February 26, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 4 of A&G features...
- The Fyre Festival part 2 & questions from doctors
- Parents rights in schools
- CA self defense bill
- Final Thoughts!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty arm Strong and.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Get Katie and he Armstrong and Getty. Guys.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Eight years after the epic concert disaster that was Firefest,
tickets just went on sale for fire Fest two. Yeah,
tickets are now on sale.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
And some costs up to one million dollars.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Even the people who invested in Huck toua crypto, think
this is bad idea.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Oh so you got you got wide eyed there, Katie
over the announcement of this.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Why is it?
Speaker 5 (00:50):
I cannot believe they're going to try to do this again.
This was This was the most catastrophic, expensive, celebri already
covered event on planet Earth. This is the one where
all the celebrities showed up and there were tents and
they got like bologney sandwiches that looked like they were
from a prison.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
And everybody lost their ass on it. Everybody lost huge
amounts of money. This guy was jailed, wasn't he. Yeah,
he edited it up. He was prosecuted. He gets out
and says time for fire Fast too.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Yeah, it was this guy.
Speaker 5 (01:25):
McFarlane and jaw Rule the rapper was behind it, and uh,
there's a great documentary.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
I think it's on Netflix. They yeah, i've seen parts
of that before.
Speaker 5 (01:35):
Oh I cannot this is going to be so fun
to watch.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Was it an on purpose scam? That's what I never
nailed down because I didn't follow it Clossey. Was it
an on purpose scam or it was just he just
went poorly? Just what?
Speaker 5 (01:46):
I don't think so, because there were legitimate acts that
signed up to be a part of the festival that
once they started to see it go to all hell,
they were like, okay, we're out, We're done.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
It reminds me of Woodstock two, speaking of really interesting documentaries.
It was just a fuster clock and just a disaster. Financially,
it's the same deal.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I'm looking at the website right now.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Your general access tickets fourteen hundred dollars and VIP's twenty
five grand.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well this is this is.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Whoa. Yeah, when the money gets that big, you gotta
be concerned that once they get the money, they don't
care how happy you are with.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
The with the result. Is it even happens, This is hysterical.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
Oh yeah, if it happens, I cannot wait to see
how this mean, because once.
Speaker 4 (02:38):
They got your twenty five grand, they can say, oh,
you don't like Bloney SAMs, Just sorry, I thought you'd
like them.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
I mean, last time it was so bad, to the
point where the initial location that they had planned to
have the festival, they sold so many tickets and stuff
that the people were like, we can't handle this, so
last minute they moved the local.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
I mean, everything was a mess.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Well, and again, Jack, you're presuming a festival will take place.
I'm picturing my fourteen hundred dollars, or if i'm you know,
a VIP twenty five thousand dollars going away and never
coming back again.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I can't believe they're doing this again.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
You know what a lot of VIP is often just
because I had this experience at the Eagles concert at
the Sphere, which I didn't buy VIP tickets, but when
we got to the wherever we're going in and they
found out I mentioned to the person there that was
my son's first concert of his life, and they were
(03:33):
so excited about that, and they gave us the VIP
stuff and the VIP treatment and everything like that. Or
we're gonna make you a VIP or whatever. It's Basically
you get a lanyard that says VIP that's more or
less the sum total of it, and a poster and
a bag. You know, tote bags which ben if the
Earth ever crumbles under the weight of something, it's going
(03:55):
to be tote bags.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
They just they're They're everywhere, They're all the place. Anything
you go to, they've got a tote bag for you.
How much toting do you do? I actually I've paid
for a couple.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
That were very very cool or a VIP experience, but
it varies by the band obviously.
Speaker 5 (04:17):
Yes, I'm looking at the press release for this on Instagram.
Victims of the first one go free another one I know,
a safer way to enjoy music.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
But thanks, this is not going to go well.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
We'll keep our eye on this, all right, And so
ends our discussion of the probably non existent ripoff music festival. Jack,
do you want to get into the aforementioned topic?
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Right? So this is this gets pretty interesting. I know
where I know emotionally where I am on this.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
I don't know if I can back it up intellectually
as well as I can emotionally. My point of view
and most of the textures wholeheartedly agree with me, although
that might just be the tendency to you know, you
listen to this show, you tend to think like we
think or whatever.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Well, yeah, I hate to jump to my analysis, you know,
before the end. But I think that tension that you're
talking about is what the evil doers, and I hope
that term isn't too judgmental.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
I think that.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Tension is what the evil doers are trying to exploit
to get you to shut up and take what they're
dishing out, because they make a very reasonable sounding argument
for intrusions into families that are indefensible.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
But so, I've had two kids get physicals.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
You get them at around age thirteen, and they ask
you the front office help asks questions, and then it
goes to the next person and then and finally your doctor.
I mention that because that factors into some of the
responses we got. I don't like the questions. I don't
understand really ninety percent of the questions why they're even
asked to me. A physical is or Mike's son physical
(06:02):
is you know, way them check their reflexes whatever, tell
them if they need to lose weight, or if their
eyesight's bad.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Or whatever, but.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Anything about the way they live at home. I don't
feel like as any of your damn business. And I
don't like answering any of those questions. And it's gone
as far as and that they didn't haven't asked this.
And I don't know if they put this in the
chart or what, or if the state stopped asking. But
I remember originally we were asked at the doctor's office,
are there any guns in the home? And I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa,
No way we're answering that question.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
I can't even believe you had the guts to ask
that question.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
I mean, I'm flabbergasted that at a doctor's office they
would ask you.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
If you have guns in the home. To me, that's
got nothing to do with your job at all. And
a lot of the other.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Questions they asked, in my opinion, some of you don't
agree anyway. So some of the texts we got which
are kind of all over the place on this thing.
And I even brought up the idea of when our
babies were born, them making me leave the room so
they can ask mom, does he abuse you at home?
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Which I find disgusting.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
I just I just I find that abhorrent, And you're
about to hear some pushback on the text line, which again,
intellectually I kind of get, but emotionally I do. First
of all, I agree with Jack hundred percent. Is not
a medical doctor's place to ask about anything other than
physical health. The sole exception would be if the child's
chart shows a series of severe bruising and or broken bones,
(07:20):
I'd say, you got some vidence that would suggest exactly Yeah. Yeah, Again,
some of these texts are all over the place. I'm
seventy eight. I was asked if anyone was forcing me
to have sex. I replied, yes, my wife. Please don't
make her stop. See I don't is anybody forcing you
to have sex? I just where'd these questions come from? Again,
(07:40):
we're about to get to an explanation from a doctor
who will explain why they think to them.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Every time I go to Kaiser.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
That's a big medical person in outfit in California. Every
time I go to Kaiser for anything, they start with
a slew of questions about whether I feel safe in
my relationships.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
I refuse to answer.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
They do not like that, But then they think that
taking my blood pressure and weight are optional. It's infuriating,
so they might not do the actual physical stuff because
that might be body shaming.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Or something like that. I guess I don't know.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
But the intrusive questions about your lifestyle, sure, those are okay.
