December 31, 2024 • 36 mins
Featured during Hour 1 of the Monday, December 31, 2024 edition of The Armstrong & Getty Replay...
- Border Crisis: Too Much Representation, Too Little Leadership
- Dems Don't Know How to Talk to Young Men
- CA / Big Brother Changes Brain
- More Reliant on Government Spending
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 (00:08):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, Armstrong and.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Jetty and Pee arms Wrong, get Strong.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Not live from Studio c Armstrong and Geddy. We're off.
We're taking a break. Come on, you get a break,
We get a break. We'll be back live for twenty five.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Enjoy this carefully curated Armstrong and Getty replay.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
And as long as we're.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Off, perhaps you'd like to catch up on podcasts. Subscribe
to Armstrong and Getty on demand or one more thing
we think you'll enjoy it.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Sir, outrage on Capitol Hill after eight suspected terrorists from
Tajika State and we're arrested in the United States, the
men who investigators believe have ties to ISIS crossed illegally
at the US Southern border. House Majority Leader Steve Scaliz
blaming President Joe Biden's policies.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
How many more terrorists are in our country because Joe
Biden opened up the southern.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Border and Chinese intelligence agents.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
More on that in just a second, But this hour
is going to be exciting. So Hunter's Stripper Baby Mama
has a book coming out. Joe Getty has excerpts from
the book That's exciting.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Oh shocking excerpts.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Jack, We will bear all when it comes to the
sordid life of Hunter Biden. I want to talk about
the insanity that luckily is making national news the subway
in New York where they announced anybody who's a Zionist
needs to get off the train now, and people chanting,
(01:55):
what the hell is going on? Did you say ber
Lin in nineteen thirty six?
Speaker 5 (02:01):
Now?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
It's crazy?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
AnyWho this story should be getting more intention Eight dudes
with ties to isis arrested. Who would it would be
actually better in a way if they had snuck across
the border without encountering anybody. The fact that they did
encounter border patrol and.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Went through the process we currently have.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
In place and still got into the country because they
barely do anything when they encounter you. I mean, what
is the They call it a vetting process.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
What is the vetting process?
Speaker 4 (02:39):
It's utterly insufficient, obviously, and so I think this is
a useful screw up. It's so ugly and clearly unacceptable.
It illustrates the fact that the border is so overwhelmed.
The folks at the border are so overwhelmed. Any quote
unquote vetting they're doing is is almost hilariously inadequate. We
(03:00):
need serious change right now.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
I heard.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
I know if the vast majority of Americans agree with
us as well on that.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
One of your terrorist experts was on some cable channel
the other day talking about the terrorist attack we've mostly
forgotten that happened in uh, outside of Moscow at that concert.
Remember watching the footage of that. They just ran through
the building shooting people. Yeah, somebody could put something like
that together in the United States.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Hope those were Tajiks too, weren't they. I did that allegedly.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
I don't remember where they were from, but they did
have the whole isis ties thing. And uh, hopefully it'd
be hard to get your hands on weapons, but I
don't know.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
That it would be. Oh in the US.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
No, you just go down to some you know, degenerate
blue city and wave some cash in front of gang
members and you'll have all the guns you want.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Let's go a little more reporting on this before we talk. Uh,
just more from that Fox report Michael.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Sources say a majority of these suspected terrorists were found
in New York, where a democratic councilman says he's worried
there could be another attack in the Big Apple.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
It's frightening and we're headed for another nine to eleven.
I predicted that. I think we should have a secure border.
We should know who's coming into our country. We don't notable.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
That's a democratic councilman. I think the problem has become
so enormous and so unmistakable.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I mean, again, look at the poll numbers.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
I'm not surprised to hear Democrats speaking out a little
more forcefully because they hear their constituents howling for something
to be done.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
I guess this happens. I was just thinking, there's been
some examples in my life. I guess where there's a
problem clearly coming and you know it, but you just
don't want to deal with it now, or it seems
too hard or something, and then it happens, and then
you're like, yeah, probably dealt with that earlier.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
This is an extreme example of that.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
I mean, yeah, obviously you can't just let hundreds of
thousands of random men from the Middle East to come
across your border or China or wherever.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Right, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
And it's become so well known around the world that
anybody you want in the US just send them to
the Mexican border and say, yeah, yeah, they're killing everybody
in my village.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Yeah yeah, I need asylum.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
And whoever whatever agent you want gets into the United
States and back in the homeland, they're probably the various
you know, war lords and ISIS leaders and Chinese intelligence
chiefs are probably saying, wait.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
A minute, no, it can't be that easy. Stop it.
Speaker 4 (05:43):
No country behaves like that. You have to convince. Oh yeah,
the US just letting in anybody who wants to come in.
It's really shocking. Yes, how about some mainstream media coverage
of it. This is NBC, which focuses on, you know,
maybe things have changed, that whole executive order that Joe
Biden put through a week or so ago.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Maybe you know, they've closed the barn door. Finally, let's
see new evidence.
Speaker 5 (06:07):
Migrants who cross the border illegally are still being released
into the US by border agents. A senior DHS official
tells NBC News those releases have dropped by more than half,
but are still happening because agents don't have enough space
to detain the large numbers of arriving migrants. An internal
mimic to Border patrol agents in San Diego, directs agents
(06:27):
there to release migrants into the United States. Overall illegal
border crossings under the new policy are still high, but
have dropped from four thousand to three thousand per day.
The record nearly ten million migrants entering the US since
he took office.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
But the Border Patrol Union says the president's new action
is not tough enough.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
That's NBC News, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
The idea that you could come apply to be somewhere
and you get to stay there as your probably phony
application is being assessed or the course of years and years.
This is very odd practice, like showing up to buy
somebody's house and saying saying, by the way, I'm living
here now. Well, you decide on my offer, I get
to live here, and if you throw me out, you're
the bad guy.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
It's just well again, it's insane.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Remember we had the polling like a week ago that
a majority of Americans now favor a wall.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
Yeah, and the majority of Americans, including independence and a
substantial chunk was that forty percent of Democrats are in
favor of deporting.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
All illegal aliens.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
It is overwhelmingly popular which if you just if you
want to say, if we took calls, Jay, I'm starting
to get you. You know, I think Joe Biden is just
a He doesn't lead at all. He's just a prostitute
to whatever is his voters want him to do. He
just he has no principles, He's just Yeah. But his
voters want him to kick all these people out of
the country and secure the border.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
What are they doing?
