July 31, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- The crisis in Gaza & recognizing a Palestinian state
- What happened to the aid in Gaza?
- The Jeans/Genes uproar & people are pissed
- Alien space craft & Medicaid facts
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 Getty and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Pressure for cease far and an end to the suffering
in Gaza Grove, the images shocking the world, the children
of Gaza skin and bone, those scenes fueling the growing
pressure to end the wall.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I wish I had a better handle on what is
actually going on there. As I mentioned the other day,
even NPR, for the first time I've ever heard them,
gave some air to the Israeli side, saying that look,
we're trying to hand out food.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
We're not.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
It's not us.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
There's not actually an attempt by us to keep people
from eating. NPR said this cannot be validated or what
is the word they always use verified by NPR, But
it is the first time they ever gave that any air,
which to me meant they're not solid on what's actually
happening either. Well, given the fact that you could use
that phrase for every statement Hamas makes and their health authority,
(01:20):
it's unbelievable hypocrisy that they use it there.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
But you're right, that does show something somebody.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Did headline Wall Street Journal Gaza starvation photos tell a
thousand lies.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Oh, I want to hear more than that. Because somebody
texted the other day and I thought this was an
interesting question. Then there might be an answer. You have
seen a lot of really skinny kids that look like
they're really really hungry, but not adults.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Why is that?
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I mean, obviously kids are more heart tugging pictures, but
they're hungry.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Adults also are. Yeah, I've seen some skinny adults, but
I don't know and where was that video taken and
by whom?
Speaker 4 (02:02):
And did they choose the people in it? And just
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
It's an information war at this point, clearly, and it's
it's notable click baity dishonesty in a lot of cases.
I think that most news outlets don't recognize that. I mean,
you can arrive at whatever conclusion you want, maybe you're
like waiving the flag in the streets and wearing a kafia,
(02:27):
but you have to admit the information war is as important,
or maybe more important than the guns and guys shooting
the war.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Absolutely, it's more important in terms of well, first of all,
pushing Trump one direction or another on how much he's
gonna stand by Israel and what they want to do,
or I guess bb Net and Yahoo and what he
wants to do, or not. If Trump is swayed by
the stuff he sees on TV, which this week it
(02:58):
seemed like he is being swayed by those pictures on television.
The problem I haven't I already said this earlier this week,
so I'll make it short. But if your information is
coming from Hamas, the conversation ends for me, do you
have any other source? Do you have any source other
than Hamas for what is happening?
Speaker 4 (03:21):
That's great question, great follow up.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
That's the sort of question that an editor would ask
as automatically as a reflex test. I mean, okay, you've
wait a minute. Your source is Hamas, You've got a
lot more work to do. Let me know when you
have something verifiable, they would say automatically. For like, you know,
the last century of quote unquote journalism in America.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
So we have some analysis from a smart geopolitical thinker.
But what is the Wall Street journals? How did they
come to the conclusion that the pictures of starving people
tell a thousand lies?
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Well, it's a it's.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
An editorial by app person, but he points out the
infamous story of little Mohammed, the skin and bonesy guy
who whose picture was on the front page of the
New York Times was that on Sunday. I'm not sure,
and the New York Times has said quote it's since
learned new information, updated or story to ad context about
(04:22):
Mohammed's pre existing health problems. The poor little ad has
cerebral palsy palsy I think it is, and yeah, and
just anyway, But CNN briefly noted that he has a
muscle disorder, but then stopped talking about it completely. Mohammads
isn't the only recent case of babies afflicted with terrible
illness is being exploited to promote a false narrative that
(04:44):
Israel is intentionally starving gods and children. There was another
viral photo of a different child whose first name is Osama.
