March 6, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Tariffs in Canada & Joe Getty's: How are they going to solve it?!
- The execution order
- Al Green censured & lots of yelling
- Scientists breed hairy mice
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty Armstrong and Jetty
enough he Armstrong and Jetty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
It's not likely to be just the automakers. I mean,
the President is going to decide this today, but he's
talking about it. But I think it's likely that it
will cover all USMCA compliant goods and services, so that
which is part of President Trump's deal with Canada and Mexico,
(00:44):
are likely to get an exemption from these tariffsm.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
For a month. Is that what they're saying?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Yeah, Well, the John continues the negotiations, the talks.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
If you will, will it keep working to do this
if every time?
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Yeah, back off of it.
Speaker 5 (01:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
At some point even Pantywayte Trudeau pick up the phone
say look, can we skip this part?
Speaker 1 (01:11):
What do you want?
Speaker 5 (01:15):
So?
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Uh, terrify and all Canadian goods started to a midnight
Monday or Tuesday, and then except for the car makers,
they announced yesterday and now today they're saying and everything
else except for the cars and everything else, So it's
on hold.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Canadian bacon, which the President has renamed Montana ham.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Well, I refer to Canada as gay North Dakota.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Oh wow, wow, wow, that is way out of bounds
speaking a gay US mc A. It's fun to trade
in the USMCA. And yes, I am doing the letters.
Oh Canada, we developed, Yes, we got this text earlier. Jack,
(01:59):
your laugh is infectious. Love hearing it, my Laughe actually
is infectious, as I have the flu, ironically, yes, and
I'm gonna talk about a sneeze and his cough.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
I was going to talk a little bit about the
flu and flu vaccine and stuff, as I've learned a
few things about it, as I didn't get the vaccine
and I got the flu. And I'll tell you what,
I'd get the vaccine every year if I could avoid this.
Although I've only got the flu I think once in
my life, So if I only get it once every
forty years, not getting the vaccine, it's not much of
a risk.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
But more than that, you're old now, you fool.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
That's the difference.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
Does that make it more likely that you get the flu?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
It makes it more likely it really really hurts you.
Hum hm oh yeah, it's like COVID. Just think of
it like COVID. Nobody healthy under the age of fifty
five should have done a damn thing, especially not the
kids similar with the flu.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
I'm not die of the flu. Old.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Yeah, well, we'll see. Anyway, there's so much I want
to squeeze into this half hour, and then at the
bottom of the hour, we're gonna play some audio from
the hearings yesterday in Congress where they hauled a bunch
of sanctuary city mayors into the hearing room and berated them.
Good fun for everyone, but I got a bunch of
(03:18):
stuff to get to. All of it deserves a couple
of minutes. I've changed my mind on one thing. We've
got to get these two stories on. They're both from
cal Unicornia, and either many of our listeners are cal
Unicornians many are not. So it's either directly applicable to
you or trust me, somebody's going to try to introduce
this in your state soon, and you need to be forewarned.
(03:40):
Let's begin by playing Joe Getty's How They Gonna Solve It,
the brand new game show Everyone Loves Jack first of all,
in an irony among ironies, California leaders are facing a
quandary arising from the rise of sales of electric cars
(04:03):
as more people buy fuel efficient zero missions vehicles, the
public's consumption of gases declined, so the revenue from gas
taxes has declined significantly. It's increasingly problematics. As this professor
of urban planning at UCLA, gas tax revenues could are
about thirteen billion last year. They could fall as low
(04:25):
as five billion dollars in the next quite a few years.
You're talking about now, just the state of California here, Yeah,
just the state of California. I know how they're going
to fix it, although there are federal taxes. Also, they
get into the fact that, for all their benefits, electric
vehicles still create problems. Equipped with heavy batteries, these fuel
efficient cars and trucks tend to weigh more than their counterparts,
so they do more damage to the roads. They unleash
(04:47):
more micro rubber fragments and plastic from the tires into
the atmosphere. They also accelerate more quickly, which increases the
risk of collisions. Blah blah blah. So all of these problems, Jack,
can you guess how are they gonna solve it?
Speaker 4 (05:01):
Yeah, in California, they're just gonna they want you to
stop driving gas powered cars. So of course they'll just
add more tax to a gallon of gas with the
idea that thanks to electric cars mean and blah blah
blah in states where well in states where people don't
like electric cars, they're not buying them, so it's not
(05:22):
an issue. Oh, I see, I was at the Tesla
charging thing yesterday, and when I first started charging my
car there three years ago, there'd be two cars there,
maybe no cars. This particular Tesla charging thing by the
station there's I don't know, fifteen stalls. Now it's regularly
full and you have to wait, and so that's a
(05:46):
pretty limiting factor, I think. And that's for Tesla's if
you have a regular if you have a different kind
of electric car.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
You can't charge it anywhere. I mean, none of those
things work.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
So I just I don't.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
It seems so incredibly unworkable. And then you add in
the politics of it. If the bloom is off the
rows for Tesla because people hate Elon so much, only
lefties were really into electric cars to start with, aside
for me because I wanted the world's fastest car. But
only lefties really were into electric cars anyway. Now they've
turned on Elon.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
What's it going to do.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
That might blow up the whole electric car thing, just
people's hatred of Trump.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
So this think tank gal who they quote, suggested a
variety of policies solutions, including mostly new taxes or fees
that could hinge on how many miles you drive, no
matter what you're driving or how many.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Cars a household owns.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Soon you'll have to report your mileage to Uncle Gavy
and be taxed on it, no matter what you're driving,
and taxes will go up. And that's how they're going
to solve it.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Or Texas so.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
With the goal of driving more people into electric cars,
which has got a ton of problems that I just
pointed out nice and is absolutely not clearly an environmental.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Win now according to any sober analysis. And I'm not anti,
I'm not pro I don't care. And then this also
from cal Unicornia, compiled by a loyal listener, Paolo Excellent correspondent.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
You may know this.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
Blue states all over the country have been subsidizing rooftop
solar electric installation and generation. More precisely, nonsolar customers have
been subsidizing solar customers through various means, and solar customers
generally have higher income. So that's not sitting well with
the nonsolar crowd, nor with the equity minded the progressives
in government, and that doesn't include one in particular of
(07:37):
the equity minded Gavin Newsom, who promoted policies that led
to this. I mean, Gavey has been hammering solar like
a lunatic since he came onto the scene.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
But it can't be his fault.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
So California is blaming an unlikely villain for your high
energy bills. So the state government now is turning the
peep people who listened and installed solar and responded to
the incentives and all as the scapegoats. California regulators, analysts,
and even the governor himself have recently blamed popular solar
(08:12):
incentive programs for saddling other eight payers with higher energy bills. Indeed,
the arguments from state officials pit the energy bills of
two groups California customers, the haves and have nots at
home solar against each other. It's a dramatic pivot from
the state with more rooftop solar panels than any other.
So if you have solar, look to get hammered by
(08:32):
the very government that berated you.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
To get solar. Yeah, you laugh. I laugh.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Well that's the sort of thing that happens when government
starts getting involved in the free market, you know, getting
back to the electric car thing. Seventy five dollars subsidy
on electric cars. So you go out and buy it
one of the cheaper teslas and you're in the right
income range. The rest of US taxpayers paid seven twenty
five hundred dollars of your car so that it's more
(09:02):
affordable for you.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
What kind of wealth redistribution is that?
Speaker 4 (09:06):
And if that goes away, tons of those electric cars,
those smaller ones that people buy, they ain't gonna.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Buy right, right, and again, all of this for something
that's not a clear environment will win.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Finally, this at least for this segment.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Jack and I are both firearms owners, enthusiasts, not experts.
But South Carolina plans to execute a man by firing
squad tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
WHOA, I didn't know any states still did. That was
a sparky on the print.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
No, they just thought, hey, let's save a little money,
old sparky. You know, it's a high maintenance thing. Did
somebody at any point say, you know, it would be fun?