Speaker 4 (07:52):
Well?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Yeah, The wording from that CBS poll was, would you
be in favor of deporting all undocumented immigrant?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Which was has.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Never been on the table, will never be on the table,
It would be undoable even if they passed it. And
yet nearly two thirds of Americans said, yeah, I'd be
all for that. How do you not read that in
the White House and think, oh, we are so far
to the left of America on this no wonder. We're
losing by thirty to fifty points depending on the question
(08:25):
on this.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Issue, and yet they're tied. Yet overall they're tied.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Right, Oh, that's discouraging. I hate to end on a
discouraging note. You know, here's a tangent in the mood
for a tangent. I was thinking about this, and it's
this may be a poor example now because of what
I was just saying about the overwhelming support among Americans
for closing the border and having seen immigration policies, But
like in the early days of the Biden administration, when
(08:52):
just undoing anything Trump did seemed like the right thing
to do, I don't.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
What am I driving at. I think.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
There's way too much representation and too little leadership in
a lot of government. In other words, just fulfilling the
whims of this constituency or that constituency, whether it's a
good idea or not, in a way that you wouldn't
have done in the old days because you wouldn't have
(09:23):
known about those temporary whims of a constituency. Because communication
is so fast and easy now, you can have you know,
sixty jackasses in your district mad about a good policy
because they don't understand it, and you'd be completely swayed
by that as a congress person. And I'm looking to
(09:44):
our own industry and you see it reflected in various
websites and news channels and stuff like that. They have
the ability now to track second by second when people
tune in, when they tune out what you're doing doing
when they tune out what you're doing, when they're staying tuned.
It's in Radio two, but we ignore it for various reasons.
(10:10):
But you become this like you're being jerked on a chain,
serving the momentary whims of the audience in a way
that seems like good business at first, but then it's
to me, it's like shoveling in sugar. That first bite
sounds great, tastes great and all, but you just keep
shoveling it in until you're sick.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
It's a it's how do I explain this?
Speaker 4 (10:32):
Being in Congress has always been a balance between being
a leader and being a representative. And if your constituents
want something loathsome, stupid and unconstitutional, that's when you got
to be a leader. And I just I think we've
got too much representative and not enough leader in our politics.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
I think that's pretty clear.
Speaker 5 (10:50):
The Armstrong and Getty Show, Rhoe podcasts and Our Hot
Lakes and.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
The Armstrong Congetti Show.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
This is from a guy I don't know, journalist in Australia,
A dude. Nobody on the left knows how to speak
to young men because every five seconds this has why
so many young men voted for Trump and are moving
away from the Democratic Party, where the younger people used
to all flock to the Democrats. Nobody on the left
knows how to speak to young men, because every five
(11:28):
seconds at a leftist meeting, you have to either do
a land acknowledgment or go around in a circle and
pay homage to the power of queer joy or some crap.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
He actually says, yes, it's briefly.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
I know this because I used to be a socialist,
and this is how all these organizations act. I saw
all this with my own eyes. You have to literally
be self flagellating to be in the left as a
young man these days, and this is probably the understanding
and experience in perspective of ninety percent of young men.
The feeling is that you have to always constantly apologize
for effing existing and just the crime of being born.
(12:01):
And this is why the right is so effective at
hoovering all these people up, because the experience of constant
self flagellation and self criticism is effing exhausting and annoying,
and nobody wants to wake up every day feeling like
they are an s person just for the.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Crime of being born. I like that. Amen to that.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
He also goes on, we have to fix this because
I hate watching young guys fall into the Andrew Tait masculinity,
and then he goes through a couple of examples of that.
Because they got nowhere to turn to, They're going to
these like super over the top extremist weirdos just to
find somebody that's you know, appealing to them and not criticize, Yeah,
not criticizing them for being a man. This is an
(12:44):
existential threat for the Left and even an existential threat
for humanity itself because the end result if we don't
fix these gender warfare dynamics is South Korea style gender
hyper war and a total fertility rate of point four.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
And humanity just gets wiped out.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
That is absolutely I mean, that is absolutely true on
the left, if you're going to continue to make U
males feel bad about even being born.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
You're not gonna win a lot of elections or ever
get that crowd.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
My heart bleeds for the little boys in public schools
or continually treated as if their maleness is a defect.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I know, it's horrorbies.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
It's their energy, They're boundless. Energy is a misbehavior. Oh
I just you want to get me going.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
God, I came across some schoolwork the other day and
my uh, my son is homeschooled. But so much of
the teaching material out there is put out there by
publishing companies that are so left.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
I mean, you really have to work at getting the
right stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
But anyway, this particular thing was all about how women
can be doctors.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
You know, freaking kidding.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
At the point in my life when somebody says the
doctor will see you, I assume it's going to be
a woman.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
I'm surprised if it's a man. So what are you?
What are you talking about?
Speaker 4 (14:05):
You won?
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Wow? That's just again a head scratcher.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
What wow?
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
I thought I would feel differently after the election.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
I thought there would be.
Speaker 4 (14:22):
At the very least fairly widespread recognition of some of
the simple realities of the thing, which is that Kamala
Harris was a weak candidate, always was week candidate. Is
that putting it out before hapes You all rejected her,
as I said, like a rabbit raccoon when she was
in the primary. Was that sexism and racism when you
(14:43):
did that? Well, I haven't know. Okay, Well, then when
the same thing happened the presidential election.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Why is your explanation completely different?
Speaker 3 (14:52):
That is funny that that has never really been put
to anybody. Your party rejected her when she ran before,
not like right winger your own party, like the most
active people.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
In your party.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Primary voters said no to her before she even got
to the first contest. So wow, how is it shocking
that she got rejected by a larger group of people?
Speaker 4 (15:15):
And it's become a so oft observed fact, it's a truism.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
It's working its way toward being a cliche that when.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
Kamala Harris on the View then Colbert was it Colbert
or Kimmel, it doesn't matter. Could not say how she
would be different than the extremely unpopular Biden administration. That
that was one of the most pivotal political moments in
any campaign. I mean, that is so widely discussed right now,
(15:47):
there's no point in bringing it up. Everybody knows it.
But as I was reading the long top tier editorial
writer editorial writers of the Washington Post dialogue about what happened?