Interestingly enough, like Muhammad, Osama looked emaciated, and critics claimed
he too, is starving due to Israel's action and the
lists the number of people. Yet, according to locals and
(05:06):
the boy's mother to the Associated Press, the poor little
lad suffers from cystic fibrosis and Israel coordinated his evacuation
to Italy in June along with his mother and brothers
so he could get medical treatment. And he also mentions
that there are tons and tons and tons and tons
of food sitting there that the United Nations is refusing
to distribute for various political reasons, and it's just it's
(05:30):
all so confused, and he just echoes the point that
as he summarizes instead, and he lists a bunch of
facts about how much humanitarian resistance or assistance is getting
in the tons of supplies and all the complications.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
But these facts rarely break through the noise.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Instead, the world sees a photo of a suffering child,
assumes what news editors want them to assume, then shares
it without asking questions the context. The context is stripped away,
is real suffering in Gaza. But when that suffering is
exploited for propaganda, and when humanitarian systems are paralyzed by
politics and ideology, it is the most vulnerable, like young Muhammad,
who pay the price.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
But man pictures can move opinions. Is the very famous
picture from the Vietnam War that you've probably seen that
played a major role in turning American opinion away from
we were doing any good over there? Remember the picture
of a soldier executing a guy in the street, gun
into his head and him grimacing, which turned out to
(06:35):
be the backstory, and that was completely opposite of the
way it was portrayed.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Oh yeah, absolutely, I was entirely justified.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
And then you combine that though with the poor little
girl running naked from a nate palm attack, and those
two photographs may have been as significant as any ten
politician speeches, oh by far, or like all of the speeches.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
And so this photo was going to be maybe was
one of those that probably what it's probably what moved
Trump because he's an old guy from New York. I
guarantee he gets a paper version of the New York Times.
He saw that picture on the front page and was
horrified by it, right, yeah, Yeah. This guy's name is
Richard Hass. He used to run one of your super
(07:19):
smart think tanks about international stuff. Pretty smart guy. Sometimes
I agree with him, sometimes I don't. But he had
these takes on the current situation.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
And what we're.
Speaker 5 (07:28):
Beginning to see is the change an international public position
thinking about Israel and Israel has to be careful here
in the United states. You do not want this issue
of Israeli support to become a totally part of an issue.
And second, or more broadly, Israel doesn't want to make
itself the pariah.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
And I think there's a warning here.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
And the real question is will this reverberate in Israeli
politics so far or not?
Speaker 4 (07:51):
But I think it should.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
It's so far domestically in Israel, this hasn't become that.
They're not a their current government's strategy. There are rumbles
more on that to come, but they're holding on so far.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Anyway, He goes on to say, you've.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
Got to have a uni Palestinian state. No, that's not
the way to do it. You want Palestinians to earn it.
You want Palestinians to say, here's the conditions we're prepared
to sign up to. They've got to reassure Israel at
the end of the day, a Palestinian state cannot be
imposed from the outside. So again, this is all science
that the world has grown weary with what Israel is
drewing in Gaza and increasingly opposes it.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Yeah, with the Macrone and Starmer in Great Britain and
now Canada all coming out and saying.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
We are signing on to the idea of a Palestinian state.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
It's a it's a gesture that we're done with supporting Israel,
you know, giving them a blank, a blank chech support
along with the United States.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
You could argue that's because they're getting too much heat
because the pictures and videos we were just talking about.
Or they might just think, as one of my favorite writers,
does that look. Plan A for Israel is not going
to work. They need a Plan B.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And then finally, this on Trump's role in the whole thing.
Speaker 5 (09:15):
But the president has political standing in Israel, they even
bb Nets and Yaku doesn't have. If the President wants
to move the needle in Gaza, he can do it.
He can put pressure on Israel, not by declaring a
support for Palestinian state unconditionally, but by pushing the Israelis
to come up with a day after plan to stop
(09:35):
to open up the air at Gaza, to food aid,
to stop new settlements in.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
The West Bank.
Speaker 5 (09:40):
There's a lot of things this president can do if
he really wants to get serious about promoting positive movement
between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
And the Wes Bank.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
So far he's been reluctant to do it. But the opportunity,
some would argue, the necessity is there.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
What could the possible day after Plan B. I understand
the whole next day problem, which is often the problem. Okay,
you're gonna invade the country, what are you going.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
To do then? But in this case, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Well, we got to kill Hamas because they just, you know,
came in and did the worst thing that's happened to
us since the Holocaust.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
So we'll worry about that later. Uh.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
And they're still worrying about that later, I guess. But
what are you possibly going to do? What are you
going to do with that chunk of land and a
couple of million people whose current government is Hamas? I mean,
I can't even imagine what you do.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
One of my favorite writers sort of addressed that question,
and I've got a bit of a yin and yang
for you. I suggest humbly that we take a break
and finish the discussion in the next segment, because this
may be the ultimate. This whole situation is the ultimate.
Both are true situation. People argue as if all right,
(10:49):
October seventh, happened. Therefore Israel can do anything, well, not really,
as Richard Haas was talking about. Or or people say
that people in uh Gaza are suffering, look at the
bay and they need food. Therefore Israel should not do anything.