I mean, how did they come up with this idea. Well,
in terms of the process of death, there could be
nothing less painful than sudden catastrophic gun injury. H Lethal injections.
(10:00):
Pretty they got a jaby and find a vein. Sometimes
they have to jab you over and all again.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
As much as I hate needles, I think I'd take
the lethal injection over being shot, even though I realized
it'd probably not be very painful, as many people have
pointed out inert gas. Inert gas, you fall asleep and
then you die for the lack oxygen. It would work easily,
and I don't think it would hurt to get shot.
Read Executioner Song by Norman Mailer sometime if you want
(10:27):
to know a lot about the death penalty and getting shot,
because that's how it ends. He gets shot, but the
fear leading up to it would be brutal. Sitting there, Yes,
yes it would. I hope they xanaxia up or something
like that. Anyway, that's not we're not here to talk
about that jacket. Can I murder something to take the
edge off, like a I don't know, a Goldschlager shot
(10:49):
or margarita or something.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
You know what I've recovered my footing here. I'm obviously
working with a progressive here. Hey, don't slaughter people in
cold blood and we won't have to.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Worry about it.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
You always hell, we always get into this conversation and
put it as if it were us. Well, it's not
gonna be us, because I'm not gonna do some horrific
crime that deserves the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Exactly.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I was gonna yell at you, but you yelled at
you pretty effectively, so I'll let it go. Do we
have time for this? We really don't have time for this.
I will describe to you why even firearms experts are
questioning whether this is a good idea. Oh wow, South Cakilaki,
you gotta check yourself.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
Don't detail us to come. What's next in the South?
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Well, if the shooting goes well, we might think about stoning. Yeah,
why not you?
Speaker 4 (11:37):
I got something about the medieval justice system that we'll
fit in with this.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Just fine?
Speaker 1 (11:41):
That feel across yesterday?
Speaker 4 (11:42):
Yeah, which burnings and stuff or and immediately medieval justice
system not that great?
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Not that great. We got a lot more on the way.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
Stay with us.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
Meanwhile, at the old timey execution's desk, here's Joe Jeddy
So in South Carolina, one of my many adopted home states,
the South Carolina Department of Corrections is going to execute
a dude tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Theoretically, they're gonna strap this Brad Sigmund, who, by the way,
didn't like his ex girlfriend's parents so beat them to
death with a baseball bat twenty three years ago.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Anytime you get into the what the person did, all
of a sudden, I don't care. How they're murdering doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
About So they're going to strap him to a metal
seat in the same small, indoor brick death chamber or
South Carolina has executed more than forty other prisoners by
electric chair and lethal injections since nineteen eighty five.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
It's kind of like that room in your house. It's
an all purpose room. Anyway.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
If the execution goes according to plan, six o'clock Friday
evening Eastern time, Sigmun's head will be covered by a hood,
A target will be placed over his heart. Three prison
employees will be prepared to shoot from a distance of
about fifteen feet.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
That's awful close.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
In Utah, which is the only state, why would you
want to be further away? Where obviously the farther you
are away, the more likely you miss.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Well, right, right, sure now, Utah, the only other state
that's executed prisoners by firing squad in the past fifty years,
does the traditional five shooters, four with a live round,
one with a blank, so all of them, if necessary,
can convince themselves it wasn't me killed a guy.
Speaker 5 (13:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Reads an interesting deal, but seriously, executioners Songs one of
the most interesting books I've ever read about crime and
punishment and everything else. But anyway, back to you, Yeah, anyway,
he says, South Carolina, shut up, Utah.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
They got three guys each with a live bullet. Anyway,
they got three guys Utah.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Three guys with a hammer, and they ain't sober.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Boy. After the warden reads the execution order, the team
will fire, the protocol states, and they will also have
most lawyers and family members sit in a space directly
beside the gas chamber behind a glass partition.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
But firearms inspectors who wants to watch that?
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Boy?
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I don't want to get like crazy crazy gross.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
There are ways you could make it less bad, but
again I don't people haven't tuned in for that. But
firearms experts who are no. Left wingers are saying, guys,
I wouldn't shoot in that space. I wouldn't even be
in the room. It's just an unnecessary risk. Well, yeah,
you got a small room built of brick and a
strap to a metal chair.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
Yeah, I would agree.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
So I mean, if I had to, you know, Christy
Nomestyle get rid of a farm dog, I'm not putting
them in a brick room.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
That'd be crazy.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Well, and you wouldn't strap them in anything but strap
to a metal chair. That's just a terrible idea, depending
on what you know the chair is made of, in
the sort of ammunition and the rest of it. The
fire squad chairs, South Carolina said, now we're good. The
firing squad chairs surrounded by protective equipment and the prison
installed bullet resistant class between the witness room and the
(15:09):
death chamber. The witness room looks uncomfortably like someone's home theater.
It doesn't quite have the really recliney chairs, but they
look quite comfortable.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
And is there a concession stand? Oh boy? Oh jack.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Ricochets aren't the only danger when bullets are shot in
closed spaces, since led particles and noxious gases are released
to people who use it. For shooting rams are required
by law. Wow, shut up, must have ricochetted. Uh. Hearing
loss is another risk were aheadphones you morons.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
I wouldn't want to watch that. I don't quite get
going to uh an execution anyway. I mean, thank god,
I've never been in this situation and hopefully never will be,
where a loved one is, you know, so horribly murdered
by someone that.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
They get the death penalty.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
But I don't need to watch them snuffed for any
sort of closure or anything. I'm not criticizing anybody who does.
You get to do whatever you want, but I can't
imagine wanting to do that.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
As long as it is an open enough process that
we're assured that it was carried out according to the
laws of the state and the country, and what he's
tortured or anything like that, I'm fine with that. But
you know, one interesting truth about the death penalty, which
I'm not against exactly, is that families think it will
bring them closure when the person is finally executed after decades,
(16:25):
and it almost never does, right.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
That is one of the biggest problems with it.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Yeah, yeah, anyway, this is not a debate about the
death penalty.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
In general.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
But I wonder if South cakilak, he's going to go ahead.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Well, what's the argument against it?
Speaker 1 (16:43):
It just sounds awful.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Most of the arguments against specific methods of execution are phony.
They're just efforts to postpone it in general. Yeah, because
you're against it, and you can be against it. I mean,
you can make a solid argument against the death penalty
as a libertarian. I mean there's all kinds of, you know,
good reasons argue against it. I'll find a single forty
five caliber slug while someone sleeps would be completely merciful,
(17:09):
but we don't do that.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Most of the arguments are famish, armstrong, and getty.
Speaker 7 (17:15):
Take your seat, sir, take your seat. Finding that members
continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption or proper decorum,
the Chair now directs a sertant at arms to restore order,
remove this gentleman from the chamber.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
The ejection of al Green not the sole singer of
the representative. Was it racism? No, it wasn't. Does anybody
have any other questions? Because he's an idiot?
Speaker 1 (17:53):
So he got.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
Censured, that's correct, Jack whatever, whatever. See, I'm surprised that
Norm hasn't been blown up in that somebody just keeps
doing things and getting censured.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Like, go ahead, censure me, what do I care?
Speaker 3 (18:08):
All right, these people have no shame, they can't be shame.
Shame on you.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
I have none.
Speaker 4 (18:14):
Well, and just the public doesn't care. So yeah, it's
all so performative. Yes it is, and it raises money.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
So speaking of the House of Representatives such as it is,
they hold held a house hearing on sanctuary cities yesterday,
which is a topic well worth talking about.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Oh he my goodness, declaring yourself.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Immune from cooperating with federal authorities or above the law,
or so righteous as to not have to participate in
our great self governance experiment. That's the way I see
sanctuary cities anyway, So yeah, it should be looked into.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
I'd love for the Supreme Court to weigh you know.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Yeah eventually.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
House hearings are usually not the best way to get
to the bottom of anything. Yeah, the Supreme Court just
needs to rule finally, They need to skip to that
and just say is this okay or not? The Supreme
Court's gonna say, nah, you can't do that, and that's
the end of it.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Ah, right, I fear the dreaded narrow ruling, But yeah,
I would love to see it work through that process,
and I suspect very strongly it will.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
One has to remind.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Oneself just yeah, I really don't talk in real life.