How did we get a result that didn't come up?
Speaker 3 (16:07):
I haven't seen any criticism of Kamala Harris as a
candidate from the left at all.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Maybe that's coming.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
I don't know, but I have seen more than I
have ever seen before, and more than I expected of
people saying we have democrats have gone too far down
the road of progressiveness in the culture wars. I have
seen a fair amount of that. Yes, yeah, yeah, your.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Old school liberals are finally finding the courage or the
cover to stand up and say, hey, y'all, all that
stuff is madness.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Which, by the way, is the way you win the
political arguments. That's when you've won. That's a good Other
side of it would be on gay marriage, where you know,
if you're old enough to remember this whole battle and
discussion in America, it got to the point to where
Republicans realized, we got to stop being anti gay marriage.
It's just a losing issue and we just can't be
(17:01):
and you stop talking about it. And hopefully that's gonna
start on the left with the you know, boys playing girls'
sports or all kinds of different things, where they realize
this is we're gonna lose.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
We nobody wants to hear this, or not enough people
want to hear this.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Right right, our academic left wing is just completely wildly
out of touch with Americans.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
That LATINX and her story, Herkstreet and that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Is insane, absolutely insane.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Are Strong the Armstrong and Getty Show. So a couple
of barely related thoughts.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
We're talking about this Bizarro ruling in California where this
male rapist, he's a brutal forcible rapist, he's done it
more than once, is now identifying as a woman, which
is meaningless and stupid, and so the judges insisted the
prosecutor refer to him as she and her through the trial.
(18:11):
Then this person's in a woman's prison is obscene.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
And I was.
Speaker 4 (18:14):
Talking about the how you came underestimate what it does
to you when anybody really but the government forces you
to say something you know not to be true. You
have to submit to them. It breaks your spirit, which
is why I won't do it. And then it's funny.
We I was in a Troe did a trivia night
with Judy and some friends, and I was so bummed
(18:35):
because one of the questions was what is the last
line of nineteen eighty four or Well's classic? And I
couldn't remember. And I was so bummed because I just
read it and I'm so into it. The last line
happens to be he loved Big Brother. It's Winston Smith.
When his spirit was so completely broken, he actually internalized
(18:58):
that he loved Big Brother.
Speaker 5 (18:59):
You know.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
He was fully cognizant of the evil of it.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Yeah, and just driving home the message that if you're
told something enough, you will come to believe it, which
is highly troubling, but it seems to be the way
our minds work.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
And my militants about this topic and some others. You know,
if I run into a transgender person, whatever that means, again,
it's a mental problem, and I hope you find healing
and happiness. I truly do. I'm never going to hurt
anybody's feelings or humiliate them, or try to discriminate against
them in any meaningful way.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
I think that would be terrible and cruel.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
But at the same time, I understand from Orwell and
others what it does to you when you submit to
that sort of ideological oppression. It breaks your spirit, and
I won't do it. Having said that, I just came
across this. Big Brother isn't just watching. He's changing how
your brain works. And this is so interesting. It was
(20:00):
a study done by an Australian research group at a
couple of different colleges in Australia, and the methodology is
a little long and difficult to explain, but what they
found was if these people subjects of the experiment were
aware that they were being watched, and they showed them
(20:22):
these are the closed circuit cameras. We're making sure that
everything's on the up and up, and we want to
observe so we can look at it later. And in fact,
here's the control room, here the TV monitors that we'll
be using, and blah blah blah. Then they did tests
on awareness of and sensitivity to various stimuli, including faces.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Cutting to the end. I know this is utterly unclear,
Cutting to the end.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
What they found was when people were aware of being watched,
they were hyper sensitive to images of faces.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
They became cautious and.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Odes on edge, and I would describe it as borderline afraid.
They became hyper aware of, oh my god, who's watching
me and why? In other words, it changes your psyche
to know you're being surveiled in ways that we're just
beginning to understand.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
I can feel that, I feel that if I become
aware there's a camera in you know, you're a lobby
of something.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
You just look around, you see a camera. It makes it.
You can feel that something changes.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
Yeah, yeah, And again it's not known exactly how much
and in what way, which worries me. I've heard it
said that a surveiled society is a an obedient society,
a polite society.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Well, we might as well figure out how it affects us,
because it's here, a lot of places, in coming other places.
We will all be surveiled all the time, soon everywhere,
and it's getting closer every day.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
If our purpose is to make ourselves insane as a society,
we're doing very very well. Sure, I congratulate us home
completely different topic. I thought this was great. Alan Dershowitz
and Andrew Stein wrote this piece what Trump can do
about sanctuary cities, because Trump is vowed to do plenty
about it. Also bring sanity back to colleges, in elementary schools,
(22:19):
to the Department of Education, and stuff like that. And
I love the ideas, but sometimes the mechanics are a
little mysterious. What levers does he have exactly? And Dershowitz
and what I say the guy's name is. Stein wrote
that a constitutional showdown is looming over the border policies.
We've all heard Tom Holman saying, we're going to deport
(22:40):
these people. We're gonna round them up. You can either
help or not. I liked what Holman said too. He said,
all right, if you're not gonna support us, you're not
going to cooperate with us, We're gonna put two three times.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
As many ICE agents in your city. That's fine, We'll
get it done.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
Denver Mike Johnston has said he'd be willing to go
to jail to prevent deportations.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
All right, put him there. What a hell to die
on again?
Speaker 3 (23:04):
I just say, you're gonna go to jail to protect
criminals who've committed crime, because that's where we're starting with.
People are committing crimes in the United States and are
here illegally. You're gonna go to jail to make sure
that they don't get deported.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
You're nuts, you know.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
I wish you could somehow get to what is going
on in a guy like that's head. I mean, my
guess is that he has a desire to be accepted
and to be seen as enlightened and progressive and merciful,
and that desire is so strong in him. It's like,
you know, being a horny seventeen year old male or
(23:40):
being starving, starving, hungary. It just so perverts his sense
of priorities. I don't get that at all.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Newpole out today similar numbers to what we've had before.
Two thirds of Americans want all illegals deported. That's never
gonna happen. But the ones that have committed crimes in
the United States are gonna get deported. So the percentage
on that's got to be like ninety percent, and you're
going to be You're going to die on that ill
you nutjobs. I really think they are. Again, it's very strange.