That's not true either. So little yin and yang for you,
a little perspective coming up next.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Sounds a little deep for me. I want to argue
about that blue jeans commercial. That's what we're going to
do that too.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Later.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Oh we are take care of with your big boobies
into blue jeans.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
Yeah, we'll do that.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
There's more on that story, Oh so much more. God,
all right, stay here. This will be a good lead
into Joe's dilemma about the problem in Gaza. This is
breaking from the u n with the numbers up until
the twenty ninth, which is two days ago. The UN
(11:43):
itself says that eighty seven percent of the over two
thousand food trucks going into Gaza or hijacked by armed
groups Hamas.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
That's from the UN's own website. Days after, The New
York Times cited to Israeli officials saying Hamas, we have
no evidence that Hamas steals the food information war misinformation
war that You're right, that's the perfect lead in. So
just a quick kind of sort of a side it's
(12:15):
there's a story in the Free Beacon about an organization
New York based charity quote unquote called Westpac, which has
been supporting pro Palestinian pro Hamas groups like Crazy. Well
they're embroiled in a bunch of different lawsuits because they've
been backing terrorists essentially, and a lot of the groups
that they backed have sought other financial funding. And I
(12:36):
thought this was significant to bring up the Palestinian Youth Movement,
which the Israeli government says maintains close ties with the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group. It
used to get its money through Westpac, but now they
began they've gotten their donations via Honor the Earth, which
is quote an Indigenous led organization fighting to dismantle settler colonialism,
(13:03):
racial capitalism, white supremacy, and imperialism. So if you've ever
thought that when I'm talking about the Permanent Omnik cause
and how it's all tied to anti Western civilization Marxism,
there's some more proof for you. Why would a pro
(13:25):
Palestinian group get all their funding from someone who wants
to dismantle settler colonialism, racial capitalism, whatever the hell that is,
white supremacy and imperialism.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
Okay, moving along.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Bill Galston writes for the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page,
among other things, and his recent piece is Hamas will
never surrender and in the little time we have left,
I'll just summarize. He quotes Lindsey Graham as saying, I
think Israel has come to conclude that he can't achieve
a goal of ending the war with Hamas that would
be satisfactor to the safety of Israel. And they're going
(14:01):
to do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin,
obviously referring to World War Two. But Galston points out
the problem is that after demanding unconditional surrender and getting
it through the use of force, we had to occupy
those lands for decades.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
I mean, we're still there, honestly, and.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
The idea of Israel doing that in Gaza is just
not possible because there would be one hundred year long
guerrilla war.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
He thinks he also didn't have TikTok videos of what
was going on in Berlin and Tokyo.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Right, which might have changed the will of the West
to impose that unconditional surrender, and he mentions the photos
of the hungry children allegedly, and I'm sure there are
hungry children, but the occupation of Gaza would likely prove
untenable in the long term. It would exert huge pressure
on Israel's reserve base terry forces. The IDF would face
(15:01):
a steady stream of casualties the hands of fanatical guerrilla fighters.
The parents of IDF soldiers in Gaza wouldn't tolerate this indefinitely.
Neither would the broader Israeli public, and he mentions that
public opinions shifting in Israel. In January of twenty four,
fifty one percent of Israeli said bringing home hostages should
be the main goal. Thirty six percent said toppling Hamas
(15:23):
should be. This April, sixty eight percent said it's about
bringing back the hostages. Only twenty eight percent gave higher
priority to the destruction of Hamas. So a very very
short summary of what he suggests is a regional coalition
to maintain order in Gaza and finance its reconstruction and
(15:46):
presumably keep Hamas from reasserting its control.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
To and who are these countries that are willing to
sign on to that or have Does anybody talk to them?
Speaker 4 (15:55):
The country's in the region, Jack, a regional coalition.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Has anybody asked them? And if they say yes, yeah,
that was a joke.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Yeah, that's that.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Yeah, there are plenty of countries in the region, and
he got every reason to help.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
But they're like, no, no, we don't want.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Any Palestinians in this country.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Please, and no, we have no help to offer.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Okay. The whole Muslim's solidarity thing that you hear shouted
so much in the Middle East is entirely to keep
in check the domestic populations of uneducated religious fanatics. They're
not gonna lift a finger. They might write a check,
but it's phony.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
It's horrifying to me that Joe says there is another
round of commentary on the whole blue Jens Gens white supremacy.