This one is pushedback to a topic we're about to
get to.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
I'll save that one.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Doctors asking kids state mandated questions about guns and homes
and other random questions is just another version of teachers
keeping secrets from parents. The state is intervening in the
nuclear family as much as they can. That camel just
keeps nudging itself into the tent. That's the way I
feel about.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
It, and I think those who are doing it deliberately,
like we've been describing or joined by the do gooders,
who are, well, you know what do gooders are. They're
just utterly convinced that it is appropriate for them to
intrude into your life to make your life better for you,
whether you want them there or not. Sometimes it's a
mother in law, sometimes it's the state.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
I'm building up the people who agree with me before
I get to a medical professional that will have the
big pushback. Completely agree with Jack on prinal rights. You
can't treat every parent as if they're abusive. Plus the
state's definition of abusive is ridiculous anyway. I don't know
what the state's definition of the abusive, but if it's
you let them watch three hours of YouTube videos or
(09:21):
something one day, it might be a hell.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
I don't know. Well.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
One aspect of abuse is calling my son him rise
decided to be her.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
For instance, Uh, when my son was thirteen, he had
to get his TETNA shot for school. That's literally all
I had him. Get, no physical in quotes. For that reason,
I don't participate anymore. Just get the shots, because the
physical is more questions.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Than anything else. I'll skip that one and get to.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
The medical professional. I want to get to getting back
to my text. Hold on just a second. I hope
I have that. I hope I didn't lose that because
it was really really good.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Take your time.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
I'm giving myself a self prostrate exam during the pause
in the action.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
Here, here's a good one. This is so and so
in Seattle. Pushing parents out of the room and honing
your tween. Handing your tween a questionnaire is step one
of indoctrination of your kid.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
It happened to me in Washington.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
State, and it kickstarted my daughter spiraling into self harm,
gender identity questions, et cetera. And then there was the
school who made her declare he pronouns for the record,
and that let her officially change your name and gender
identity in the school system without telling me. Right, she
would self farm at school, go to the nurse, they'd
give her a band aid and send her back to class.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Not a single word to me. I'm just the mother after.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
All, right, right, that is straight out of Marxism, driving
a wedge between or a breaking apart the nuclear family
so that the state raises the child and can indoctrinate them.
They say it out loud. This is not a conspiracy theory.
They say it out loud.
Speaker 4 (11:03):
Somehow I did not capture the one I want to
get to from an actual doctor, So you might have
to do your the next little segment of this and
I'll get back to it of the state trying to
separate it.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Okay, here it is.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
I found it. If my super slow iPad can bring
it up. We're using like a Gen two iPad here.
Hanson and I kind of have like a it's kind
of like the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer sees how
far he can drive on empt before he finally runs.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Out of gas.
Speaker 4 (11:33):
Hans and I kind of have that thing going with
this iPad. How long can we use this outdated iPad
that you can't update.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Anymore and make it actually work and might have reached them? Wow.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
I can give you the longest short of it, and
if I have to fill in the details later, I will.
It's basically a doctor saying, look, I agree with you
guys most of the time on this stuff, but you're
wrong about this. There is no sinister reason. Even though
it is a small percentage of people that harm their children,
this is a good way to catch those people. And
if we can, you know, save one kid from abusive parents,
it's worth asking everybody the questions.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
That's where I get to.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
The I understand intellectually what you're saying, but emotionally and
in reality, I don't like it at all. I don't
like treating everybody like they're a wife beating, you know,
child abusing person so that you can, in theory help
a couple of families or parents or.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Kids where I don't think they're probably going to be
honest anyway.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Right, And the doctor has absolutely got a point, and
it's a valid one. But the problem is this, there
is a primal violation happening when you say to a parent,
get away from your child.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
I need to deal with your child.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
And on my authority, I am removing you from the room.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
It's done much more diplomatically than that. They don't say
it like that, but that's what's happening. And if there
is ample justification for it, I get it.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
That's fine.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Here's the problem, though, doc, and this is just this
is people comparing notes.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
The Marxists and those who would break apart the nuclear
family to perpetuate their evil plans for our country, for instance,
they use that excuse to do terrible, terrible things, including
the court case we're about to talk about later at
this hour. So that's that's that's the rub, my medical friend.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
Yeah, any more thoughts on that are texting and we'll
we'll get back to this this latest court ruling, which
is horrifying. The text line is four one five two
nine five KFTC.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Here's the text from an actual doctor.
Speaker 4 (13:50):
We're on the subject of you take your kids into
the doctor's office and I ask them all kinds of questions.
Sometimes they to separate you and ask the question separately,
which I hate and just think god to be illegal.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I don't have to go along.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
With it, and I don't, or even if I ask
you the questions with you in the room, I don't
like it.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
But here's an example.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
As a physician, I can say there's no sinister motive
other than screening for health and safety in the home.
As you pointed out, unfortunately abuse is more common then
would be suspected. If a non invasive screening question can
help to detect even the small number of relative to
the general public, then it should be done. I agree
with the majority of your guys' views, but with this one,
(14:35):
I would argue you are misguided if concerned about the
questions and discuss with your physician. I also suggest building
a report and trust with your doctor over time so
these questions don't seem intrusive rather than looking out for
your kid's physical and psychological health. Well, I do have
a good relationship with my doctor and report. But if
you get into this situation where a doctor you're sitting
(14:56):
there with your kid, and the doctor's asking the kids
questions about what you eat, or how much screen time
you get to whatever. Why didn't you ask me that
You obviously don't believe me or trust me, or you're
trying to catch me.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
In a lie by? I mean, what is even going
on there?
Speaker 4 (15:11):
You taking the role of the alpha in the room
is what I don't like. I'm the alpha, always will
be the alpha. You ain't the alpha. You ain't the
one making the decisions here. I don't like that at all.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Yeah, it's defensible from a scientific slash medical point of view,
I suppose. But the problem is, as I said before,
and the first the reason this is so top of
mind for me is the first Circuit court just held
that parents have no right to know about their eleven
year old.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Changing gender in school.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
And the court's decision talks about our pluralistic society assigns
those curricular and administrative decisions. Can you imagine my child
is having a mental health crisis and the court calls
that an administrative and curricular decision to the expertise of
school officials charged with the responsibility of educating children. So, doctor,
you are one hundred percent right, and I agree with
(16:02):
you in principle. It's that same principle that's being used
as an excuse for the teacher to indoctrinate the child
and to try to pry the child apart from the parent.
You see our discomfort there. It has the same explanation.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah, it absolutely is.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
You're right, doctor, the school is perverse and sick, and
it's the same explanation. So the line's got to be
drawn somewhere, right, Well, I think a lot of people
want to draw it to the heir, to the side
of no, this is my child, this is my family.
I'm in charge here, you're not. Yeah, yeah, yeah, But
(16:43):
again that does not in any way negate what the
doctor has said.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
I agree.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
M Anyway, we're getting lots of text on this, keep
them coming. If there's any good ones, we'll probably delve
into it again tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
There's a proposed long call unicorn or that is kind
of tangentially similar. I think Katie's going to tell us
about and then some you know, some good light fun
stuff as well.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
It's very serious today. I'm sorry, I'm sick. This is
no joking matter. I might have a cold. You think
that's funny?
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Armstrong and Getty. Thirty more minutes and we're done. That's
why I'm at I don't like your attitudes. Something I
don't feel good.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Yeah, I decided I needed to rant just a little
longer about this first circuit ruling.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
Really, it'll be overturned, right, It's just going to take
a long time, which is very frustrating.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Oh yeah, well, yeah, I suspect it will be, although
I don't The legal reasoning seems to be sociological reasoning
to me, and so I hope it will be slapped down.