That's Trump's been in office for what six weeks, five
weeks something like that. Yeah, like six weeks, so there's
plenty of time to get to that anyway. So the
House of Representatives of the hearings is Jack indicated, not
the best way to actually get to the bottom of issues,
(19:39):
but they're an excellent.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Opportunity to yell at people and be entertained.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
So, first of all, we've got congress Person Gill, who
I don't think I know they're act joining with Mayor
Brandon Johnson of Chicago, who if there were three of
them that would almost amount to normal intelligence. He is
a union hack and a liar and a cheat and
a communist and a hundred others things. Clip Hady first,
Michael and Jackie jump in. Anytime it's a little longish,
(20:04):
we can bail as needed.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Mayor Johnson, I want to start with you.
Speaker 8 (20:08):
One of your first actions as mayor was establishing a
deputy mayor for immigrant migrant and refugee right. I want
to ask you a series of questions if you could
answer with a yes or no answer that yes no.
First of all, do you support allowing illegal aliens to
obtain driver's licenses?
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Does yes or no?
Speaker 5 (20:33):
Can you? My city of Chicago has been a welcoming
city for.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Over four so uh we all know the yes no question.
The thing is just a trap game, and it's stupid
and performative. And if anybody ever said just yes or no,
even if I had a simple yes or no answer,
I would launch into some long screed just to piss
them off. And Gil is on my side of this.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
I agree with them completely, But that's just a sudd
Although on driver's licenses for illegals, that's that's a yes
or no. Is that it certainly can.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
But yeah, yeah, anyway, let's go brand and Johnson continues.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
For years.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
I'll say that is a yes. Next question, that's the
policy that we will hold to.
Speaker 8 (21:14):
Do you support tax dollars subsidizing or paying for the
health care of illegal aliens?
Speaker 5 (21:21):
I support investments in all residents of the people of Chicago,
and that's what I do.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
That's a yes as well.
Speaker 8 (21:26):
Do you support free or reduced college for illegal aliens.
Speaker 5 (21:31):
Again, I support the investments of all residents of the
people of Chicago. That is a yes.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Next question, do you support it?
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Okay, if you get to yeses, he gets put out
of office or what? Okay, that's enough of that, and
he works this way too. Do you support a taxpayer
funding of abortions for illegal aliens? And Johnson gives the same,
you know, reasonably diplomatic effort answer. Rather, Hey, all residents
of Chicago gets the same thing. That's not a bad dodge. Again,
(21:57):
I'm staunchly against you know, a lot of these policies.
I'm just talking about the strategy of arguing it. How
do you not politically say no?
Speaker 1 (22:05):
Though?
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Because it's not popular even in Chicago. No, it's definitely
not part popular nationwide. I don't think he's got his
site set on national office, but it's not even popular
in Chicago or New York at this point, all this
stuff for illegals.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Why would you just say no?
Speaker 4 (22:22):
Even if in reality every citizen, every citizen, every resident
gets the same treatment.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
You know, the college president gals who were pro anti
Semitism just didn't want to admit it. They're the rare,
rare example of where a non answer isn't the best answer.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Because Johnson's diplomatic half.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Answer this, it's hard to get to stirred up over it.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
So what's the justification for every resident gets the same treatment.
That's just their philosophy of governance. They'd say, don't we
don't pick and choose, We don't who's who in the
city of Chicago. We look out for everybody because we're
one big, happy family.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
Wow, you know effectively, you know, budgetarily, that's insane, but
it sounds good.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
See, here's difficult.
Speaker 4 (23:14):
It wouldn't be difficult to you know, you got to
show an ID showing your of course, then how to
who do you ask to prove? Because I've never been
asked to prove I'm a US citizen for anything.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
White privilege right there, folks, Do you hear that?
Speaker 4 (23:29):
So you're just gonna anybody who's kind of tan, You're
gonna make them come up with some documentation that they
were born.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Here speaks with an accent right that there are practical issues.
You know, I'm trying to be fair about this.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
So you're watching soccer match on your phone out there
in the lobby. You got any documentation.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
So this is well right, And what's interesting to me
is asking him about specifics. He actually has a reasonable
case to make that. No, we don't worry about who's
what citizenship status. As long as you live here, we
take care of you. But a sanctuary city in general,
if it extends to we do not cooperate with ICE
when they tell us you have a dangerous felon you're
about to let out. We need to take him and
(24:12):
get rid of him. I despise that. A little bit
of Byron Donald's of Florida talking to a handful of mayors.
Speaker 9 (24:19):
Next clip, Michael, did your city spend on illegal immigration?
Speaker 10 (24:22):
Do you have how much over the last couple of
years on all newcomers, whatever their status was.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
It's around seventy nine million since twenty twenty two.
Speaker 9 (24:29):
Seventy nine million, Mayor Johnson, Chicago. How much is the
city of Chicago spent on illegal immigration?
Speaker 5 (24:36):
If you refer into the twenty twenty two up to
twenty twenty four of the buses coming from Texas, roughly
the same percentage of the state of Texas, about one
percent of our overall budget. What is that?
Speaker 9 (24:47):
Because we don't have the city's budget in front.
Speaker 5 (24:49):
Of me numbers it's one percent. And if you want
the actual calculation, we can make sure someone.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
You're the mayor, you don't have the math in front
of you.
Speaker 5 (24:55):
Is one percent of the overall budget over the last
That's why you were a failing Which is the same
number that New York actually spent.
Speaker 9 (25:01):
On tech legal immigration. Mayor Johnson, I already asked you.
You don't have a hard number, and if you don't
have a hard number, you're not running your city well.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
Mayor Adams, how much.
Speaker 9 (25:09):
Did the City of New York actually spend on illegal immigration?
Speaker 5 (25:11):
Six point nine billion of taxpayers that's.
Speaker 9 (25:14):
Zero point nine billion dollars of taxpayer money on a
problem that was fostered on the American people. Mayor Will,
in the city of Boston, how much did you spend We.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
Don't ask about immigration status and delivering city.
Speaker 9 (25:28):
You don't ask about how much money the City of
Boston has spent on illegal immigration?
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Out of your miss between immigration status, do you manage
your budget or not?
Speaker 5 (25:36):
Mayor? That is how we keep.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Mayor Will, Do you manage your.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
Numbers to prove it? I manage my budget.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
I have a triple a Bond writing daily back ten years.
Speaker 9 (25:44):
So to the City of Boston, just understand that your
mayor does not care how much of your resources she
has spent on people who are not citizens.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
The City of Boston.
Speaker 9 (25:53):
Of Boston, mister Bhaer, have a question for you, because
I understand Cato's perspective when it comes to legal immigration.
Speaker 5 (26:01):
I understand that.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Is who who here can do a one handed push up?
I can't. I just keep hitting them with questions.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
You can't do a one handed push up?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Mayor woo bringing it there?
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Woo?
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Who says I?
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Uh? And then do you want to hear people yelling
at each other? It's Ianna Presley now hates America and
James Cohmer what there's.