Speaker 4 (16:47):
The Sydney Sweeney backlash.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
Jack, that's correct, the eugenics commercial for Eagles Outfitters.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Genes write supremacy. Clearly.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
I can't believe there's more to that story. Oh my god,
there's more of the Epstein story too. I once again
I say, oh my god, there's new thing on that
and other stuff too. I hope you can stay with
us if you missed a second to get the podcast
Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining
traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My
jeans are blue, Sydney Sweeney has great genes. So is
that just a hot chick laying in bed, speaking just
(17:35):
above a whisper as if you're in bed with hair
trying to sell jeans or is it something much much darker?
Speaker 6 (17:42):
The pun good genes activates a troubling historical associations for
this country, the American eugenics movement, and it's primed between
like nineteen hundred and nineteen forty weaponized the idea of
good genes.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
What I was thinking white supremacism.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Yep, that's exactly what I first first thing I thought
when I heard about this Jen's ad, which is it's
it's an echo of the early twentieth century and eugenics
in white supremacy.
Speaker 4 (18:10):
It's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Oh wait, I see a friend across the parking lot. No,
I'm waving. That's not a na season and this.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Is anyway Number one story on the Globe for young
men in Ukraine fighting Russians in the trenches talking about this,
Oh Lord, too much perspective.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
So this idiotic, fake controversy, which is great fun because
it further unmasks the woke.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Honestly. Oh, that's one of the reasons I enjoy it.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
I good comment on that. I'm glad you reminded me.
Let me find that for when you're done. All right,
So a couple of things that I've really enjoyed.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Number One, Jonah Goldberg brilliant man, a fine writer, but
he cannot tell you what time it is in less
than five thousand words. He is writing about this fake
controversy and pointed out, as I did yesterday, that the
whole eugenics movement was absolute from the left, from the
progressives of the twentieth century. So plays and secondly, this,
(19:06):
which I really enjoyed, I'm the pretext for the outrage. Apparently,
the phrase good jens is a eugenics term that literally
gave us Hitler, and given the fact that Sidney Sweeney
is a blue eyed blonde, the ad must be intended
as a dog whistle or fog horn shouting.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Nazism is awesome.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Yes, I'm sure that some twenty five year old in
Cell has laid down his tiki torch in his copy
of Mine Kampf as he eased into his race car
bed in his parents' basement and asked an AI program
to draw Sweeney in an SS uniform riding a winged
horse like an updated valkyrie in pursuit of aryan Onanism.
Speaker 4 (19:41):
The heart wants with the heart wants and all that.
I never understand.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
I've never understood these things just in general. Like the
e elon wave into the crowd. Now it's clearly you know,
a Nazi salut who like it doesn't make sense to me,
just your point of view doesn't make sense to me,
Like he's secretly signaling people's I mean, what was the goal?
Speaker 1 (20:11):
It just I don't know. I've never quite understood it well.
And to not even enter into the discussion that well,
I think he was just waving. You know, he extended
his arm wave to me right now, See that looks
like a.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
Not oh Nazi germanity.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
No they don't. But what good would the secret signal do?
Speaker 4 (20:30):
Even if I'm true? Right right? I know, I know?
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (20:35):
And then CJ.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Pearson I appreciate appreciated this writing too in Fox News.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
Oh, and he quotes the the.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
University linking the good genes thing to to the eugenics thing.
Let's cut the nonsense. Progressive women aren't mad at Sydney
Sweeney because she's setting women back. That's just the excuse
they're throwing around because they don't want to admit the truth.
They're mad because she's young, hot, white, and blonde, and
they're mad that corporations are finally waking up to the
(21:05):
truth that the American people are done with woke. If
she were three hundred pounds and identified as gender fluid,
she'd be hailed as a revolutionary. If she threw her
pronouns in every interview, were a feminist crop top to
the red carpet, and spouted progressive talking points on cue,
they'd be tripping over themselves.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
To give her a glad Award.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
But because Sidney Sweeney simply exists, confident, traditionally feminine, and
not bending the need of the WO agenda, she's a target.
This isn't about feminism, it's about envy. It's about a
cultural movement that now punishes beauty, shame's feminimity and exalts
victimhood is the highest form of virtue. Oh and then
the one more point. Where was all this feminist outrage
(21:45):
when Dylan mulvaney, a male, was handed women's brand endorsements
by Nike, bud Light, and Maybelene for quote unquote celebrating womanhood.
Where were these voices when Moulveni mocked the female experience
with Barbie cosplay in ampon tutorials.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Nowhere?