I think it also if people hear about it might
cause this sort of reawakening we need, societally speaking, so
we can fight back against these people.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
People.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
They're organized, they're strategic, they know what they want to do.
They want to indoctrinate your child and brye them away
from your family. The rest of us are kind of
we're not organized. We're not being strategic anyway. So the
first circuit just held that parents have no right to
know about their eleven year old changing gender in school.
It was viewed as overriding parental rights. And the specific
(18:24):
reasoning is just insane. And that's why I wanted to
rant a little more about it, because it really it
shows their hand. The court wrote and I'm quoting Jonathan Turley,
who's been covering this.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
This is the court quote.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Our pluralistic society assigns these curricular and administrative decisions to
the expertise of school officials charged with the responsibility of
educating children. Turtlely points out there's no more cherished rife
than citizens raising their own children. Indeed, he points out,
(18:54):
the right to raise the one's children according to your
own faith and values is a touchstone of freedom. Conversely,
the subordination of such rights is the harbinger of state tyranny.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
And they appeal to pluralism.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
Our pluralistic society, and totally points out the pluralism allows
families with different norms and values to thrive. Public schools
are effectively demanding that parents give up their rights to
critical aspects of rearing their children as a condition for
public education. It's a virtual slogan for school choice. I
think he skips over, you know, the other side of
the coin. They say, in defense of pluralism, all the
(19:29):
kids come to school and we indoctrinate them exactly the same,
no matter their parents' beliefs.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Right, that's what they're saying.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
That's just that's just horrifying, And the fact that a
court went for it.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Is that's that's how do I put this? You know what?
Speaker 1 (19:49):
I will just read what I responded to Tim Sander
for the last night, who texted me about this case.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
The fact that it exists.
Speaker 5 (19:57):
M M.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
I'm a peaceful man. I believe in words and ideas
and patient persuasion. You f with my kids, I will
cut your throat. This is the This is radical in
a fundamental, primal way danger.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
And I mery that.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Oh yeah, I mean absolutely, it's a big deal. Choosing
my words carefully here, don't everybody needs to hear about this.
I'm glad to see the number of times that's been reposted.
(20:38):
H The interesting thing, interesting, the horrifying thing is that
it's already gone so far that virtually the entire government
education system is in on this, in on the way
left philosophy anyway. Like you said, it's a virtual slow
(21:00):
and for school choice, it's it's ought to be slogan
for more than that, I cannot. I think it is
a measure of how meek we are at submitting to
authority that this has not caused more people to go
absolutely ape pooh nuts.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Right, and Uh, you know, similar to the last conversation
we're talking about with the doctors, which is obviously different
than the school I think at the top you have
people that want to separate parents from children, and then
some people along the way might agree with that, but
you certainly have many layers to think, well, we're doing
this because we care about the kids.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Well, they concluged by the deceptive arguments of the hardcore. Yeah, yeah,
they've They've They've been duped.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Happens all the time. It's like all the.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Nice, half witted white ladies who fell under the whole
Robin DiAngelo, ebrame x KINDI white guilt, anti racism thing.
Even even the slightest scrutiny exposed it for the scam
it is. But anyway, a lot of well meeting people
fell for it, and this reminds me of it. Hey, Katie,
can you hip us to that California proposed law we
(22:07):
were talking about earlier?
Speaker 2 (22:10):
I absolutely can.
Speaker 5 (22:11):
This is from Assemblyman Rick Berry is a Democrat out
of Los Angeles, and he's facing backlash over the new
bill AB thirteen thirty three, which would limit when people
in California can claim self defense in homicide cases. The
bill is removing justifications for using deadly force, including defending
your home or your.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Property right right, and I've looked in some of the
particulars of it. According to the bill, homicide would not
be justified when the person was outside the residence in
the victim, the actual victim knew that using force was
likely to cause death or great bodily injury, and it
could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating. So
(22:54):
if you just flee from your house and run out
the back door and let the other person blast their
way in, then you're okay. But if you defend yourself
and your family and your home, you're not. You're a murderer.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
Well, we all learned a lot about this in the
Tradeon Martin case, which was in Florida wherever they had
their particular stand your ground rules. But we're trying to goes,
I guess in California, goes far the out of the
direction as you possibly can. It's the opposite of stand
your ground. It's they get your ground if they want it.
You need to run away if at all possible, and
let them have that ground so they don't get hurt.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
And then I face it b of this or number
two Assemblyman Rick's Burr of Los Angeles, the jackwagon who
proposed this.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
This has made me.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
This has pissed me off since I was a teenager,
because I saw cases like this unfold. Aspect two of
this homicide would not be justified when the person used
more force and was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
And that is where you get.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
And I think it's very important you serve on jury's
I'm not denigrating jury duty. I don't try to avoid it.
I seek it out because it's so interesting and important. Anyway,
many juries have half wit jackasses on them who couldn't
reason their way out of a paper bag. Okay, And
(24:21):
you have that sort of person sitting there in the
air conditioned comfort of a courtroom, stroking their chin and
deciding did the person use more force than was reasonably necessary?
Speaker 2 (24:33):
I think they did.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
When you're terrified for your life or that of your family,
and all of a sudden you got a bunch of
people sitting in a seventy four degree courtroom deciding, now
you overreacted.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
I despise that, I really do. So what drives this?
Speaker 4 (24:51):
Why somebody breaks into my home? What makes you want
to write a bill that really protects the person that
breaks into my home as opposed to me.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
I think there are a couple of things at work.
Number One, especially on the left, there's just an overarching
theme of you must meekly submit to the authorities. Whether
it's in the doctor's office, which is, to my mind,
a pretty legit thing, asking about abuse, it's intrusive, but
(25:24):
you've got to submit to that authority. You've got to
submit to the authority of the school teacher who says, no,
I'm not telling you about your child's emotional health.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
That's up to me. You're supposed to meekly submit to that.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
And this is the whole don't take matters into your
own hands, don't defend yourself.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Let the authorities take care of it.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
It's just it's a collectivist attitude that you do not
have free will, you do not have self governance.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
We will govern you for you.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
And the other part of it is, and this has
struck me through the years, there is a certain sort
of person that knows, oh, they do not have it
in them to defend themselves. They refuse to have a gun,
and some people don't want to gun in their home.
For fairly reasonable reasons. But they know they are not
(26:14):
capable of unleashing deadly force, even when it was one
hundred percent justified. And I think it bothers them profoundly
when other people do it. They think they would prefer
the world be nobody can ever do this, because then
they can't feel the shame regret that they're not a
(26:36):
person who could ever do that interesting little psychoanalysis.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Therefore you no extra charge.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
And then I've just talked to some people who have
that attitude and it struck me that, oh, I get it.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
You can't, and so you think no one should.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
And then the full Marxists believe the only time anybody
would break into your home because they've been screwed by
capitalism and they have no choice. So they're the victim,
even if they're breaking into your home.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Right as the Black Lives matter, Folks who are Marxists
and they're willing and obedient pets in the mainstream media
repeated they're looting it back. It's looting and rioting is
the voice of the unheard.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
But so this is just the legislation that's been introduced.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
I always assume that these things will never go anywhere,
but I'm often disappointed when they do it somewhere.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Yeah, that's correct, it's not been passed yet.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Boy, that's so nuts. That's so nuts to like most
of the country. So.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says, Sacrament of Democrats has
spent the last fifteen years tying the hands of law
enforcement and coddling criminals, using and abusing ordinary Californians in
their attempt to make criminals the real victims. Now they're
actively trying to tie the hands of our residents who
have had to defend themselves against re released career criminals
far too often. Blah blah blah. Assemblyman Tom Lackey's Republican
(27:59):
and PAL says this bill is a complete assault on
self defense. Imagine this, a violent criminal breaks into your
home and you have to second guess whether defending your
family is quote justifiable. The misguided energy behind this proposal
is just beyond comprehension.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
Well, I wouldn't second guess that at that moment, but
dealing with the repercussions after that horrifying situation would certainly suck.