Speaker 4 (26:25):
Obviously something flawed with these hearings, and that I'm not
digging the questioners, even though I agree with them one
hundred percent. It's that the process is just.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
Not the best. Well, it's it's not even pretending to
fulfill the purpose it claims to be there for. You
know what I mean, They're not it's not a hearing,
it's a it's a it's a debate, yeah yeah, like.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Rather than the yes no, I'll take that as a
yes or you don't know the wraw number. I would
like to hear him explain your philosophy of why you
think taxpayers should have to support illegals.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Is there any limit to the number of the legal
immigrants that you think? I mean, is there any limit
to the amount of money you'd be willing to spend
taxpayer money? And at what point do you think the
taxpayers might revolt? Blobbah, Yeah, in an interesting discussion, but
there's no time for that.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
More yelling coming up in a moment. Stay with us.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Speaking of policy and how at least results every twenty
six seconds thanks to progressive policies that I'm sure Mayor
Wu enjoys, a burglary takes place in the US, and
that means by the time you know our show ends,
dozens of homes will be targeted and broken into. But
with simply safes, active guard outdoor protection, it can help
prevent breakings before they happen.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
So you've got eye powered cameras backed by live professional
monitoring agents to monitor your property, and if someone's lurking
around or acting weird and suspicious, those agents will actually
see and talk to them in real time. Activate spotlights,
I love that flip on the spotlight and say hey,
what are you doing over there behind the bushes? You
stump bag and then they go running off tail between
(28:09):
their legs. They'll even contact the police, all before they
have a chance to get inside your home.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
No what, no long term contracts or cancelation fees. Monitoring
plans start affordably at around a bucket day.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
It's amazing.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Simply safe dot com slash armstrong claim fifty percent off
a new system with a professional monitoring plan in your
first month free. That's simplysafe dot com slash armstrong. There's
no safe. I like sad place half. I haven't actually
heard this, but I heard it's decent. Aana Presley who
hates America part of the squad, and James Komer who's
a bit of a hard ass of battling here and
(28:41):
clip eighty three Michael missus.
Speaker 11 (28:43):
Jerk canne have several articles I need to enter them.
Let me just go ahead with the what the the
articles are?
Speaker 1 (28:49):
What's the next article? Let me proceed.
Speaker 11 (28:56):
Data from Texas shows that US born and Marians oh
met more race.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
This trend.
Speaker 12 (29:03):
If you're all trying to get thrown out of committee,
so you can get on ms b C is gonna
end more.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
We're not gonna put up with it.
Speaker 12 (29:12):
You can go, you can go with mister Frost and
mister Green.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
That's what you want.
Speaker 12 (29:18):
No, no, miss Presley, I've been very I have been
very accommodating to you.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Go record.
Speaker 11 (29:31):
This is my right, thank you.
Speaker 12 (29:34):
No, no, it is, mister supermom.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Mister yo. You know the process.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Of unanimous consents.
Speaker 4 (29:43):
You you are not recognized articles to enter into human record.
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Mister.
Speaker 12 (29:48):
If you don't go, we're going to recognize mister Timmins.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Oh No. The simple true.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Be it, be it shoplifting, murder or yelling your wack
a doodal squad talking points even though you're breaking all
the rules, is if the sanction isn't adequate to deter
the action, the action will continue. Yeah, and I again
I equit the sergeant at arms with a taser, simple
(30:18):
as that, bringing.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Out the compliance belt. I think it would have been
more effective to let her say those freaking ridiculous statistics
about So what's your logic here, Let's just ship out
all US born citizens and bring in people from other
countries because they commit rape.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
And murder at a lower rate.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
I mean, what is that?
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Hell is the point here?
Speaker 4 (30:46):
But I'd rather have her say it and then have
people push back against it, either statistically or philosophically.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
And sure, yeah, native borns commit rape at one point
three per hundred thousand, immigrants at one point two per
one hundred thousand, So we've imported fifty thousand rapists. Explain
to me how that's a good thing, right, it's an
okay thing since the rate was a little lower. Yeah, exactly,
you bald headed America hating freak. Okay, we've got more
(31:16):
coming Upstay here.
Speaker 13 (31:21):
The possible scientific breakthrough of these extra furry rodents are
called wooly mice.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
A Dallas company that works on.
Speaker 13 (31:28):
De extinction genetically modified them with hair to resemble the
traits of a wooly mammoth. The company says it plans
to revive the actual wooly mammoth to walk the earth
again as soon.
Speaker 10 (31:40):
As twenty twenty eight. Wow, within three years. But there's
a lot missing in that story. It sounds to me
like all you did was genetically modify mice so they
have wooly r hair and then made the leap that
you're going to bring back the wooly mammoth wool.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Yeah. See, that's my problem, is this whole thing. I
read the long account of it yesterday.
Speaker 5 (32:04):
Yes, they've just.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Bred harry mice, which you know is kind of novel.
They're cute, the little bastards.
Speaker 3 (32:10):
But and so in reading into this, these people, what
they're going to try to do is manipulate the genes
of heffalumps until they look kind of like wooly mammon.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Oh Okay, that's not the same thing, all right.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
Now it really isn't. Yeah, it's it's phony.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
Now there are projects to bring back the willly mammoth
with like various genetic material they have from frozen carcasses
of wily mammotson that sort of stuff that could be
like actually bringing back that beast.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
But this just your elephants manipulated. Again, novel attractive.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
We got this text would they dead or would you
have to like send them to the groomer.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
So we got into the conversation about bringing back you know,
willie mammoths and dinosaurs and all this stuff that has
been talked about for a long time, kind of Jurassic parkish,
although the technology is coming real. We got this text
soon aill be clashing with dinosaurs for world domination.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Yeah, it's like two different things that.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
Mankind couldn't do before now can And everybody's thinking, is
this a good idea?
Speaker 1 (33:12):
But we're screaming toward it anyway.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
Way, AI versus the dinosaurs produced is like a Japanese
nineteen fifties werfleck.
Speaker 4 (33:20):
How good would that be? But speaking of AI, and
this is minor AI. If you have I don't know
to your Google phones, Android phones have this. They probably
had it a year before Apple did. But the new
Apple software, it gives me suggestions for all my text responses.
And I gotta say sometimes it's really like exactly what
(33:43):
I was gonna say.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
I had one of those this morning where it was
like ha.
Speaker 4 (33:48):
Ha, yeah, I doubt it, And I thought that's exactly
how I was going to respond. Oh, and I feel
like there's something wrong if I just press send on
the pretty close to I was gonna say reply, I
feel like I'm just opening.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
The door to Yes, what am I doing here? Right right?
Because what does the reply act?
Speaker 3 (34:10):
That's a problem. It's just entering into that that realm.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
If their reply is you're so funny or I mean
if there's ever two replies in a row that were
AI and we just pressed send.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Now, what are we doing?
Speaker 5 (34:26):
Right?
Speaker 1 (34:27):
That's troubling, isn't it? And and uh and uh.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
I was texting somebody I remember the other day and said,
was this an AI reply? Because they heard me talking
about this and they're like troubled by the idea AI.
They aren't as meaningful or real or whatever. But you're right,
two in a row would be monstrous. Yes, yes, and
very quickly could become the whole half the conversation.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
But so far I'd just.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Be sitting there ignoring each other, letting your AIS converse.
Speaker 4 (35:00):
Yeah, getting the gist of what they said. AI has
a good reply, it's good enough you press send.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
It's weird. There's something weird, Dan.
Speaker 4 (35:08):
I haven't quite put my finger on it, but so
far I have not used I should turn it off,
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
And maybe there's a way to turn it off.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
Well, every great authority on philosophy, religion, you know, emotional
health says the same thing. Best to disconnect even more
from your friends and loved ones. Yeah, make it even
more about screens and computers.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
Ugh, I do like the long text summaries and email
summaries that I'm getting from AI pretty damned helpful.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
I glance at my.
Speaker 4 (35:36):
Emails in the morning and it's, you know, like my
son's teacher I had emailed about something and says, says,
that's fine, we'll see you Sunday, you.
Speaker 1 (35:43):
Know, and then just break it down to the main points.
That's pretty cool. Yeah, yeah, yes, Katie.
Speaker 4 (35:52):
The only problem I'm seeing with that, for me at least,
is I'm reading those things and I'm going okay, and
I'm not responding.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
All right, I've done that a few times.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Oh whoops, Yeah, yeah, whoops. I'm still involved in this process.
So blockbuster fourth hour of the show. Maybe you don't
get the fourth hour, grab it later via podcast Armstrong
and Getty on demand. You probably ought to subscribe.