Speaker 1 (22:02):
In fact, they were applauding because in today's woke dystopia,
a man pretending to be a woman gets more respect
than an actual woman who dares to look like what?
Speaker 3 (22:12):
That was pretty good, so perfect, Michael. I came across
this and it almost swam.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
I'm sorry. I said I was done, but I'm not.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Where are these self proclaimed champions of women's rights when
actual female athletes were getting steamrolled by males in their
own sports, when Leah Thomas was shoving real women off
the podium?
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Where was the outrage?
Speaker 1 (22:31):
Crickets Because defending the rights of actual women doesn't fit
the narrative, It's not politically useful.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
All right now, I'm done? Maybe probably so.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
When I first read this, it kind of swayed me.
But then I thought, but wait a second. Somebody tweeted out,
how do we address this is coming from a Democrat,
how do we address the fact that Democrats apparently have
to be accountable for the thoughts of every left of
center social media account with more than a few hundred followers.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
They're talking about how it.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
Just fringeos that are worried about this, but now it
the entire Democratic Party is being painted with it, and
this I'm guessing sort of mainstreamish democrat is saying, how
do we get out.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Of this situation?
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Right?
Speaker 3 (23:13):
Part of it, though, you should blame that professor we
played a few minutes ago as a professor talking about
well her the language she used smacks of early twentieth
century eugenics or white supremacy or whatever that.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
Was from Good Morning America.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
That's a mainstream, dominant media, Democrat news outlet.
Speaker 4 (23:36):
They covered it, So that's not just.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
A wing nut with a couple hundred flowers followers on Twitter.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Well, and if roughly the number of the same number
of people who attended your local Litera League game last
night or marching through the streets to Charlottesville chanting, they
will not replace us. Every Republican in the world is
asked to explain that in account for it and deny
association with it. So, yeah, what's good for sauce for
the goose is sauce for the gander. I agree, it's stupid,
(24:10):
but you stop it, and we'll stop you.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
Lay down your arms.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Yeah, exactly, you first, because you've been doing it for
the fifty years. Yeah, PABs, Huh, Sorry, I got a
little fired up there. I used some really unhappy word
the letters there. I am.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
So we're gonna we got some Ebstein stuff, some actually
new Ebstein stuff that we'll do an hour three. But
that scandal and this one, which I don't think ranks
to be called a scandal. But nah, I just I
can't figure out what's real anymore. I feel like my
sense of figuring out is this a real thing or
not has been completely broken, like in just the last month.
(24:55):
I'm sorry to hear that I can't figure out what
actually is impacting people are not like I thought.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
So you've become unmoored from reality.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Is that fair? Yes?
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Ever since I became untethered from reality, doctor, my rabbit.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Friend told me, Jack, you need to get more rest.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
I used to, uh, feel like I had a good
sense of that. But like I thought, when I first
heard this blue Jeen thing, I thought, well, this is
completely made up. It's probably even being pushed by Eagle Outfitters.
Is that the name of the gene company American Eagle?
American Eagle. Okay, When I first heard this, I thought, well,
this is one of those it's it's it's It's like
Abercrome and Fitch used to do. They would purposefully start
(25:41):
a controversy and everybody would find about doing the product.
And I thought it was just one of those, and
I thought, you know, ho hum. But then it was
on Good Morning America being treated seriously by a college professor,
and I thought, okay, I'm untethered from reality.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Yeah, the only I think you're right. First of all,
you're one hundred percent right in the first part. I
think the significance of it is that America has gotten
so tired of and pissed off by the woke agenda
because you and me, you and I, Katie, most of us,
(26:20):
we only felt the humiliation and the anger of being
forced to sit through the woke training sessions by proxy
through our listeners. And but we you know, I read dozens,
maybe hundreds of emails from people who had to sit
there jaw clenched because their kids need their college money
(26:42):
and they couldn't argue. They couldn't even ask questions about
at these sessions lest they be you know, railroaded out
of their jobs. And there is deep, deep not to
mention you saw your city burn during the George Floyd protests,
which were mostly peace and the only gatherings allowed during COVID.
(27:03):
By the way, you couldn't go to your blank in church,
but you could burn down your local target store in
the name of George Floyd or something.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
And people are pissed.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
And this is another opportunity to now speak out and
say no, that garbage is not true, we don't believe.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
It, and they're not going to run our country. Amen.