(24:12):
I mean, even if we just deported the twenty percent
who are the most derelict, lazy, useless, and or criminal,
that'd be an enormous victory, just a fabulus. Well, there
are six hundred thousand criminals here illegally right now at
least sure.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Anyway, how will this all be resolved by the courts?
They write?
Speaker 4 (24:32):
Article six of the Constitution mandates that federal law quote
shall be the supreme law of land, notwithstanding the laws
of any state. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states
all powers quote not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it by it.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
To the states. Oh right, that is work correct.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
The constitutional question is whether the authority to regulate immigration,
including the power to deport illegal aliens, is a power
delegated to the federal government, And they write a, of
course it is. Border crossers can travel from state to
state unhindered, So entry anywhere in the US is entry everywhere.
Thus the federal government alone has the authority to control
the right to enter and remain, as it does the
(25:12):
power to exclude, deport, and prosecute those who violate immigration laws.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Now, to me, the only question.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
I'm not an expert in all this law stuff, but
to me, the only question has been how did it
go this long? Where a county, a city, of state
can declare themselves sanctuary.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
That's nuts.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
Well, here's the rub, they write, the Constitution does not
prohibit states from providing food, healthcare, housing, driving privileges, and
other necessities to everyone within its borders, nor does it
compel the states to employ resources to aid the federal government.
The Supreme Court has articulated an anti commandeering doctrine that
prohibits the Feds from quote conscripting the state's officers directly
(25:50):
to enforce federal law, and they write about how the
doctrine's been revised over the years, and there's no real
clear guidance on how it would press ically apply to
sanctuary cities. Much would depend on these specific state action
at issue, Bob about the President's established when some Southern
state officials try to prevent the enforcement of federal court's
(26:13):
desegregation orders. Strongly suggest that states and cities may not
actively block legitimate enforcement of federal law, but.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
They don't have to help, right is that make them help?
Speaker 4 (26:24):
In Between these extremes are a variety of state actions
and refusal to act.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Give some examples.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
I can see legally how that's the thing. And I
guess if you live in a nut job place like
San Diego County just voided body the other day, where
your constituents, a majority of your constituents say, yeah, don't
help the federal government deport people are committing crimes in
our county and here legally, if a majority agrees with that, okay,
(26:51):
I can't believe there are very many places where that's
the case, including like you saw the city council meeting
in Chicago. People are horrified they're spending so much money
on illegals. I find it hard to believe that the
majority of people would be okay with keeping criminals there
who are there illegally.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
I know, it's a bizarre notion. I can't believe anybody
believes it. But so these guys, who are pretty solid
legal scholars just think, all right, we're not doing nothing
they can get away with. But even a whiff of
opposition or impediment would be actionable, and the federal government,
could you take measures? What measures I might be, I
(27:29):
don't know. It's still it's obscene to me that you would.
And look, I am fully acquainted with the argument that
if the immigrant community fears any interaction with the government
will lead them to be deported, they won't report a rape,
they won't report when these Venezuelan monsters kidnap them and
(27:50):
torture them and take over their apartment. They'll be afraid
to talk to any authorities. We can't have that. I
get that, and I actually respect it on one level.
But the idea that you have have a violent criminal
that you're going to put out on the streets and
you're fully aware they've got a detainer, a detainment order
from the ICE, and you, well, we're not going to
(28:12):
help them. We're going to release that rapist or that
arm drobber or whatever onto the streets because we don't
believe there's such thing as an illegal human. You are
just you're incapable of operating in the adult world. You
shouldn't You shouldn't even be like you should have a caretaker.
You certainly shouldn't be running anything.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
I'm strong and get the reality is this is fabulous.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
I thank you. That's enough of that. This is crazy,
That's what it is. Yeah, but damn it, we weren't
allowed to ask about the big guys. This is the
United States of America. Let's not play James.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
This is the Armstrong and Getty Show, the arm Strong
and Getty Show.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
This is interesting and not terribly shocking. Well, I guess
when you get down to the 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.
(29:14):
Wall 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
(29:38):
for significant income.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
That's more than twenty five percent.
Speaker 4 (29:41):
Twenty five percent or more in fewer than one percent
of America's counties.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
So say that again, in what year?
Speaker 4 (29:47):
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. The year two ten percent.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Which a tenfold increase is not minor.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
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 aid.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
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
(30:38):
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 all lot.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
And as we've discussed with Craig the healthcare Guru, socialism
is not a light switch. It's a fungus oh that
spreads across a country, and it's programmed benefits and yeah, yeah, sure.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
It starts getting across there's just no stopping it. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
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 not having kids anymore. And healthcare raw sorry,
healthcare costs have risen fairly dramatically as they've gotten more fantastic.
(31:46):
The technology we have at our disposal to keep ourselves
healthy and alive is truly awe inspiring, but it costs.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
Yeah, and as my doctor said last week, What exactly
is the point? Sometimes he wonders, 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 4 (32:07):
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 because it's every advance
is an incremental step. It can lead toward other advances
(32:28):
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 for cancer with this new gene therapy.
Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
What are we doing here? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Anyway to get back to the major thread 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, any 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
(33:09):
in such places. I you know, I could 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
(33:31):
conservatives versus what's being called the new conservatism or whatever you.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
Want to call it. And everybody's always government conservatism. Some
people call it, yeah, industrial.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
Planning, you know.
Speaker 4 (33:46):
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.
They're not at all. 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.
(34:09):
At the same time, oh oh, and the other point
I was going to make on the side of the new.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
Conservatives.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
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, your pitching continued interaction slash dependence with China,
(34:40):
which is just a bad idea. Times have changed, the
arguments have to change too, So I have sympathy with
both sides, but it is not simple. So for its
analysis of government spending, EIG, which is the folks doing
the analysis, used the government definition of income that includes
spending on programs that American pay into, such as Medicare
(35:01):
and Social Security. Another major government health program, Medicaid, is counted.
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 helped pay for some of
these programs, like Medicaid, but the federal government covers roughly
seven seventy percent of the cost, and it doesn't include
(35:23):
other ways government spending floods into corners of America, 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 3 (35:44):
There's no weaning off that either. I don't believe in
no backwards. I don't think it's possible.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
No, but you do have to be honest about the
dollars and cents coming and going, and we're headed for
a cliff.