Having just looked through the scariest thing of your life
and then maybe you're in jail or something. Well, Jack,
as you know, my hallmark is fairness. So let me
raid you the counter from somebody who's in favor of this, Notably,
(28:38):
gun control groups put out press release releases to combat
the growing public outrage over this. This is Moniesia Henley,
Senior vice president for government affairs at every Town for
Gun Safety. She said the legislation bills on California's gun
safety legacy and lays the blueprint for the rest of
the nation. White supremacist and other extremists have hidden behind
(29:02):
self defense laws to fire a gun and turn any
conflict into a death sentence.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Wow, what's white supremacists? Wow? Wow? So that's what it is.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
We are a white supremacist just looking for an opportunity,
not defending my house when if somebody breaks in.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
Monicia Henley, if you're listening, First of all, thanks for
listening to the Armstrong and Getty Show. Secondly, I will
devote my every breath to defeating you and people like
you until the last one is coughed out of my
poor lungs.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
I hate you. You want hate speech, I hate you.
There it is you whack job. Okay, we will finish strong, next.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Strong, come down to the ten thousand episodes of The
Price Is Right.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
We're giving away a lot of money today, tidy thousand dollars.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
In nineteen seventy two, I watched it in college, and
Prices Right just stood out because it was people going bananas,
and it's a really good cross section.
Speaker 5 (30:08):
With a miracle time. You've had over seventy five thousand
people hauled on down who's the other way?
Speaker 4 (30:14):
Over three hundred millions in cash and prizes, and it's
been one of the.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Best experiences in my professional liage. No matter how my
day is, as soon as I get the Price Right
walks to the door, it all goes away. I want
a show. Wow, Drew Carrey.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
If ten thousand episodes of The Price Is Right, Drew
Carrey sounds like he actually enjoys doing that, which I
assumed he hates it and has to drink his way
through it every single day. But least he's pretending he
really really enjoyed it. The thrill of watching people try
to guess the price of things.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Maybe the work environment is pretty pleasant and people are.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
A heck, it's great.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Yeah, yeah, I think I could fake it up. I
hear you though, I oh man, especially at the point
that you have a lot of money already.
Speaker 4 (31:00):
I was sick of fair amount as a kid during
a certain period of time, and I'd be home and
I watched a lot of Prices right, and lots of
lot of Let's make a deal. That's how long those
shows have been on since I was a little kid.
But they were barely amusing and only something you'd watch
if there was literally nothing else to do then, And
(31:21):
there are way more things to do now.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Yeah, I remember that feeling of this is just barely
above the Mendoza line of watch, don't watch.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
Yeah, yeah, it's barely above the line of just stare
at the wall, and it's amazing that they continue.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Who are you that watch these?
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Jeez?
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Can I buy some of your time? Yeah? Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
It's like the innumerable Judge shows and you know Drew
barrymore talking to minor celebrities shows.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
How do I feel like those are just a much
higher level of possible.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Entertainment and learning something than this.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Yeah, some of them. I do love a good Judge show.
They just pay them too slowly, I mean, give me
the verdict anyway. This is this is, this is maybe depressing,
but it's true.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
We've talked about this before.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
For many years, the highest paid person in entertainment was
Judy Sheinlan. Judge Judy, those dopey shows for folks who
don't work, can't work, are retired, are on the dole
government disability.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
That what you're gonna where the money is? Is that
what you're gonna do with the retirement.
Speaker 4 (32:39):
You work your whole life so you can retire, and
you're gonna watch daytime television.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
I know, I know.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
I hate to judge anybody who's not doing any harm.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
I don't mind. Go ahead, I'll tag you in, judge,
I'll judge it. You're wasting your life. Can I buy
some of your hours? Michael? How much time do we
have before final thoughts and everything? Thirty seconds?
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Okay, I'm gonna squeeze this in getting back to the hole,
it's white supremacists and other extremist hiding behind self defense laws.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Two things to Monesia Henley.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Who I would guess given what she said, is a
black woman.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Maybe she's just a woke white person, but anyway, James
Lindsay brilliantly summed up critical race theory and what it's
trying to do.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Once by saying it's a tool.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
You call something racist until you're in charge of it, and.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
That's exactly what she's doing.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
You call self defense racist until you've changed the law.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
The idea that.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Violence disproportionately is angry white people hurting innocent black people, well,
to say that's not born out by the statistics is
soft pedaling it by about a thousand times.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
There's a hole in the show. You know it's time
to go. It's time for final thoughts. On your feet,
there you go. Here's your host for final thoughts. Joe Getty.
Damn activists, they're everywhere.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
Let's get a final thought from everybody on the crew.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Michaelangelo lead us off. I got admit I watched a
lot of game shows as a kid. Me and my
grandma we watch the game shows together. Now she was retired,
and one of our favorites was The Price Is Right.
So yeah, that was a good childhood memory.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
Oh there you go, and Jack belittled you only moments ago,
shocking Katie Greener, esteemed newswoman, has a final thought, Katie, I.
Speaker 5 (34:30):
Have a new Katie's corner up at Armstrong getty dot
com that has the Jeff Bezos letter to the Washington
Post people and a bunch of other stuff.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
And no, Jack, I will not spell Katie a K
and a tea, so I don't even try. But corners
with a K, right it is? I caved? Was cute?
I love that Jack.
Speaker 4 (34:48):
The final fitting in with our theme. Recently, a friend
of mine just sent me this. Toronto police are being
criticized for suggesting people leave their keys inside the front
door of their home because that's mostly what burglars are
looking for when they break in, and to avoid a
violent confrontation, leave your keys where they're easy to get,
(35:10):
like your car keys.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
Yes, that's what the Toronto police are suggesting.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Canada is so far down the road to Crazyville, just
like Great Britain.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
You know.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
My final thought, I'm going to quote another authority of
Tom McClintock, who in a conversation years and years ago said, Hey,
even if the mainstream in the country is going away
from what you know is right, just keep preaching it
because they'll.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
Be back eventually.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
I'm reminded of that with the immigration stuff. Now, even
you have people on the left saying, yeah, calling people
racists for wanting order the immigration that was terrible.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
Armstrong and Getty wrapping up another grueling four hour work to,
in other words, keep fighting the good fight.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
So many people. Thanks a little time.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
Go to Armstrong and Getty dot com. The hot links, Oh,
the hot links so entertaining.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
Hoping to be over my bird flu slash monkey pox
by tomorrow see it then, God bless America.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
I'm Strong and Getty do not deserve their paychecks. It's
true you could peel on my leg, but don't tell
me it's rained. What the hell are you talking about?
Doesn't that sound crazy? Even in Washington? That math don't work.