Speaker 4 (36:11):
Or maybe just have your AI listen, and then you
have to waste your time summarise the show for you.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
More on the
Speaker 5 (36:17):
Way Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty Armstrong and Jetty
enough he Armstrong and Jetty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
It's not likely to be just the automakers. I mean,
the President is going to decide this today, but he's
talking about it. But I think it's likely that it
will cover all USMCA compliant goods and services, so that
which is part of President Trump's deal with Canada and Mexico,
(00:44):
are likely to get an exemption from these tariffsm.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
For a month. Is that what they're saying?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Yeah, Well, the John continues the negotiations, the talks.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
If you will, will it keep working to do this
if every time?
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Yeah, back off of it.
Speaker 5 (01:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
At some point even Pantywayte Trudeau pick up the phone
say look, can we skip this part?
Speaker 1 (01:11):
What do you want?
Speaker 5 (01:15):
So?
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Uh, terrify and all Canadian goods started to a midnight
Monday or Tuesday, and then except for the car makers,
they announced yesterday and now today they're saying and everything
else except for the cars and everything else, So it's
on hold.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Canadian bacon, which the President has renamed Montana ham.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Well, I refer to Canada as gay North Dakota.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Oh wow, wow, wow, that is way out of bounds
speaking a gay US mc A. It's fun to trade
in the USMCA. And yes, I am doing the letters.
Oh Canada, we developed, Yes, we got this text earlier. Jack,
(01:59):
your laugh is infectious. Love hearing it, my Laughe actually
is infectious, as I have the flu, ironically, yes, and
I'm gonna talk about a sneeze and his cough.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
I was going to talk a little bit about the
flu and flu vaccine and stuff, as I've learned a
few things about it, as I didn't get the vaccine
and I got the flu. And I'll tell you what,
I'd get the vaccine every year if I could avoid this.
Although I've only got the flu I think once in
my life, So if I only get it once every
forty years, not getting the vaccine, it's not much of
a risk.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
But more than that, you're old now, you fool.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
That's the difference.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
Does that make it more likely that you get the flu?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
It makes it more likely it really really hurts you.
Hum hm oh yeah, it's like COVID. Just think of
it like COVID. Nobody healthy under the age of fifty
five should have done a damn thing, especially not the
kids similar with the flu.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
I'm not die of the flu. Old.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Yeah, well, we'll see. Anyway, there's so much I want
to squeeze into this half hour, and then at the
bottom of the hour, we're gonna play some audio from
the hearings yesterday in Congress where they hauled a bunch
of sanctuary city mayors into the hearing room and berated them.
Good fun for everyone, but I got a bunch of
(03:18):
stuff to get to. All of it deserves a couple
of minutes. I've changed my mind on one thing. We've
got to get these two stories on. They're both from
cal Unicornia, and either many of our listeners are cal
Unicornians many are not. So it's either directly applicable to
you or trust me, somebody's going to try to introduce
this in your state soon, and you need to be forewarned.
(03:40):
Let's begin by playing Joe Getty's How They Gonna Solve It,
the brand new game show Everyone Loves Jack first of all,
in an irony among ironies, California leaders are facing a
quandary arising from the rise of sales of electric cars
(04:03):
as more people buy fuel efficient zero missions vehicles, the
public's consumption of gases declined, so the revenue from gas
taxes has declined significantly. It's increasingly problematics. As this professor
of urban planning at UCLA, gas tax revenues could are
about thirteen billion last year. They could fall as low
(04:25):
as five billion dollars in the next quite a few years.
You're talking about now, just the state of California here, Yeah,
just the state of California. I know how they're going
to fix it, although there are federal taxes. Also, they
get into the fact that, for all their benefits, electric
vehicles still create problems. Equipped with heavy batteries, these fuel
efficient cars and trucks tend to weigh more than their counterparts,
so they do more damage to the roads. They unleash
(04:47):
more micro rubber fragments and plastic from the tires into
the atmosphere. They also accelerate more quickly, which increases the
risk of collisions. Blah blah blah. So all of these problems, Jack,
can you guess how are they gonna solve it?
Speaker 4 (05:01):
Yeah, in California, they're just gonna they want you to
stop driving gas powered cars. So of course they'll just
add more tax to a gallon of gas with the
idea that thanks to electric cars mean and blah blah
blah in states where well in states where people don't
like electric cars, they're not buying them, so it's not
(05:22):
an issue. Oh, I see, I was at the Tesla
charging thing yesterday, and when I first started charging my
car there three years ago, there'd be two cars there,
maybe no cars. This particular Tesla charging thing by the
station there's I don't know, fifteen stalls. Now it's regularly
full and you have to wait, and so that's a
(05:46):
pretty limiting factor, I think. And that's for Tesla's if
you have a regular if you have a different kind
of electric car.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
You can't charge it anywhere. I mean, none of those
things work.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
So I just I don't.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
It seems so incredibly unworkable. And then you add in
the politics of it. If the bloom is off the
rows for Tesla because people hate Elon so much, only
lefties were really into electric cars to start with, aside
for me because I wanted the world's fastest car. But
only lefties really were into electric cars anyway. Now they've
turned on Elon.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
What's it going to do.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
That might blow up the whole electric car thing, just
people's hatred of Trump.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
So this think tank gal who they quote, suggested a
variety of policies solutions, including mostly new taxes or fees
that could hinge on how many miles you drive, no
matter what you're driving or how many.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Cars a household owns.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Soon you'll have to report your mileage to Uncle Gavy
and be taxed on it, no matter what you're driving,
and taxes will go up. And that's how they're going
to solve it.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Or Texas so.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
With the goal of driving more people into electric cars,
which has got a ton of problems that I just
pointed out nice and is absolutely not clearly an environmental.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Win now according to any sober analysis. And I'm not anti,
I'm not pro I don't care. And then this also
from cal Unicornia, compiled by a loyal listener, Paolo Excellent correspondent.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
You may know this.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
Blue states all over the country have been subsidizing rooftop
solar electric installation and generation. More precisely, nonsolar customers have
been subsidizing solar customers through various means, and solar customers
generally have higher income. So that's not sitting well with
the nonsolar crowd, nor with the equity minded the progressives
in government, and that doesn't include one in particular of
(07:37):
the equity minded Gavin Newsom, who promoted policies that led
to this. I mean, Gavey has been hammering solar like
a lunatic since he came onto the scene.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
But it can't be his fault.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
So California is blaming an unlikely villain for your high
energy bills. So the state government now is turning the
peep people who listened and installed solar and responded to
the incentives and all as the scapegoats. California regulators, analysts,
and even the governor himself have recently blamed popular solar
(08:12):
incentive programs for saddling other eight payers with higher energy bills. Indeed,
the arguments from state officials pit the energy bills of
two groups California customers, the haves and have nots at
home solar against each other. It's a dramatic pivot from
the state with more rooftop solar panels than any other.
So if you have solar, look to get hammered by
(08:32):
the very government that berated you.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
To get solar. Yeah, you laugh. I laugh.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Well that's the sort of thing that happens when government
starts getting involved in the free market, you know, getting
back to the electric car thing. Seventy five dollars subsidy
on electric cars. So you go out and buy it
one of the cheaper teslas and you're in the right
income range. The rest of US taxpayers paid seven twenty
five hundred dollars of your car so that it's more
(09:02):
affordable for you.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
What kind of wealth redistribution is that?
Speaker 4 (09:06):
And if that goes away, tons of those electric cars,
those smaller ones that people buy, they ain't gonna.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Buy right, right, and again, all of this for something
that's not a clear environment will win.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Finally, this at least for this segment.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Jack and I are both firearms owners, enthusiasts, not experts.
But South Carolina plans to execute a man by firing
squad tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
WHOA, I didn't know any states still did. That was
a sparky on the print.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
No, they just thought, hey, let's save a little money,
old sparky. You know, it's a high maintenance thing. Did
somebody at any point say, you know, it would be fun?
I mean, how did they come up with this idea. Well,
in terms of the process of death, there could be
nothing less painful than sudden catastrophic gun injury. H Lethal injections.