Speaker 3 (35:53):
So we went from one percent nineteen seventy to over
half now correct.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
That's unbelievab.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Not very many people could tell you that Armstrong and
Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, Armstrong and.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Jetty and Pee arms Wrong, get Strong.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Not live from Studio c Armstrong and Geddy. We're off.
We're taking a break. Come on, you get a break,
We get a break. We'll be back live for twenty five.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Enjoy this carefully curated Armstrong and Getty replay.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
And as long as we're.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Off, perhaps you'd like to catch up on podcasts. Subscribe
to Armstrong and Getty on demand or one more thing
we think you'll enjoy it.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Sir, outrage on Capitol Hill after eight suspected terrorists from
Tajika State and we're arrested in the United States, the
men who investigators believe have ties to ISIS crossed illegally
at the US Southern border. House Majority Leader Steve Scaliz
blaming President Joe Biden's policies.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
How many more terrorists are in our country because Joe
Biden opened up the southern.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Border and Chinese intelligence agents.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
More on that in just a second, But this hour
is going to be exciting. So Hunter's Stripper Baby Mama
has a book coming out. Joe Getty has excerpts from
the book That's exciting.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Oh shocking excerpts.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Jack, We will bear all when it comes to the
sordid life of Hunter Biden. I want to talk about
the insanity that luckily is making national news the subway
in New York where they announced anybody who's a Zionist
needs to get off the train now, and people chanting,
(01:55):
what the hell is going on? Did you say ber
Lin in nineteen thirty six?
Speaker 5 (02:01):
Now?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
It's crazy?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
AnyWho this story should be getting more intention Eight dudes
with ties to isis arrested. Who would it would be
actually better in a way if they had snuck across
the border without encountering anybody. The fact that they did
encounter border patrol and.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Went through the process we currently have.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
In place and still got into the country because they
barely do anything when they encounter you. I mean, what
is the They call it a vetting process.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
What is the vetting process?
Speaker 4 (02:39):
It's utterly insufficient, obviously, and so I think this is
a useful screw up. It's so ugly and clearly unacceptable.
It illustrates the fact that the border is so overwhelmed.
The folks at the border are so overwhelmed. Any quote
unquote vetting they're doing is is almost hilariously inadequate. We
(03:00):
need serious change right now.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
I heard.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
I know if the vast majority of Americans agree with
us as well on that.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
One of your terrorist experts was on some cable channel
the other day talking about the terrorist attack we've mostly
forgotten that happened in uh, outside of Moscow at that concert.
Remember watching the footage of that. They just ran through
the building shooting people. Yeah, somebody could put something like
that together in the United States.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Hope those were Tajiks too, weren't they. I did that allegedly.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
I don't remember where they were from, but they did
have the whole isis ties thing. And uh, hopefully it'd
be hard to get your hands on weapons, but I
don't know.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
That it would be. Oh in the US.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
No, you just go down to some you know, degenerate
blue city and wave some cash in front of gang
members and you'll have all the guns you want.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Let's go a little more reporting on this before we talk. Uh,
just more from that Fox report Michael.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Sources say a majority of these suspected terrorists were found
in New York, where a democratic councilman says he's worried
there could be another attack in the Big Apple.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
It's frightening and we're headed for another nine to eleven.
I predicted that. I think we should have a secure border.
We should know who's coming into our country. We don't notable.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
That's a democratic councilman. I think the problem has become
so enormous and so unmistakable.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I mean, again, look at the poll numbers.
Speaker 4 (04:31):
I'm not surprised to hear Democrats speaking out a little
more forcefully because they hear their constituents howling for something
to be done.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
I guess this happens. I was just thinking, there's been
some examples in my life. I guess where there's a
problem clearly coming and you know it, but you just
don't want to deal with it now, or it seems
too hard or something, and then it happens, and then
you're like, yeah, probably dealt with that earlier.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
This is an extreme example of that.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
I mean, yeah, obviously you can't just let hundreds of
thousands of random men from the Middle East to come
across your border or China or wherever.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Right, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
And it's become so well known around the world that
anybody you want in the US just send them to
the Mexican border and say, yeah, yeah, they're killing everybody
in my village.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Yeah yeah, I need asylum.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
And whoever whatever agent you want gets into the United
States and back in the homeland, they're probably the various
you know, war lords and ISIS leaders and Chinese intelligence
chiefs are probably saying, wait.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
A minute, no, it can't be that easy. Stop it.
Speaker 4 (05:43):
No country behaves like that. You have to convince. Oh yeah,
the US just letting in anybody who wants to come in.
It's really shocking. Yes, how about some mainstream media coverage
of it. This is NBC, which focuses on, you know,
maybe things have changed, that whole executive order that Joe
Biden put through a week or so ago.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Maybe you know, they've closed the barn door. Finally, let's
see new evidence.
Speaker 5 (06:07):
Migrants who cross the border illegally are still being released
into the US by border agents. A senior DHS official
tells NBC News those releases have dropped by more than half,
but are still happening because agents don't have enough space
to detain the large numbers of arriving migrants. An internal
mimic to Border patrol agents in San Diego, directs agents
(06:27):
there to release migrants into the United States. Overall illegal
border crossings under the new policy are still high, but
have dropped from four thousand to three thousand per day.
The record nearly ten million migrants entering the US since
he took office.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
But the Border Patrol Union says the president's new action
is not tough enough.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
That's NBC News, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
The idea that you could come apply to be somewhere
and you get to stay there as your probably phony
application is being assessed or the course of years and years.
This is very odd practice, like showing up to buy
somebody's house and saying saying, by the way, I'm living
here now. Well, you decide on my offer, I get
to live here, and if you throw me out, you're
the bad guy.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
It's just well again, it's insane.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Remember we had the polling like a week ago that
a majority of Americans now favor a wall.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
Yeah, and the majority of Americans, including independence and a
substantial chunk was that forty percent of Democrats are in
favor of deporting.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
All illegal aliens.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
It is overwhelmingly popular which if you just if you
want to say, if we took calls, Jay, I'm starting
to get you. You know, I think Joe Biden is just
a He doesn't lead at all. He's just a prostitute
to whatever is his voters want him to do. He
just he has no principles, He's just Yeah. But his
voters want him to kick all these people out of
the country and secure the border.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
What are they doing?
Speaker 4 (07:52):
Well?