I'm not saying it's okay, don't put word so there's
a few kings in that slinking.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
You have depressed me to the depths of standing on
a ledge.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
That's why I'm here. I'm gonna put my head in
the oven during the commercial break. You have an electric oven,
it'll just get your head hot. Or I'm Strong and
Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty arm Strong and.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Get Katie and he Armstrong and Getty. Guys.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Eight years after the epic concert disaster that was Firefest,
tickets just went on sale for fire Fest two. Yeah,
tickets are now on sale.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
And some costs up to one million dollars.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Even the people who invested in Huck toua crypto, think
this is bad idea.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Oh so you got you got wide eyed there, Katie
over the announcement of this.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Why is it?
Speaker 5 (00:50):
I cannot believe they're going to try to do this again.
This was This was the most catastrophic, expensive, celebri already
covered event on planet Earth. This is the one where
all the celebrities showed up and there were tents and
they got like bologney sandwiches that looked like they were
from a prison.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
And everybody lost their ass on it. Everybody lost huge
amounts of money. This guy was jailed, wasn't he. Yeah,
he edited it up. He was prosecuted. He gets out
and says time for fire Fast too.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Yeah, it was this guy.
Speaker 5 (01:25):
McFarlane and jaw Rule the rapper was behind it, and uh,
there's a great documentary.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
I think it's on Netflix. They yeah, i've seen parts
of that before.
Speaker 5 (01:35):
Oh I cannot this is going to be so fun
to watch.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Was it an on purpose scam? That's what I never
nailed down because I didn't follow it Clossey. Was it
an on purpose scam or it was just he just
went poorly? Just what?
Speaker 5 (01:46):
I don't think so, because there were legitimate acts that
signed up to be a part of the festival that
once they started to see it go to all hell,
they were like, okay, we're out, We're done.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
It reminds me of Woodstock two, speaking of really interesting documentaries.
It was just a fuster clock and just a disaster. Financially,
it's the same deal.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I'm looking at the website right now.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Your general access tickets fourteen hundred dollars and VIP's twenty
five grand.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well this is this is.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Whoa. Yeah, when the money gets that big, you gotta
be concerned that once they get the money, they don't
care how happy you are with.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
The with the result. Is it even happens, This is hysterical.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
Oh yeah, if it happens, I cannot wait to see
how this mean, because once.
Speaker 4 (02:38):
They got your twenty five grand, they can say, oh,
you don't like Bloney SAMs, Just sorry, I thought you'd
like them.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
I mean, last time it was so bad, to the
point where the initial location that they had planned to
have the festival, they sold so many tickets and stuff
that the people were like, we can't handle this, so
last minute they moved the local.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
I mean, everything was a mess.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Well, and again, Jack, you're presuming a festival will take place.
I'm picturing my fourteen hundred dollars, or if i'm you know,
a VIP twenty five thousand dollars going away and never
coming back again.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I can't believe they're doing this again.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
You know what a lot of VIP is often just
because I had this experience at the Eagles concert at
the Sphere, which I didn't buy VIP tickets, but when
we got to the wherever we're going in and they
found out I mentioned to the person there that was
my son's first concert of his life, and they were
(03:33):
so excited about that, and they gave us the VIP
stuff and the VIP treatment and everything like that. Or
we're gonna make you a VIP or whatever. It's Basically
you get a lanyard that says VIP that's more or
less the sum total of it, and a poster and
a bag. You know, tote bags which ben if the
Earth ever crumbles under the weight of something, it's going
(03:55):
to be tote bags.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
They just they're They're everywhere, They're all the place. Anything
you go to, they've got a tote bag for you.
How much toting do you do? I actually I've paid
for a couple.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
That were very very cool or a VIP experience, but
it varies by the band obviously.
Speaker 5 (04:17):
Yes, I'm looking at the press release for this on Instagram.
Victims of the first one go free another one I know,
a safer way to enjoy music.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
But thanks, this is not going to go well.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
We'll keep our eye on this, all right, And so
ends our discussion of the probably non existent ripoff music festival. Jack,
do you want to get into the aforementioned topic?
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Right? So this is this gets pretty interesting. I know
where I know emotionally where I am on this.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
I don't know if I can back it up intellectually
as well as I can emotionally. My point of view
and most of the textures wholeheartedly agree with me, although
that might just be the tendency to you know, you
listen to this show, you tend to think like we
think or whatever.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Well, yeah, I hate to jump to my analysis, you know,
before the end. But I think that tension that you're
talking about is what the evil doers, and I hope
that term isn't too judgmental.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
I think that.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Tension is what the evil doers are trying to exploit
to get you to shut up and take what they're
dishing out, because they make a very reasonable sounding argument
for intrusions into families that are indefensible.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
But so, I've had two kids get physicals.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
You get them at around age thirteen, and they ask
you the front office help asks questions, and then it
goes to the next person and then and finally your doctor.
I mention that because that factors into some of the
responses we got. I don't like the questions. I don't
understand really ninety percent of the questions why they're even
asked to me. A physical is or Mike's son physical
(06:02):
is you know, way them check their reflexes whatever, tell
them if they need to lose weight, or if their
eyesight's bad.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Or whatever, but.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Anything about the way they live at home. I don't
feel like as any of your damn business. And I
don't like answering any of those questions. And it's gone
as far as and that they didn't haven't asked this.
And I don't know if they put this in the
chart or what, or if the state stopped asking. But
I remember originally we were asked at the doctor's office,
are there any guns in the home? And I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa,
No way we're answering that question.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
I can't even believe you had the guts to ask
that question.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
I mean, I'm flabbergasted that at a doctor's office they
would ask you.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
If you have guns in the home. To me, that's
got nothing to do with your job at all. And
a lot of the other.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Questions they asked, in my opinion, some of you don't
agree anyway. So some of the texts we got which
are kind of all over the place on this thing.
And I even brought up the idea of when our
babies were born, them making me leave the room so
they can ask mom, does he abuse you at home?
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Which I find disgusting.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
I just I just I find that abhorrent, And you're
about to hear some pushback on the text line, which again,
intellectually I kind of get, but emotionally I do. First
of all, I agree with Jack hundred percent. Is not
a medical doctor's place to ask about anything other than
physical health. The sole exception would be if the child's
chart shows a series of severe bruising and or broken bones,
(07:20):
I'd say, you got some vidence that would suggest exactly Yeah. Yeah, Again,
some of these texts are all over the place. I'm
seventy eight. I was asked if anyone was forcing me
to have sex. I replied, yes, my wife. Please don't
make her stop. See I don't is anybody forcing you
to have sex? I just where'd these questions come from? Again,
(07:40):
we're about to get to an explanation from a doctor
who will explain why they think to them.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Every time I go to Kaiser.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
That's a big medical person in outfit in California. Every
time I go to Kaiser for anything, they start with
a slew of questions about whether I feel safe in
my relationships.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
I refuse to answer.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
They do not like that, But then they think that
taking my blood pressure and weight are optional. It's infuriating,
so they might not do the actual physical stuff because
that might be body shaming.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Or something like that. I guess I don't know.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
But the intrusive questions about your lifestyle, sure, those are okay.