(10:00):
Pretty they got a jaby and find a vein. Sometimes
they have to jab you over and all again.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
As much as I hate needles, I think I'd take
the lethal injection over being shot, even though I realized
it'd probably not be very painful, as many people have
pointed out inert gas. Inert gas, you fall asleep and
then you die for the lack oxygen. It would work easily,
and I don't think it would hurt to get shot.
Read Executioner Song by Norman Mailer sometime if you want
(10:27):
to know a lot about the death penalty and getting shot,
because that's how it ends. He gets shot, but the
fear leading up to it would be brutal. Sitting there, Yes,
yes it would. I hope they xanaxia up or something
like that. Anyway, that's not we're not here to talk
about that jacket. Can I murder something to take the
edge off, like a I don't know, a Goldschlager shot
(10:49):
or margarita or something.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
You know what I've recovered my footing here. I'm obviously
working with a progressive here. Hey, don't slaughter people in
cold blood and we won't have to.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Worry about it.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
You always hell, we always get into this conversation and
put it as if it were us. Well, it's not
gonna be us, because I'm not gonna do some horrific
crime that deserves the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Exactly.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I was gonna yell at you, but you yelled at
you pretty effectively, so I'll let it go. Do we
have time for this? We really don't have time for this.
I will describe to you why even firearms experts are
questioning whether this is a good idea. Oh wow, South Cakilaki,
you gotta check yourself.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
Don't detail us to come. What's next in the South?
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Well, if the shooting goes well, we might think about stoning. Yeah,
why not you?
Speaker 4 (11:37):
I got something about the medieval justice system that we'll
fit in with this.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Just fine?
Speaker 1 (11:41):
That feel across yesterday?
Speaker 4 (11:42):
Yeah, which burnings and stuff or and immediately medieval justice
system not that great?
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Not that great. We got a lot more on the way.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
Stay with us.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
Meanwhile, at the old timey execution's desk, here's Joe Jeddy
So in South Carolina, one of my many adopted home states,
the South Carolina Department of Corrections is going to execute
a dude tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Theoretically, they're gonna strap this Brad Sigmund, who, by the way,
didn't like his ex girlfriend's parents so beat them to
death with a baseball bat twenty three years ago.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Anytime you get into the what the person did, all
of a sudden, I don't care. How they're murdering doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
About So they're going to strap him to a metal
seat in the same small, indoor brick death chamber or
South Carolina has executed more than forty other prisoners by
electric chair and lethal injections since nineteen eighty five.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
It's kind of like that room in your house. It's
an all purpose room. Anyway.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
If the execution goes according to plan, six o'clock Friday
evening Eastern time, Sigmun's head will be covered by a hood,
A target will be placed over his heart. Three prison
employees will be prepared to shoot from a distance of
about fifteen feet.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
That's awful close.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
In Utah, which is the only state, why would you
want to be further away? Where obviously the farther you
are away, the more likely you miss.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Well, right, right, sure now, Utah, the only other state
that's executed prisoners by firing squad in the past fifty years,
does the traditional five shooters, four with a live round,
one with a blank, so all of them, if necessary,
can convince themselves it wasn't me killed a guy.
Speaker 5 (13:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Reads an interesting deal, but seriously, executioners Songs one of
the most interesting books I've ever read about crime and
punishment and everything else. But anyway, back to you, Yeah, anyway,
he says, South Carolina, shut up, Utah.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
They got three guys each with a live bullet. Anyway,
they got three guys Utah.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Three guys with a hammer, and they ain't sober.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Boy. After the warden reads the execution order, the team
will fire, the protocol states, and they will also have
most lawyers and family members sit in a space directly
beside the gas chamber behind a glass partition.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
But firearms inspectors who wants to watch that?
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Boy?
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I don't want to get like crazy crazy gross.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
There are ways you could make it less bad, but
again I don't people haven't tuned in for that. But
firearms experts who are no. Left wingers are saying, guys,
I wouldn't shoot in that space. I wouldn't even be
in the room. It's just an unnecessary risk. Well, yeah,
you got a small room built of brick and a
strap to a metal chair.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
Yeah, I would agree.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
So I mean, if I had to, you know, Christy
Nomestyle get rid of a farm dog, I'm not putting
them in a brick room.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
That'd be crazy.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Well, and you wouldn't strap them in anything but strap
to a metal chair. That's just a terrible idea, depending
on what you know the chair is made of, in
the sort of ammunition and the rest of it. The
fire squad chairs, South Carolina said, now we're good. The
firing squad chairs surrounded by protective equipment and the prison
installed bullet resistant class between the witness room and the
(15:09):
death chamber. The witness room looks uncomfortably like someone's home theater.
It doesn't quite have the really recliney chairs, but they
look quite comfortable.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
And is there a concession stand? Oh boy? Oh jack.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Ricochets aren't the only danger when bullets are shot in
closed spaces, since led particles and noxious gases are released
to people who use it. For shooting rams are required
by law. Wow, shut up, must have ricochetted. Uh. Hearing
loss is another risk were aheadphones you morons.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
I wouldn't want to watch that. I don't quite get
going to uh an execution anyway. I mean, thank god,
I've never been in this situation and hopefully never will be,
where a loved one is, you know, so horribly murdered
by someone that.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
They get the death penalty.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
But I don't need to watch them snuffed for any
sort of closure or anything. I'm not criticizing anybody who does.
You get to do whatever you want, but I can't
imagine wanting to do that.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
As long as it is an open enough process that
we're assured that it was carried out according to the
laws of the state and the country, and what he's
tortured or anything like that, I'm fine with that. But
you know, one interesting truth about the death penalty, which
I'm not against exactly, is that families think it will
bring them closure when the person is finally executed after decades,
(16:25):
and it almost never does, right.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
That is one of the biggest problems with it.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Yeah, yeah, anyway, this is not a debate about the
death penalty.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
In general.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
But I wonder if South cakilak, he's going to go ahead.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Well, what's the argument against it?
Speaker 1 (16:43):
It just sounds awful.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Most of the arguments against specific methods of execution are phony.
They're just efforts to postpone it in general. Yeah, because
you're against it, and you can be against it. I mean,
you can make a solid argument against the death penalty
as a libertarian. I mean there's all kinds of, you know,
good reasons argue against it. I'll find a single forty
five caliber slug while someone sleeps would be completely merciful,
(17:09):
but we don't do that.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Most of the arguments are famish, armstrong, and getty.
Speaker 7 (17:15):
Take your seat, sir, take your seat. Finding that members
continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption or proper decorum,
the Chair now directs a sertant at arms to restore order,
remove this gentleman from the chamber.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
The ejection of al Green not the sole singer of
the representative. Was it racism? No, it wasn't. Does anybody
have any other questions? Because he's an idiot?
Speaker 1 (17:53):
So he got.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
Censured, that's correct, Jack whatever, whatever. See, I'm surprised that
Norm hasn't been blown up in that somebody just keeps
doing things and getting censured.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Like, go ahead, censure me, what do I care?
Speaker 3 (18:08):
All right, these people have no shame, they can't be shame.
Shame on you.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
I have none.
Speaker 4 (18:14):
Well, and just the public doesn't care. So yeah, it's
all so performative. Yes it is, and it raises money.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
So speaking of the House of Representatives such as it is,
they hold held a house hearing on sanctuary cities yesterday,
which is a topic well worth talking about.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Oh he my goodness, declaring yourself.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Immune from cooperating with federal authorities or above the law,
or so righteous as to not have to participate in
our great self governance experiment. That's the way I see
sanctuary cities anyway, So yeah, it should be looked into.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
I'd love for the Supreme Court to weigh you know.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Yeah eventually.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
House hearings are usually not the best way to get
to the bottom of anything. Yeah, the Supreme Court just
needs to rule finally, They need to skip to that
and just say is this okay or not? The Supreme
Court's gonna say, nah, you can't do that, and that's
the end of it.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Ah, right, I fear the dreaded narrow ruling, But yeah,
I would love to see it work through that process,
and I suspect very strongly it will.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
One has to remind.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Oneself just yeah, I really don't talk in real life.