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Yeah, The wording from that CBS poll was, would you
be in favor of deporting all undocumented immigrant?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Which was has.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Never been on the table, will never be on the table,
It would be undoable even if they passed it. And
yet nearly two thirds of Americans said, yeah, I'd be
all for that. How do you not read that in
the White House and think, oh, we are so far
to the left of America on this no wonder. We're
losing by thirty to fifty points depending on the question
(08:25):
on this.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Issue, and yet they're tied. Yet overall they're tied.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Right, Oh, that's discouraging. I hate to end on a
discouraging note. You know, here's a tangent in the mood
for a tangent. I was thinking about this, and it's
this may be a poor example now because of what
I was just saying about the overwhelming support among Americans
for closing the border and having seen immigration policies, But
like in the early days of the Biden administration, when
(08:52):
just undoing anything Trump did seemed like the right thing
to do, I don't.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
What am I driving at. I think.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
There's way too much representation and too little leadership in
a lot of government. In other words, just fulfilling the
whims of this constituency or that constituency, whether it's a
good idea or not, in a way that you wouldn't
have done in the old days because you wouldn't have
(09:23):
known about those temporary whims of a constituency. Because communication
is so fast and easy now, you can have you know,
sixty jackasses in your district mad about a good policy
because they don't understand it, and you'd be completely swayed
by that as a congress person. And I'm looking to
(09:44):
our own industry and you see it reflected in various
websites and news channels and stuff like that. They have
the ability now to track second by second when people
tune in, when they tune out what you're doing doing
when they tune out what you're doing, when they're staying tuned.
It's in Radio two, but we ignore it for various reasons.
(10:10):
But you become this like you're being jerked on a chain,
serving the momentary whims of the audience in a way
that seems like good business at first, but then it's
to me, it's like shoveling in sugar. That first bite
sounds great, tastes great and all, but you just keep
shoveling it in until you're sick.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
It's a it's how do I explain this?
Speaker 4 (10:32):
Being in Congress has always been a balance between being
a leader and being a representative. And if your constituents
want something loathsome, stupid and unconstitutional, that's when you got
to be a leader. And I just I think we've
got too much representative and not enough leader in our politics.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
I think that's pretty clear.
Speaker 5 (10:50):
The Armstrong and Getty Show, Rhoe podcasts and Our Hot
Lakes and.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
The Armstrong Congetti Show.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
This is from a guy I don't know, journalist in Australia,
A dude. Nobody on the left knows how to speak
to young men because every five seconds this has why
so many young men voted for Trump and are moving
away from the Democratic Party, where the younger people used
to all flock to the Democrats. Nobody on the left
knows how to speak to young men, because every five
(11:28):
seconds at a leftist meeting, you have to either do
a land acknowledgment or go around in a circle and
pay homage to the power of queer joy or some crap.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
He actually says, yes, it's briefly.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
I know this because I used to be a socialist,
and this is how all these organizations act. I saw
all this with my own eyes. You have to literally
be self flagellating to be in the left as a
young man these days, and this is probably the understanding
and experience in perspective of ninety percent of young men.
The feeling is that you have to always constantly apologize
for effing existing and just the crime of being born.
(12:01):
And this is why the right is so effective at
hoovering all these people up, because the experience of constant
self flagellation and self criticism is effing exhausting and annoying,
and nobody wants to wake up every day feeling like
they are an s person just for the.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Crime of being born. I like that. Amen to that.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
He also goes on, we have to fix this because
I hate watching young guys fall into the Andrew Tait masculinity,
and then he goes through a couple of examples of that.
Because they got nowhere to turn to, They're going to
these like super over the top extremist weirdos just to
find somebody that's you know, appealing to them and not criticize, Yeah,
not criticizing them for being a man. This is an
(12:44):
existential threat for the Left and even an existential threat
for humanity itself because the end result if we don't
fix these gender warfare dynamics is South Korea style gender
hyper war and a total fertility rate of point four.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
And humanity just gets wiped out.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
That is absolutely I mean, that is absolutely true on
the left, if you're going to continue to make U
males feel bad about even being born.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
You're not gonna win a lot of elections or ever
get that crowd.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
My heart bleeds for the little boys in public schools
or continually treated as if their maleness is a defect.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I know, it's horrorbies.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
It's their energy, They're boundless. Energy is a misbehavior. Oh
I just you want to get me going.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
God, I came across some schoolwork the other day and
my uh, my son is homeschooled. But so much of
the teaching material out there is put out there by
publishing companies that are so left.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
I mean, you really have to work at getting the
right stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
But anyway, this particular thing was all about how women
can be doctors.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
You know, freaking kidding.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
At the point in my life when somebody says the
doctor will see you, I assume it's going to be
a woman.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
I'm surprised if it's a man. So what are you?
What are you talking about?
Speaker 4 (14:05):
You won?
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Wow? That's just again a head scratcher.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
What wow?
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
I thought I would feel differently after the election.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
I thought there would be.
Speaker 4 (14:22):
At the very least fairly widespread recognition of some of
the simple realities of the thing, which is that Kamala
Harris was a weak candidate, always was week candidate. Is
that putting it out before hapes You all rejected her,
as I said, like a rabbit raccoon when she was
in the primary. Was that sexism and racism when you
(14:43):
did that? Well, I haven't know. Okay, Well, then when
the same thing happened the presidential election.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Why is your explanation completely different?
Speaker 3 (14:52):
That is funny that that has never really been put
to anybody. Your party rejected her when she ran before,
not like right winger your own party, like the most
active people.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
In your party.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Primary voters said no to her before she even got
to the first contest. So wow, how is it shocking
that she got rejected by a larger group of people?
Speaker 4 (15:15):
And it's become a so oft observed fact, it's a truism.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
It's working its way toward being a cliche that when.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
Kamala Harris on the View then Colbert was it Colbert
or Kimmel, it doesn't matter. Could not say how she
would be different than the extremely unpopular Biden administration. That
that was one of the most pivotal political moments in
any campaign. I mean, that is so widely discussed right now,
(15:47):
there's no point in bringing it up. Everybody knows it.
But as I was reading the long top tier editorial
writer editorial writers of the Washington Post dialogue about what happened?
How did we get a result that didn't come up?