This one is pushedback to a topic we're about to
get to.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
I'll save that one.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Doctors asking kids state mandated questions about guns and homes
and other random questions is just another version of teachers
keeping secrets from parents. The state is intervening in the
nuclear family as much as they can. That camel just
keeps nudging itself into the tent. That's the way I
feel about.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
It, and I think those who are doing it deliberately,
like we've been describing or joined by the do gooders,
who are, well, you know what do gooders are. They're
just utterly convinced that it is appropriate for them to
intrude into your life to make your life better for you,
whether you want them there or not. Sometimes it's a
mother in law, sometimes it's the state.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
I'm building up the people who agree with me before
I get to a medical professional that will have the
big pushback. Completely agree with Jack on prinal rights. You
can't treat every parent as if they're abusive. Plus the
state's definition of abusive is ridiculous anyway. I don't know
what the state's definition of the abusive, but if it's
you let them watch three hours of YouTube videos or
(09:21):
something one day, it might be a hell.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
I don't know. Well.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
One aspect of abuse is calling my son him rise
decided to be her.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
For instance, Uh, when my son was thirteen, he had
to get his TETNA shot for school. That's literally all
I had him. Get, no physical in quotes. For that reason,
I don't participate anymore. Just get the shots, because the
physical is more questions.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Than anything else. I'll skip that one and get to.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
The medical professional. I want to get to getting back
to my text. Hold on just a second. I hope
I have that. I hope I didn't lose that because
it was really really good.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Take your time.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
I'm giving myself a self prostrate exam during the pause
in the action.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
Here, here's a good one. This is so and so
in Seattle. Pushing parents out of the room and honing
your tween. Handing your tween a questionnaire is step one
of indoctrination of your kid.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
It happened to me in Washington.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
State, and it kickstarted my daughter spiraling into self harm,
gender identity questions, et cetera. And then there was the
school who made her declare he pronouns for the record,
and that let her officially change your name and gender
identity in the school system without telling me. Right, she
would self farm at school, go to the nurse, they'd
give her a band aid and send her back to class.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Not a single word to me. I'm just the mother after.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
All, right, right, that is straight out of Marxism, driving
a wedge between or a breaking apart the nuclear family
so that the state raises the child and can indoctrinate them.
They say it out loud. This is not a conspiracy theory.
They say it out loud.
Speaker 4 (11:03):
Somehow I did not capture the one I want to
get to from an actual doctor, So you might have
to do your the next little segment of this and
I'll get back to it of the state trying to
separate it.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Okay, here it is.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
I found it. If my super slow iPad can bring
it up. We're using like a Gen two iPad here.
Hanson and I kind of have like a it's kind
of like the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer sees how
far he can drive on empt before he finally runs.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Out of gas.
Speaker 4 (11:33):
Hans and I kind of have that thing going with
this iPad. How long can we use this outdated iPad
that you can't update.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Anymore and make it actually work and might have reached them? Wow.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
I can give you the longest short of it, and
if I have to fill in the details later, I will.
It's basically a doctor saying, look, I agree with you
guys most of the time on this stuff, but you're
wrong about this. There is no sinister reason. Even though
it is a small percentage of people that harm their children,
this is a good way to catch those people. And
if we can, you know, save one kid from abusive parents,
it's worth asking everybody the questions.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
That's where I get to.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
The I understand intellectually what you're saying, but emotionally and
in reality, I don't like it at all. I don't
like treating everybody like they're a wife beating, you know,
child abusing person so that you can, in theory help
a couple of families or parents or.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Kids where I don't think they're probably going to be
honest anyway.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Right, And the doctor has absolutely got a point, and
it's a valid one. But the problem is this, there
is a primal violation happening when you say to a parent,
get away from your child.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
I need to deal with your child.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
And on my authority, I am removing you from the room.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
It's done much more diplomatically than that. They don't say
it like that, but that's what's happening. And if there
is ample justification for it, I get it.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
That's fine.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Here's the problem, though, doc, and this is just this
is people comparing notes.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
The Marxists and those who would break apart the nuclear
family to perpetuate their evil plans for our country, for instance,
they use that excuse to do terrible, terrible things, including
the court case we're about to talk about later at
this hour. So that's that's that's the rub, my medical friend.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
Yeah, any more thoughts on that are texting and we'll
we'll get back to this this latest court ruling, which
is horrifying. The text line is four one five two
nine five KFTC.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Here's the text from an actual doctor.
Speaker 4 (13:50):
We're on the subject of you take your kids into
the doctor's office and I ask them all kinds of questions.
Sometimes they to separate you and ask the question separately,
which I hate and just think god to be illegal.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I don't have to go along.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
With it, and I don't, or even if I ask
you the questions with you in the room, I don't
like it.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
But here's an example.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
As a physician, I can say there's no sinister motive
other than screening for health and safety in the home.
As you pointed out, unfortunately abuse is more common then
would be suspected. If a non invasive screening question can
help to detect even the small number of relative to
the general public, then it should be done. I agree
with the majority of your guys' views, but with this one,
(14:35):
I would argue you are misguided if concerned about the
questions and discuss with your physician. I also suggest building
a report and trust with your doctor over time so
these questions don't seem intrusive rather than looking out for
your kid's physical and psychological health. Well, I do have
a good relationship with my doctor and report. But if
you get into this situation where a doctor you're sitting
(14:56):
there with your kid, and the doctor's asking the kids
questions about what you eat, or how much screen time
you get to whatever. Why didn't you ask me that
You obviously don't believe me or trust me, or you're
trying to catch me.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
In a lie by? I mean, what is even going
on there?
Speaker 4 (15:11):
You taking the role of the alpha in the room
is what I don't like. I'm the alpha, always will
be the alpha. You ain't the alpha. You ain't the
one making the decisions here. I don't like that at all.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Yeah, it's defensible from a scientific slash medical point of view,
I suppose. But the problem is, as I said before,
and the first the reason this is so top of
mind for me is the first Circuit court just held
that parents have no right to know about their eleven
year old.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Changing gender in school.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
And the court's decision talks about our pluralistic society assigns
those curricular and administrative decisions. Can you imagine my child
is having a mental health crisis and the court calls
that an administrative and curricular decision to the expertise of
school officials charged with the responsibility of educating children. So, doctor,
you are one hundred percent right, and I agree with
(16:02):
you in principle. It's that same principle that's being used
as an excuse for the teacher to indoctrinate the child
and to try to pry the child apart from the parent.
You see our discomfort there. It has the same explanation.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah, it absolutely is.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
You're right, doctor, the school is perverse and sick, and
it's the same explanation. So the line's got to be
drawn somewhere, right, Well, I think a lot of people
want to draw it to the heir, to the side
of no, this is my child, this is my family.
I'm in charge here, you're not. Yeah, yeah, yeah, But
(16:43):
again that does not in any way negate what the
doctor has said.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
I agree.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
M Anyway, we're getting lots of text on this, keep
them coming. If there's any good ones, we'll probably delve
into it again tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
There's a proposed long call unicorn or that is kind
of tangentially similar. I think Katie's going to tell us
about and then some you know, some good light fun
stuff as well.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
It's very serious today. I'm sorry, I'm sick. This is
no joking matter. I might have a cold. You think
that's funny?
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Armstrong and Getty. Thirty more minutes and we're done. That's
why I'm at I don't like your attitudes. Something I
don't feel good.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Yeah, I decided I needed to rant just a little
longer about this first circuit ruling.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
Really, it'll be overturned, right, It's just going to take
a long time, which is very frustrating.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Oh yeah, well, yeah, I suspect it will be, although
I don't The legal reasoning seems to be sociological reasoning
to me, and so I hope it will be slapped down.
I think it also if people hear about it might
cause this sort of reawakening we need, societally speaking, so
we can fight back against these people.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
People.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
They're organized, they're strategic, they know what they want to do.