That's Trump's been in office for what six weeks, five
weeks something like that. Yeah, like six weeks, so there's
plenty of time to get to that anyway. So the
House of Representatives of the hearings is Jack indicated, not
the best way to actually get to the bottom of issues,
(19:39):
but they're an excellent.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Opportunity to yell at people and be entertained.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
So, first of all, we've got congress Person Gill, who
I don't think I know they're act joining with Mayor
Brandon Johnson of Chicago, who if there were three of
them that would almost amount to normal intelligence. He is
a union hack and a liar and a cheat and
a communist and a hundred others things. Clip Hady first,
Michael and Jackie jump in. Anytime it's a little longish,
(20:04):
we can bail as needed.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Mayor Johnson, I want to start with you.
Speaker 8 (20:08):
One of your first actions as mayor was establishing a
deputy mayor for immigrant migrant and refugee right. I want
to ask you a series of questions if you could
answer with a yes or no answer that yes no.
First of all, do you support allowing illegal aliens to
obtain driver's licenses?
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Does yes or no?
Speaker 5 (20:33):
Can you? My city of Chicago has been a welcoming
city for.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Over four so uh we all know the yes no question.
The thing is just a trap game, and it's stupid
and performative. And if anybody ever said just yes or no,
even if I had a simple yes or no answer,
I would launch into some long screed just to piss
them off. And Gil is on my side of this.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
I agree with them completely, But that's just a sudd
Although on driver's licenses for illegals, that's that's a yes
or no. Is that it certainly can.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
But yeah, yeah, anyway, let's go brand and Johnson continues.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
For years.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
I'll say that is a yes. Next question, that's the
policy that we will hold to.
Speaker 8 (21:14):
Do you support tax dollars subsidizing or paying for the
health care of illegal aliens?
Speaker 5 (21:21):
I support investments in all residents of the people of Chicago,
and that's what I do.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
That's a yes as well.
Speaker 8 (21:26):
Do you support free or reduced college for illegal aliens.
Speaker 5 (21:31):
Again, I support the investments of all residents of the
people of Chicago. That is a yes.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Next question, do you support it?
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Okay, if you get to yeses, he gets put out
of office or what? Okay, that's enough of that, and
he works this way too. Do you support a taxpayer
funding of abortions for illegal aliens? And Johnson gives the same,
you know, reasonably diplomatic effort answer. Rather, Hey, all residents
of Chicago gets the same thing. That's not a bad dodge. Again,
(21:57):
I'm staunchly against you know, a lot of these policies.
I'm just talking about the strategy of arguing it. How
do you not politically say no?
Speaker 1 (22:05):
Though?
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Because it's not popular even in Chicago. No, it's definitely
not part popular nationwide. I don't think he's got his
site set on national office, but it's not even popular
in Chicago or New York at this point, all this
stuff for illegals.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Why would you just say no?
Speaker 4 (22:22):
Even if in reality every citizen, every citizen, every resident
gets the same treatment.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
You know, the college president gals who were pro anti
Semitism just didn't want to admit it. They're the rare,
rare example of where a non answer isn't the best answer.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Because Johnson's diplomatic half.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Answer this, it's hard to get to stirred up over it.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
So what's the justification for every resident gets the same treatment.
That's just their philosophy of governance. They'd say, don't we
don't pick and choose, We don't who's who in the
city of Chicago. We look out for everybody because we're
one big, happy family.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
Wow, you know effectively, you know, budgetarily, that's insane, but
it sounds good.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
See, here's difficult.
Speaker 4 (23:14):
It wouldn't be difficult to you know, you got to
show an ID showing your of course, then how to
who do you ask to prove? Because I've never been
asked to prove I'm a US citizen for anything.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
White privilege right there, folks, Do you hear that?
Speaker 4 (23:29):
So you're just gonna anybody who's kind of tan, You're
gonna make them come up with some documentation that they
were born.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Here speaks with an accent right that there are practical issues.
You know, I'm trying to be fair about this.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
So you're watching soccer match on your phone out there
in the lobby. You got any documentation.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
So this is well right, And what's interesting to me
is asking him about specifics. He actually has a reasonable
case to make that. No, we don't worry about who's
what citizenship status. As long as you live here, we
take care of you. But a sanctuary city in general,
if it extends to we do not cooperate with ICE
when they tell us you have a dangerous felon you're
about to let out. We need to take him and
(24:12):
get rid of him. I despise that. A little bit
of Byron Donald's of Florida talking to a handful of mayors.
Speaker 9 (24:19):
Next clip, Michael, did your city spend on illegal immigration?
Speaker 10 (24:22):
Do you have how much over the last couple of
years on all newcomers, whatever their status was.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
It's around seventy nine million since twenty twenty two.
Speaker 9 (24:29):
Seventy nine million, Mayor Johnson, Chicago. How much is the
city of Chicago spent on illegal immigration?
Speaker 5 (24:36):
If you refer into the twenty twenty two up to
twenty twenty four of the buses coming from Texas, roughly
the same percentage of the state of Texas, about one
percent of our overall budget. What is that?
Speaker 9 (24:47):
Because we don't have the city's budget in front.
Speaker 5 (24:49):
Of me numbers it's one percent. And if you want
the actual calculation, we can make sure someone.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
You're the mayor, you don't have the math in front
of you.
Speaker 5 (24:55):
Is one percent of the overall budget over the last
That's why you were a failing Which is the same
number that New York actually spent.
Speaker 9 (25:01):
On tech legal immigration. Mayor Johnson, I already asked you.
You don't have a hard number, and if you don't
have a hard number, you're not running your city well.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
Mayor Adams, how much.
Speaker 9 (25:09):
Did the City of New York actually spend on illegal immigration?
Speaker 5 (25:11):
Six point nine billion of taxpayers that's.
Speaker 9 (25:14):
Zero point nine billion dollars of taxpayer money on a
problem that was fostered on the American people. Mayor Will,
in the city of Boston, how much did you spend We.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
Don't ask about immigration status and delivering city.
Speaker 9 (25:28):
You don't ask about how much money the City of
Boston has spent on illegal immigration?
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Out of your miss between immigration status, do you manage
your budget or not?
Speaker 5 (25:36):
Mayor? That is how we keep.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Mayor Will, Do you manage your.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
Numbers to prove it? I manage my budget.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
I have a triple a Bond writing daily back ten years.
Speaker 9 (25:44):
So to the City of Boston, just understand that your
mayor does not care how much of your resources she
has spent on people who are not citizens.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
The City of Boston.
Speaker 9 (25:53):
Of Boston, mister Bhaer, have a question for you, because
I understand Cato's perspective when it comes to legal immigration.
Speaker 5 (26:01):
I understand that.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Is who who here can do a one handed push up?
I can't. I just keep hitting them with questions.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
You can't do a one handed push up?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Mayor woo bringing it there?
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Woo?
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Who says I?
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Uh? And then do you want to hear people yelling
at each other? It's Ianna Presley now hates America and
James Cohmer what there's.