Speaker 3 (16:07):
I haven't seen any criticism of Kamala Harris as a
candidate from the left at all.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Maybe that's coming.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
I don't know, but I have seen more than I
have ever seen before, and more than I expected of
people saying we have democrats have gone too far down
the road of progressiveness in the culture wars. I have
seen a fair amount of that. Yes, yeah, yeah, your.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Old school liberals are finally finding the courage or the
cover to stand up and say, hey, y'all, all that
stuff is madness.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Which, by the way, is the way you win the
political arguments. That's when you've won. That's a good Other
side of it would be on gay marriage, where you know,
if you're old enough to remember this whole battle and
discussion in America, it got to the point to where
Republicans realized, we got to stop being anti gay marriage.
It's just a losing issue and we just can't be
(17:01):
and you stop talking about it. And hopefully that's gonna
start on the left with the you know, boys playing girls'
sports or all kinds of different things, where they realize
this is we're gonna lose.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
We nobody wants to hear this, or not enough people
want to hear this.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Right right, our academic left wing is just completely wildly
out of touch with Americans.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
That LATINX and her story, Herkstreet and that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Is insane, absolutely insane.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Are Strong the Armstrong and Getty Show. So a couple
of barely related thoughts.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
We're talking about this Bizarro ruling in California where this
male rapist, he's a brutal forcible rapist, he's done it
more than once, is now identifying as a woman, which
is meaningless and stupid, and so the judges insisted the
prosecutor refer to him as she and her through the trial.
(18:11):
Then this person's in a woman's prison is obscene.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
And I was.
Speaker 4 (18:14):
Talking about the how you came underestimate what it does
to you when anybody really but the government forces you
to say something you know not to be true. You
have to submit to them. It breaks your spirit, which
is why I won't do it. And then it's funny.
We I was in a Troe did a trivia night
with Judy and some friends, and I was so bummed
(18:35):
because one of the questions was what is the last
line of nineteen eighty four or Well's classic? And I
couldn't remember. And I was so bummed because I just
read it and I'm so into it. The last line
happens to be he loved Big Brother. It's Winston Smith.
When his spirit was so completely broken, he actually internalized
(18:58):
that he loved Big Brother.
Speaker 5 (18:59):
You know.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
He was fully cognizant of the evil of it.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Yeah, and just driving home the message that if you're
told something enough, you will come to believe it, which
is highly troubling, but it seems to be the way
our minds work.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
And my militants about this topic and some others. You know,
if I run into a transgender person, whatever that means, again,
it's a mental problem, and I hope you find healing
and happiness. I truly do. I'm never going to hurt
anybody's feelings or humiliate them, or try to discriminate against
them in any meaningful way.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
I think that would be terrible and cruel.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
But at the same time, I understand from Orwell and
others what it does to you when you submit to
that sort of ideological oppression. It breaks your spirit, and
I won't do it. Having said that, I just came
across this. Big Brother isn't just watching. He's changing how
your brain works. And this is so interesting. It was
(20:00):
a study done by an Australian research group at a
couple of different colleges in Australia, and the methodology is
a little long and difficult to explain, but what they
found was if these people subjects of the experiment were
aware that they were being watched, and they showed them
(20:22):
these are the closed circuit cameras. We're making sure that
everything's on the up and up, and we want to
observe so we can look at it later. And in fact,
here's the control room, here the TV monitors that we'll
be using, and blah blah blah. Then they did tests
on awareness of and sensitivity to various stimuli, including faces.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Cutting to the end. I know this is utterly unclear,
Cutting to the end.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
What they found was when people were aware of being watched,
they were hyper sensitive to images of faces.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
They became cautious and.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Odes on edge, and I would describe it as borderline afraid.
They became hyper aware of, oh my god, who's watching
me and why? In other words, it changes your psyche
to know you're being surveiled in ways that we're just
beginning to understand.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
I can feel that, I feel that if I become
aware there's a camera in you know, you're a lobby
of something.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
You just look around, you see a camera. It makes it.
You can feel that something changes.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
Yeah, yeah, And again it's not known exactly how much
and in what way, which worries me. I've heard it
said that a surveiled society is a an obedient society,
a polite society.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Well, we might as well figure out how it affects us,
because it's here, a lot of places, in coming other places.
We will all be surveiled all the time, soon everywhere,
and it's getting closer every day.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
If our purpose is to make ourselves insane as a society,
we're doing very very well. Sure, I congratulate us home
completely different topic. I thought this was great. Alan Dershowitz
and Andrew Stein wrote this piece what Trump can do
about sanctuary cities, because Trump is vowed to do plenty
about it. Also bring sanity back to colleges, in elementary schools,
(22:19):
to the Department of Education, and stuff like that. And
I love the ideas, but sometimes the mechanics are a
little mysterious. What levers does he have exactly? And Dershowitz
and what I say the guy's name is. Stein wrote
that a constitutional showdown is looming over the border policies.
We've all heard Tom Holman saying, we're going to deport
(22:40):
these people. We're gonna round them up. You can either
help or not. I liked what Holman said too. He said,
all right, if you're not gonna support us, you're not
going to cooperate with us, We're gonna put two three times.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
As many ICE agents in your city. That's fine, We'll
get it done.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
Denver Mike Johnston has said he'd be willing to go
to jail to prevent deportations.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
All right, put him there. What a hell to die
on again?
Speaker 3 (23:04):
I just say, you're gonna go to jail to protect
criminals who've committed crime, because that's where we're starting with.
People are committing crimes in the United States and are
here illegally. You're gonna go to jail to make sure
that they don't get deported.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
You're nuts, you know.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
I wish you could somehow get to what is going
on in a guy like that's head. I mean, my
guess is that he has a desire to be accepted
and to be seen as enlightened and progressive and merciful,
and that desire is so strong in him. It's like,
you know, being a horny seventeen year old male or
(23:40):
being starving, starving, hungary. It just so perverts his sense
of priorities. I don't get that at all.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Newpole out today similar numbers to what we've had before.
Two thirds of Americans want all illegals deported. That's never
gonna happen. But the ones that have committed crimes in
the United States are gonna get deported. So the percentage
on that's got to be like ninety percent, and you're
going to be You're going to die on that ill
you nutjobs. I really think they are. Again, it's very strange.