They want to indoctrinate your child and brye them away
from your family. The rest of us are kind of
we're not organized. We're not being strategic anyway. So the
first circuit just held that parents have no right to
know about their eleven year old changing gender in school.
It was viewed as overriding parental rights. And the specific
(18:24):
reasoning is just insane. And that's why I wanted to
rant a little more about it, because it really it
shows their hand. The court wrote and I'm quoting Jonathan Turley,
who's been covering this.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
This is the court quote.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Our pluralistic society assigns these curricular and administrative decisions to
the expertise of school officials charged with the responsibility of
educating children. Turtlely points out there's no more cherished rife
than citizens raising their own children. Indeed, he points out,
(18:54):
the right to raise the one's children according to your
own faith and values is a touchstone of freedom. Conversely,
the subordination of such rights is the harbinger of state tyranny.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
And they appeal to pluralism.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
Our pluralistic society, and totally points out the pluralism allows
families with different norms and values to thrive. Public schools
are effectively demanding that parents give up their rights to
critical aspects of rearing their children as a condition for
public education. It's a virtual slogan for school choice. I
think he skips over, you know, the other side of
the coin. They say, in defense of pluralism, all the
(19:29):
kids come to school and we indoctrinate them exactly the same,
no matter their parents' beliefs.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Right, that's what they're saying.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
That's just that's just horrifying, And the fact that a
court went for it.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Is that's that's how do I put this? You know what?
Speaker 1 (19:49):
I will just read what I responded to Tim Sander
for the last night, who texted me about this case.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
The fact that it exists.
Speaker 5 (19:57):
M M.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
I'm a peaceful man. I believe in words and ideas
and patient persuasion. You f with my kids, I will
cut your throat. This is the This is radical in
a fundamental, primal way danger.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
And I mery that.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Oh yeah, I mean absolutely, it's a big deal. Choosing
my words carefully here, don't everybody needs to hear about this.
I'm glad to see the number of times that's been reposted.
(20:38):
H The interesting thing, interesting, the horrifying thing is that
it's already gone so far that virtually the entire government
education system is in on this, in on the way
left philosophy anyway. Like you said, it's a virtual slow
(21:00):
and for school choice, it's it's ought to be slogan
for more than that, I cannot. I think it is
a measure of how meek we are at submitting to
authority that this has not caused more people to go
absolutely ape pooh nuts.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Right, and Uh, you know, similar to the last conversation
we're talking about with the doctors, which is obviously different
than the school I think at the top you have
people that want to separate parents from children, and then
some people along the way might agree with that, but
you certainly have many layers to think, well, we're doing
this because we care about the kids.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Well, they concluged by the deceptive arguments of the hardcore. Yeah, yeah,
they've They've They've been duped.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Happens all the time. It's like all the.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Nice, half witted white ladies who fell under the whole
Robin DiAngelo, ebrame x KINDI white guilt, anti racism thing.
Even even the slightest scrutiny exposed it for the scam
it is. But anyway, a lot of well meeting people
fell for it, and this reminds me of it. Hey, Katie,
can you hip us to that California proposed law we
(22:07):
were talking about earlier?
Speaker 2 (22:10):
I absolutely can.
Speaker 5 (22:11):
This is from Assemblyman Rick Berry is a Democrat out
of Los Angeles, and he's facing backlash over the new
bill AB thirteen thirty three, which would limit when people
in California can claim self defense in homicide cases. The
bill is removing justifications for using deadly force, including defending
your home or your.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Property right right, and I've looked in some of the
particulars of it. According to the bill, homicide would not
be justified when the person was outside the residence in
the victim, the actual victim knew that using force was
likely to cause death or great bodily injury, and it
could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating. So
(22:54):
if you just flee from your house and run out
the back door and let the other person blast their
way in, then you're okay. But if you defend yourself
and your family and your home, you're not. You're a murderer.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
Well, we all learned a lot about this in the
Tradeon Martin case, which was in Florida wherever they had
their particular stand your ground rules. But we're trying to goes,
I guess in California, goes far the out of the
direction as you possibly can. It's the opposite of stand
your ground. It's they get your ground if they want it.
You need to run away if at all possible, and
let them have that ground so they don't get hurt.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
And then I face it b of this or number
two Assemblyman Rick's Burr of Los Angeles, the jackwagon who
proposed this.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
This has made me.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
This has pissed me off since I was a teenager,
because I saw cases like this unfold. Aspect two of
this homicide would not be justified when the person used
more force and was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
And that is where you get.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
And I think it's very important you serve on jury's
I'm not denigrating jury duty. I don't try to avoid it.
I seek it out because it's so interesting and important. Anyway,
many juries have half wit jackasses on them who couldn't
reason their way out of a paper bag. Okay, And
(24:21):
you have that sort of person sitting there in the
air conditioned comfort of a courtroom, stroking their chin and
deciding did the person use more force than was reasonably necessary?
Speaker 2 (24:33):
I think they did.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
When you're terrified for your life or that of your family,
and all of a sudden you got a bunch of
people sitting in a seventy four degree courtroom deciding, now
you overreacted.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
I despise that, I really do. So what drives this?
Speaker 4 (24:51):
Why somebody breaks into my home? What makes you want
to write a bill that really protects the person that
breaks into my home as opposed to me.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
I think there are a couple of things at work.
Number One, especially on the left, there's just an overarching
theme of you must meekly submit to the authorities. Whether
it's in the doctor's office, which is, to my mind,
a pretty legit thing, asking about abuse, it's intrusive, but
(25:24):
you've got to submit to that authority. You've got to
submit to the authority of the school teacher who says, no,
I'm not telling you about your child's emotional health.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
That's up to me. You're supposed to meekly submit to that.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
And this is the whole don't take matters into your
own hands, don't defend yourself.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Let the authorities take care of it.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
It's just it's a collectivist attitude that you do not
have free will, you do not have self governance.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
We will govern you for you.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
And the other part of it is, and this has
struck me through the years, there is a certain sort
of person that knows, oh, they do not have it
in them to defend themselves. They refuse to have a gun,
and some people don't want to gun in their home.
For fairly reasonable reasons. But they know they are not
(26:14):
capable of unleashing deadly force, even when it was one
hundred percent justified. And I think it bothers them profoundly
when other people do it. They think they would prefer
the world be nobody can ever do this, because then
they can't feel the shame regret that they're not a
(26:36):
person who could ever do that interesting little psychoanalysis.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Therefore you no extra charge.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
And then I've just talked to some people who have
that attitude and it struck me that, oh, I get it.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
You can't, and so you think no one should.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
And then the full Marxists believe the only time anybody
would break into your home because they've been screwed by
capitalism and they have no choice. So they're the victim,
even if they're breaking into your home.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Right as the Black Lives matter, Folks who are Marxists
and they're willing and obedient pets in the mainstream media
repeated they're looting it back. It's looting and rioting is
the voice of the unheard.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
But so this is just the legislation that's been introduced.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
I always assume that these things will never go anywhere,
but I'm often disappointed when they do it somewhere.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Yeah, that's correct, it's not been passed yet.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Boy, that's so nuts. That's so nuts to like most
of the country. So.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says, Sacrament of Democrats has
spent the last fifteen years tying the hands of law
enforcement and coddling criminals, using and abusing ordinary Californians in
their attempt to make criminals the real victims. Now they're
actively trying to tie the hands of our residents who
have had to defend themselves against re released career criminals
far too often. Blah blah blah. Assemblyman Tom Lackey's Republican
(27:59):
and PAL says this bill is a complete assault on
self defense. Imagine this, a violent criminal breaks into your
home and you have to second guess whether defending your
family is quote justifiable. The misguided energy behind this proposal
is just beyond comprehension.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
Well, I wouldn't second guess that at that moment, but
dealing with the repercussions after that horrifying situation would certainly suck.