Speaker 4 (26:25):
Obviously something flawed with these hearings, and that I'm not
digging the questioners, even though I agree with them one
hundred percent. It's that the process is just.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
Not the best. Well, it's it's not even pretending to
fulfill the purpose it claims to be there for. You
know what I mean, They're not it's not a hearing,
it's a it's a it's a debate, yeah yeah, like.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Rather than the yes no, I'll take that as a
yes or you don't know the wraw number. I would
like to hear him explain your philosophy of why you
think taxpayers should have to support illegals.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Is there any limit to the number of the legal
immigrants that you think? I mean, is there any limit
to the amount of money you'd be willing to spend
taxpayer money? And at what point do you think the
taxpayers might revolt? Blobbah, Yeah, in an interesting discussion, but
there's no time for that.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
More yelling coming up in a moment. Stay with us.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Speaking of policy and how at least results every twenty
six seconds thanks to progressive policies that I'm sure Mayor
Wu enjoys, a burglary takes place in the US, and
that means by the time you know our show ends,
dozens of homes will be targeted and broken into. But
with simply safes, active guard outdoor protection, it can help
prevent breakings before they happen.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
So you've got eye powered cameras backed by live professional
monitoring agents to monitor your property, and if someone's lurking
around or acting weird and suspicious, those agents will actually
see and talk to them in real time. Activate spotlights,
I love that flip on the spotlight and say hey,
what are you doing over there behind the bushes? You
stump bag and then they go running off tail between
(28:09):
their legs. They'll even contact the police, all before they
have a chance to get inside your home.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
No what, no long term contracts or cancelation fees. Monitoring
plans start affordably at around a bucket day.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
It's amazing.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Simply safe dot com slash armstrong claim fifty percent off
a new system with a professional monitoring plan in your
first month free. That's simplysafe dot com slash armstrong. There's
no safe. I like sad place half. I haven't actually
heard this, but I heard it's decent. Aana Presley who
hates America part of the squad, and James Komer who's
a bit of a hard ass of battling here and
(28:41):
clip eighty three Michael missus.
Speaker 11 (28:43):
Jerk canne have several articles I need to enter them.
Let me just go ahead with the what the the
articles are?
Speaker 1 (28:49):
What's the next article? Let me proceed.
Speaker 11 (28:56):
Data from Texas shows that US born and Marians oh
met more race.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
This trend.
Speaker 12 (29:03):
If you're all trying to get thrown out of committee,
so you can get on ms b C is gonna
end more.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
We're not gonna put up with it.
Speaker 12 (29:12):
You can go, you can go with mister Frost and
mister Green.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
That's what you want.
Speaker 12 (29:18):
No, no, miss Presley, I've been very I have been
very accommodating to you.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Go record.
Speaker 11 (29:31):
This is my right, thank you.
Speaker 12 (29:34):
No, no, it is, mister supermom.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Mister yo. You know the process.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Of unanimous consents.
Speaker 4 (29:43):
You you are not recognized articles to enter into human record.
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Mister.
Speaker 12 (29:48):
If you don't go, we're going to recognize mister Timmins.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Oh No. The simple true.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Be it, be it shoplifting, murder or yelling your wack
a doodal squad talking points even though you're breaking all
the rules, is if the sanction isn't adequate to deter
the action, the action will continue. Yeah, and I again
I equit the sergeant at arms with a taser, simple
(30:18):
as that, bringing.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Out the compliance belt. I think it would have been
more effective to let her say those freaking ridiculous statistics
about So what's your logic here, Let's just ship out
all US born citizens and bring in people from other
countries because they commit rape.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
And murder at a lower rate.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
I mean, what is that?
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Hell is the point here?
Speaker 4 (30:46):
But I'd rather have her say it and then have
people push back against it, either statistically or philosophically.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
And sure, yeah, native borns commit rape at one point
three per hundred thousand, immigrants at one point two per
one hundred thousand, So we've imported fifty thousand rapists. Explain
to me how that's a good thing, right, it's an
okay thing since the rate was a little lower. Yeah, exactly,
you bald headed America hating freak. Okay, we've got more
(31:16):
coming Upstay here.
Speaker 13 (31:21):
The possible scientific breakthrough of these extra furry rodents are
called wooly mice.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
A Dallas company that works on.
Speaker 13 (31:28):
De extinction genetically modified them with hair to resemble the
traits of a wooly mammoth. The company says it plans
to revive the actual wooly mammoth to walk the earth
again as soon.
Speaker 10 (31:40):
As twenty twenty eight. Wow, within three years. But there's
a lot missing in that story. It sounds to me
like all you did was genetically modify mice so they
have wooly r hair and then made the leap that
you're going to bring back the wooly mammoth wool.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Yeah. See, that's my problem, is this whole thing. I
read the long account of it yesterday.
Speaker 5 (32:04):
Yes, they've just.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Bred harry mice, which you know is kind of novel.
They're cute, the little bastards.
Speaker 3 (32:10):
But and so in reading into this, these people, what
they're going to try to do is manipulate the genes
of heffalumps until they look kind of like wooly mammon.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Oh Okay, that's not the same thing, all right.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
Now it really isn't. Yeah, it's it's phony.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
Now there are projects to bring back the willly mammoth
with like various genetic material they have from frozen carcasses
of wily mammotson that sort of stuff that could be
like actually bringing back that beast.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
But this just your elephants manipulated. Again, novel attractive.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
We got this text would they dead or would you
have to like send them to the groomer.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
So we got into the conversation about bringing back you know,
willie mammoths and dinosaurs and all this stuff that has
been talked about for a long time, kind of Jurassic parkish,
although the technology is coming real. We got this text
soon aill be clashing with dinosaurs for world domination.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Yeah, it's like two different things that.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
Mankind couldn't do before now can And everybody's thinking, is
this a good idea?
Speaker 1 (33:12):
But we're screaming toward it anyway.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
Way, AI versus the dinosaurs produced is like a Japanese
nineteen fifties werfleck.
Speaker 4 (33:20):
How good would that be? But speaking of AI, and
this is minor AI. If you have I don't know
to your Google phones, Android phones have this. They probably
had it a year before Apple did. But the new
Apple software, it gives me suggestions for all my text responses.
And I gotta say sometimes it's really like exactly what
(33:43):
I was gonna say.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
I had one of those this morning where it was
like ha.
Speaker 4 (33:48):
Ha, yeah, I doubt it, And I thought that's exactly
how I was going to respond. Oh, and I feel
like there's something wrong if I just press send on
the pretty close to I was gonna say reply, I
feel like I'm just opening.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
The door to Yes, what am I doing here? Right right?
Because what does the reply act?
Speaker 3 (34:10):
That's a problem. It's just entering into that that realm.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
If their reply is you're so funny or I mean
if there's ever two replies in a row that were
AI and we just pressed send.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Now, what are we doing?
Speaker 5 (34:26):
Right?
Speaker 1 (34:27):
That's troubling, isn't it? And and uh and uh.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
I was texting somebody I remember the other day and said,
was this an AI reply? Because they heard me talking
about this and they're like troubled by the idea AI.
They aren't as meaningful or real or whatever. But you're right,
two in a row would be monstrous. Yes, yes, and
very quickly could become the whole half the conversation.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
But so far I'd just.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Be sitting there ignoring each other, letting your AIS converse.
Speaker 4 (35:00):
Yeah, getting the gist of what they said. AI has
a good reply, it's good enough you press send.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
It's weird. There's something weird, Dan.
Speaker 4 (35:08):
I haven't quite put my finger on it, but so
far I have not used I should turn it off,
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
And maybe there's a way to turn it off.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
Well, every great authority on philosophy, religion, you know, emotional
health says the same thing. Best to disconnect even more
from your friends and loved ones. Yeah, make it even
more about screens and computers.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
Ugh, I do like the long text summaries and email
summaries that I'm getting from AI pretty damned helpful.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
I glance at my.
Speaker 4 (35:36):
Emails in the morning and it's, you know, like my
son's teacher I had emailed about something and says, says,
that's fine, we'll see you Sunday, you.
Speaker 1 (35:43):
Know, and then just break it down to the main points.
That's pretty cool. Yeah, yeah, yes, Katie.
Speaker 4 (35:52):
The only problem I'm seeing with that, for me at least,
is I'm reading those things and I'm going okay, and
I'm not responding.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
All right, I've done that a few times.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Oh whoops, Yeah, yeah, whoops. I'm still involved in this process.
So blockbuster fourth hour of the show. Maybe you don't
get the fourth hour, grab it later via podcast Armstrong
and Getty on demand. You probably ought to subscribe.
Speaker 4 (36:11):
Or maybe just have your AI listen, and then you
have to waste your time summarise the show for you.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
More on the
Speaker 5 (36:17):
Way Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.