(24:12):
I mean, even if we just deported the twenty percent
who are the most derelict, lazy, useless, and or criminal,
that'd be an enormous victory, just a fabulus. Well, there
are six hundred thousand criminals here illegally right now at
least sure.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Anyway, how will this all be resolved by the courts?
They write?
Speaker 4 (24:32):
Article six of the Constitution mandates that federal law quote
shall be the supreme law of land, notwithstanding the laws
of any state. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states
all powers quote not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it by it.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
To the states. Oh right, that is work correct.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
The constitutional question is whether the authority to regulate immigration,
including the power to deport illegal aliens, is a power
delegated to the federal government, And they write a, of
course it is. Border crossers can travel from state to
state unhindered, So entry anywhere in the US is entry everywhere.
Thus the federal government alone has the authority to control
the right to enter and remain, as it does the
(25:12):
power to exclude, deport, and prosecute those who violate immigration laws.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Now, to me, the only question.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
I'm not an expert in all this law stuff, but
to me, the only question has been how did it
go this long? Where a county, a city, of state
can declare themselves sanctuary.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
That's nuts.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
Well, here's the rub, they write, the Constitution does not
prohibit states from providing food, healthcare, housing, driving privileges, and
other necessities to everyone within its borders, nor does it
compel the states to employ resources to aid the federal government.
The Supreme Court has articulated an anti commandeering doctrine that
prohibits the Feds from quote conscripting the state's officers directly
(25:50):
to enforce federal law, and they write about how the
doctrine's been revised over the years, and there's no real
clear guidance on how it would press ically apply to
sanctuary cities. Much would depend on these specific state action
at issue, Bob about the President's established when some Southern
state officials try to prevent the enforcement of federal court's
(26:13):
desegregation orders. Strongly suggest that states and cities may not
actively block legitimate enforcement of federal law, but.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
They don't have to help, right is that make them help?
Speaker 4 (26:24):
In Between these extremes are a variety of state actions
and refusal to act.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Give some examples.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
I can see legally how that's the thing. And I
guess if you live in a nut job place like
San Diego County just voided body the other day, where
your constituents, a majority of your constituents say, yeah, don't
help the federal government deport people are committing crimes in
our county and here legally, if a majority agrees with that, okay,
(26:51):
I can't believe there are very many places where that's
the case, including like you saw the city council meeting
in Chicago. People are horrified they're spending so much money
on illegals. I find it hard to believe that the
majority of people would be okay with keeping criminals there
who are there illegally.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
I know, it's a bizarre notion. I can't believe anybody
believes it. But so these guys, who are pretty solid
legal scholars just think, all right, we're not doing nothing
they can get away with. But even a whiff of
opposition or impediment would be actionable, and the federal government,
could you take measures? What measures I might be, I
(27:29):
don't know. It's still it's obscene to me that you would.
And look, I am fully acquainted with the argument that
if the immigrant community fears any interaction with the government
will lead them to be deported, they won't report a rape,
they won't report when these Venezuelan monsters kidnap them and
(27:50):
torture them and take over their apartment. They'll be afraid
to talk to any authorities. We can't have that. I
get that, and I actually respect it on one level.
But the idea that you have have a violent criminal
that you're going to put out on the streets and
you're fully aware they've got a detainer, a detainment order
from the ICE, and you, well, we're not going to
(28:12):
help them. We're going to release that rapist or that
arm drobber or whatever onto the streets because we don't
believe there's such thing as an illegal human. You are
just you're incapable of operating in the adult world. You
shouldn't You shouldn't even be like you should have a caretaker.
You certainly shouldn't be running anything.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
I'm strong and get the reality is this is fabulous.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
I thank you. That's enough of that. This is crazy,
That's what it is. Yeah, but damn it, we weren't
allowed to ask about the big guys. This is the
United States of America. Let's not play James.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
This is the Armstrong and Getty Show, the arm Strong
and Getty Show.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
This is interesting and not terribly shocking. Well, I guess
when you get down to the 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.
(29:14):
Wall 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
(29:38):
for significant income.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
That's more than twenty five percent.
Speaker 4 (29:41):
Twenty five percent or more in fewer than one percent
of America's counties.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
So say that again, in what year?
Speaker 4 (29:47):
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. The year two ten percent.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Which a tenfold increase is not minor.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
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 aid.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
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
(30:38):
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 all lot.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
And as we've discussed with Craig the healthcare Guru, socialism
is not a light switch. It's a fungus oh that
spreads across a country, and it's programmed benefits and yeah, yeah, sure.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
It starts getting across there's just no stopping it. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
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 not having kids anymore. And healthcare raw sorry,
healthcare costs have risen fairly dramatically as they've gotten more fantastic.
(31:46):
The technology we have at our disposal to keep ourselves
healthy and alive is truly awe inspiring, but it costs.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
Yeah, and as my doctor said last week, What exactly
is the point? Sometimes he wonders, 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 4 (32:07):
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 because it's every advance
is an incremental step. It can lead toward other advances
(32:28):
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 for cancer with this new gene therapy.
Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
What are we doing here? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Anyway to get back to the major thread 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, any 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
(33:09):
in such places. I you know, I could 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
(33:31):
conservatives versus what's being called the new conservatism or whatever you.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
Want to call it. And everybody's always government conservatism. Some
people call it, yeah, industrial.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
Planning, you know.
Speaker 4 (33:46):
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.
They're not at all. 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.
(34:09):
At the same time, oh oh, and the other point
I was going to make on the side of the new.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
Conservatives.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
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, your pitching continued interaction slash dependence with China,
(34:40):
which is just a bad idea. Times have changed, the
arguments have to change too, So I have sympathy with
both sides, but it is not simple. So for its
analysis of government spending, EIG, which is the folks doing
the analysis, used the government definition of income that includes
spending on programs that American pay into, such as Medicare
(35:01):
and Social Security. Another major government health program, Medicaid, is counted.
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 helped pay for some of
these programs, like Medicaid, but the federal government covers roughly
seven seventy percent of the cost, and it doesn't include
(35:23):
other ways government spending floods into corners of America, 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 3 (35:44):
There's no weaning off that either. I don't believe in
no backwards. I don't think it's possible.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
No, but you do have to be honest about the
dollars and cents coming and going, and we're headed for
a cliff.
Speaker 3 (35:53):
So we went from one percent nineteen seventy to over
half now correct.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
That's unbelievab.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Not very many people could tell you that Armstrong and
Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.