Having just looked through the scariest thing of your life
and then maybe you're in jail or something. Well, Jack,
as you know, my hallmark is fairness. So let me
raid you the counter from somebody who's in favor of this, Notably,
(28:38):
gun control groups put out press release releases to combat
the growing public outrage over this. This is Moniesia Henley,
Senior vice president for government affairs at every Town for
Gun Safety. She said the legislation bills on California's gun
safety legacy and lays the blueprint for the rest of
the nation. White supremacist and other extremists have hidden behind
(29:02):
self defense laws to fire a gun and turn any
conflict into a death sentence.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Wow, what's white supremacists? Wow? Wow? So that's what it is.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
We are a white supremacist just looking for an opportunity,
not defending my house when if somebody breaks in.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
Monicia Henley, if you're listening, First of all, thanks for
listening to the Armstrong and Getty Show. Secondly, I will
devote my every breath to defeating you and people like
you until the last one is coughed out of my
poor lungs.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
I hate you. You want hate speech, I hate you.
There it is you whack job. Okay, we will finish strong, next.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Strong, come down to the ten thousand episodes of The
Price Is Right.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
We're giving away a lot of money today, tidy thousand dollars.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
In nineteen seventy two, I watched it in college, and
Prices Right just stood out because it was people going bananas,
and it's a really good cross section.
Speaker 5 (30:08):
With a miracle time. You've had over seventy five thousand
people hauled on down who's the other way?
Speaker 4 (30:14):
Over three hundred millions in cash and prizes, and it's
been one of the.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Best experiences in my professional liage. No matter how my
day is, as soon as I get the Price Right
walks to the door, it all goes away. I want
a show. Wow, Drew Carrey.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
If ten thousand episodes of The Price Is Right, Drew
Carrey sounds like he actually enjoys doing that, which I
assumed he hates it and has to drink his way
through it every single day. But least he's pretending he
really really enjoyed it. The thrill of watching people try
to guess the price of things.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Maybe the work environment is pretty pleasant and people are.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
A heck, it's great.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Yeah, yeah, I think I could fake it up. I
hear you though, I oh man, especially at the point
that you have a lot of money already.
Speaker 4 (31:00):
I was sick of fair amount as a kid during
a certain period of time, and I'd be home and
I watched a lot of Prices right, and lots of
lot of Let's make a deal. That's how long those
shows have been on since I was a little kid.
But they were barely amusing and only something you'd watch
if there was literally nothing else to do then, And
(31:21):
there are way more things to do now.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Yeah, I remember that feeling of this is just barely
above the Mendoza line of watch, don't watch.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
Yeah, yeah, it's barely above the line of just stare
at the wall, and it's amazing that they continue.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Who are you that watch these?
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Jeez?
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Can I buy some of your time? Yeah? Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
It's like the innumerable Judge shows and you know Drew
barrymore talking to minor celebrities shows.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
How do I feel like those are just a much
higher level of possible.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Entertainment and learning something than this.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Yeah, some of them. I do love a good Judge show.
They just pay them too slowly, I mean, give me
the verdict anyway. This is this is, this is maybe depressing,
but it's true.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
We've talked about this before.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
For many years, the highest paid person in entertainment was
Judy Sheinlan. Judge Judy, those dopey shows for folks who
don't work, can't work, are retired, are on the dole
government disability.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
That what you're gonna where the money is? Is that
what you're gonna do with the retirement.
Speaker 4 (32:39):
You work your whole life so you can retire, and
you're gonna watch daytime television.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
I know, I know.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
I hate to judge anybody who's not doing any harm.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
I don't mind. Go ahead, I'll tag you in, judge,
I'll judge it. You're wasting your life. Can I buy
some of your hours? Michael? How much time do we
have before final thoughts and everything? Thirty seconds?
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Okay, I'm gonna squeeze this in getting back to the hole,
it's white supremacists and other extremist hiding behind self defense laws.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Two things to Monesia Henley.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Who I would guess given what she said, is a
black woman.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Maybe she's just a woke white person, but anyway, James
Lindsay brilliantly summed up critical race theory and what it's
trying to do.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Once by saying it's a tool.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
You call something racist until you're in charge of it, and.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
That's exactly what she's doing.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
You call self defense racist until you've changed the law.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
The idea that.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Violence disproportionately is angry white people hurting innocent black people, well,
to say that's not born out by the statistics is
soft pedaling it by about a thousand times.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
There's a hole in the show. You know it's time
to go. It's time for final thoughts. On your feet,
there you go. Here's your host for final thoughts. Joe Getty.
Damn activists, they're everywhere.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
Let's get a final thought from everybody on the crew.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Michaelangelo lead us off. I got admit I watched a
lot of game shows as a kid. Me and my
grandma we watch the game shows together. Now she was retired,
and one of our favorites was The Price Is Right.
So yeah, that was a good childhood memory.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
Oh there you go, and Jack belittled you only moments ago,
shocking Katie Greener, esteemed newswoman, has a final thought, Katie, I.
Speaker 5 (34:30):
Have a new Katie's corner up at Armstrong getty dot
com that has the Jeff Bezos letter to the Washington
Post people and a bunch of other stuff.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
And no, Jack, I will not spell Katie a K
and a tea, so I don't even try. But corners
with a K, right it is? I caved? Was cute?
I love that Jack.
Speaker 4 (34:48):
The final fitting in with our theme. Recently, a friend
of mine just sent me this. Toronto police are being
criticized for suggesting people leave their keys inside the front
door of their home because that's mostly what burglars are
looking for when they break in, and to avoid a
violent confrontation, leave your keys where they're easy to get,
(35:10):
like your car keys.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
Yes, that's what the Toronto police are suggesting.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Canada is so far down the road to Crazyville, just
like Great Britain.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
You know.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
My final thought, I'm going to quote another authority of
Tom McClintock, who in a conversation years and years ago said, Hey,
even if the mainstream in the country is going away
from what you know is right, just keep preaching it
because they'll.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
Be back eventually.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
I'm reminded of that with the immigration stuff. Now, even
you have people on the left saying, yeah, calling people
racists for wanting order the immigration that was terrible.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
Armstrong and Getty wrapping up another grueling four hour work to,
in other words, keep fighting the good fight.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
So many people. Thanks a little time.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
Go to Armstrong and Getty dot com. The hot links, Oh,
the hot links so entertaining.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
Hoping to be over my bird flu slash monkey pox
by tomorrow see it then, God bless America.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
I'm Strong and Getty do not deserve their paychecks. It's
true you could peel on my leg, but don't tell
me it's rained. What the hell are you talking about?
Doesn't that sound crazy? Even in Washington? That math don't work.
I'm not saying it's okay, don't put word so there's
a few kings in that slinking.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
You have depressed me to the depths of standing on
a ledge.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
That's why I'm here. I'm gonna put my head in
the oven during the commercial break. You have an electric oven,
it'll just get your head hot. Or I'm Strong 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.