
of anything. That's eventually, once a round figures out it's
getting attacked, it's going to start unleashing its missiles. The
US will be hip deep in it to trying to
defend Israel at that point.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
All right, quick exit question a different topic before we
let you go, Mike. Given the lack of change, certainly
for the Ukrainian side on the battlefield of late how
soon do you expect to see serious negotiations for a
peace deal taking place?
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Yeah, Russia seems to be digging in. Saw a report
that said they want to fight this until twenty twenty six.
It's going to take a negotiator to come in and
see what Ukraine is willing to give up. As Russia
continues to grind away and get the rest of Europe involved.
Ukraine did taking that land in a few months back.
(30:04):
Now it's going back in a couple of months. It
hasn't really made a difference with regards to Russia's calculation.
They still have more capacity, capability, and they can still
you know, pretty much do what they want. They could
grind Ukraine down. The question is whether Ukraine would be
willing to give up those areas in the Dombas and Crimea.
The number one thing that Russia wants is Crimea. They
want complete control over its about to pull. They want
(30:25):
complete control over that of the back sea, and that
gives them a one more report. They have to have it.
Speaker 6 (30:31):
We keep asking you more questions when we tell you
you're done. So I don't know if you saw this.
I didn't see it till yesterday. Apparently Trump told a
reporter recently, and he reiterated it yesterday that his deal
with Putin is going to be here's the deal, and
if you don't take it, I'm going to give Ukraine
whatever they want.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Okay, Yeah again that so that means, yeah, that would
be pretty amazing. But I'm not sure the deal that
would be. Well, So the question is whether the Ukrainians
would give would want the deal, because that deal involves
giving up land. The question about it, right, so whether
Ukraine agrees with it remains to be seen. That might
(31:10):
be true, but but Ukraine might not be willing to
take their side of the deal. That's the only thing
I could think of for that one.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
CNN military analyst Mike lyons, Mike, thanks so much for
the time and and the thoughts, and we'll talk again soon.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
Great, I think for me.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
Yep, of course. Wow, that's something.
Speaker 6 (31:32):
So in the eighty one, monockem Began was Prime Minister
at the time and he bombed the but Jesus out
of their nuclear facilities or they would have gotten a
bomb way way back then, and we went nuts over
it in public. Eventually gave him a medal years later
for doing what he did. So what the administration says
(31:53):
out loud about Israel going aps is not necessarily what
we think, right.
Speaker 5 (32:03):
And they're terrible at their jobs, so it is difficult
to assess what they're doing and what they mean and
what they don't need. You mean the White House, yes, boy,
this is their their whole foreign policy team. So this
is the level of attack that Open Sources reporting on.
And then Mike Client says, well, we got to be
(32:24):
in it because we're providing the air support to make
this whole thing go away, Holy cow.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
This next twenty four or forty eight hours could be
pretty exciting.
Speaker 5 (32:34):
And not because J. D. Vance is wrestling with the
old coach on TV tonight talking about cat ladies and whatnot.
Cat eaton the whole debate.
Speaker 6 (32:44):
If it happens before the debate, the whole debate, half
the debate could be about this.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
It's entirely possible. Yes, heck of a thing.
Speaker 6 (32:52):
What are your thoughts text line four one five two
nine five k FDC.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
In terms of the polling, you know, I don't. I
don't believe any of the polls. I don't believe the
polls that I like. I don't believe the polls I
don't like.
Speaker 6 (33:11):
That's Charlie Hurt of Washington Examiner. Doesn't believe the poles
he likes, doesn't believe the polls you don't like. Who
knows how accurate the polls are, But we got a tied.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Racing all of them. Okay, okay, okay. We have a
debate tonight between the vice presidential candidates, which I don't
think in the history of debates has ever moved the
needle at all. I keep seeing.
Speaker 5 (33:32):
Will it entertain me? Is my only question? And I
think it will on one level or enough for ninety minutes.
Speaker 7 (33:40):
No, no, no, I predict at the very end of
the debate, they could all just sit there scrolling through
their phones and nobody would notice because there'll be nobody
watching the last half hour.
Speaker 5 (33:55):
Margaret Brennan could just say to JD, Hey, do you
see this about Pete Rose.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
No, I didn't see that.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
What is it?
Speaker 1 (34:02):
In a little two feet chat.
Speaker 6 (34:04):
An hour in Margaret Brennan could say, Okay, I just
got the word from the producers. There's nobody currently watching.
We have the datus, so let's just let's just hang
out here until the end. You start scrolling through your phone.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
I guess I can put my legs back behind the
desk because there's nobody looking at them.
Speaker 6 (34:23):
That is something the modern news show where the women
wear super short skirts, but they gotta have a glass
desk and a high stool so that their legs can show. Yes,
he wouldn't have thought we'd have gone that direction in
the modern world. I got Harry legs. My point was
going to be, if you haven't heard this, CBS announced
(34:44):
that Margaret Brennan will not be doing fact checking. They're
gonna leave the fact checking up to the candidates, which
is what a debate is. So it's interesting that they're
having to step out a line to get back in
line with what debates are. That's the whole point of
a debate is the two candidates argue with each other
(35:04):
and present different facts.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
Yeah, if you hear that, David Muir, hope you choke
on your kale shake in.
Speaker 6 (35:10):
Terms as opposed to the moderators jumping in with their
facts randomly, uh uh and not accurately. I had another point.
What was the point do oh? It just came across this.
I don't know if this will come out in the
debate tonight. The Harris price fixing campaign and all that
sort of stuff. The economy's got to be part of it.
It's the number one issue in America. Gallup poll just
(35:33):
out more Americans give a negative view of grocery stores
than a positive view for the first time since Gallup
started asking about this many many decades ago. How would
a majority of Americans have a negative view of grocery stores.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Well, they do for the first.
Speaker 6 (35:50):
Time ever because of Kamala Harrison, Joe Biden coming out
and saying it's the grocery stores that are screwing you.
That's why the price of price of bacon is so high,
That's why eggs are so high. The grocery stores are
just greedy bastards stealing from you, and it drove down
their positive ratings.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
There is no limit to the dishonesty in politics. I
mean that's stating the obvious, but I mean they will
lie about everything.
Speaker 6 (36:11):
And in this case it worked unbelievable. That sort of
stuff polls well. Price fixing, rent control, claiming you're being
gouged really polls well.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
I stand up for the humble grocery store.
Speaker 5 (36:23):
I don't care who's with me and who's against me.
You can get a cucumber over there, yogurt over there,
A delicious chunk of meat there in the back. Grocery store.
Thumbs up, chunk of meat. Do you know what
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
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.