End of screen.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
So Tom Brady just said something interesting. Might have to
get to that first. Tell you about this topic.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
No, Oh, thank goodness, because I thought that was a
real nice cap to it. Oh, different topic.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
Simply safe makes me feel good, It really really does.
I love the fact that I've got the sensors on
all the windows and doors and the cameras and the
AI live action guard monitoring and all that sort of stuff,
And it's about a dollar a day and you could
have it too.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
And the old style security says, which were bad and expensive,
they would essentially tell you, I tell you what.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
After they kicked down your door, an alarm will go off.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Well, the beauty of simply Safe's new Active Guard outdoor
protections that helps stop breakings before they happen. AI powered cameras,
live monitoring agents to tech suspicious activity around your property.
Someone's lurking, the agents can talk to them in real time,
turn on your spotlights, call the police, proactively deterring crime
before it starts.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
So cool, so affordable.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Visit simply safe dot com slash armstrong to claim fifty
percent off on a new system with a professional monitoring
playing gets first one free, no long term contracts.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
They earn your business every day.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Simplysafe dot com slash armstrong.
Speaker 4 (28:40):
There's no safe like simply Safe.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
I'll have to dig up the actual quotes because I
just saw them up on the television and just caught
them a little bit out of context. But apparently Tom
Brady the football player was responding to that golfer.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Best golfer in the world. You said, what's his name,
Oh Scotti Scheffler.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Who the comments A couple of weeks ago we played
all about how he just, you know, he doesn't get
that mussatisfaction out of winning golf and family and that's
all that really matters, and blah blah blah. Apparently Tom
Brady was asked about that it was in a bit
of a weird situation and that he may have lost
his family over the fact that he prioritized sports over that.
(29:20):
And I was just reading this quote up there, and
he said, I felt like I was doing I was
doing the right thing for my family by prioritizing my
profession and becoming a teacher.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Okay, increasing our net worth from one hundred and fourteen
million dollars to one hundred and twenty one million dollars.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
Yeah, a teacher, that's what you're doing. You were teaching
younger quarterbacks how to quarterback, and that was for your
family somehow, Okay. But apparently Giselle Bunchin did not feel
the same way about it. Of course, who knows.
Speaker 4 (29:53):
You never know what.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
The actual problem was.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
Right.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
Couple of things that I want to get to. Media
coverage of the Russia hoax back in the day versus
media coverage of Tulsi Gabberd's claim that it was all orchestrated.
That's quite the stark difference. Also, we got the big
anniversary this week's sixty year anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid.
Quick look at how well that's worked out, and a
(30:23):
whole bunch of other stuff.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
I hope you can stay here. What makes you think
free Eye ant lists could actually be an alien spacecraft?
Speaker 7 (30:32):
Well, it's moving on a very special trajectory that lines
up with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
With that plane, it will get closest to the Sun
when we won't be able to see it because we
will be exactly on the opposite side of the Sun.
It gets unusually close to all the inner planets with
a likelihood of less than one part in twenty thousand
(30:56):
and Moreover, it moves in the opposite direction to the
motion of the Earth around the Sun. That basically prevents
us from reaching it or intercepting it with any of
our rockets.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
So that's a Harvard professor claiming something is alien spacecraft.
Speaker 4 (31:12):
It can't be a coincidence.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
It's it's orbit is designed purely to evade our detection
of its actual purpose, and you know what it is.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
A Harvard professor says it's an alien spacecraft. Seems like
that should have been the lead story today is in
my mind, in my heart, culmination of the Fermi paradox
of well, where is everybody?
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Then? Three I Atlas is the name of it. Maybe
we've found something.
Speaker 4 (31:41):
Fermi was a crank.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
It was on yesterday, sixty years ago that Lyndon Johnson
signed Medicare and Medicaid into law. We're going to have
our healthcare expert, Craig Gottwaals on tomorrow to go through
like the real stats on the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
It's just ridiculous. It was.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
It was all intended to help a tiny slice of
humanity in America that really needed help because they were
so downtrodden. And now it's like practically everybody. It's one
of the great mission creeps in the history of entitlements.
Oh yeah, really on Earth? Yeah, going through some of
the stats I've got here from Sony who tweeted about
it yesterday, it was thought it'd be worth pointing out
(32:25):
in its first ten years, Medicare had no discernible effect
on elderly mortality. Doesn't mean it didn't help, but it
doesn't certainly no proof that it did help. Since nineteen
sixty five, Medicare and Medicaid have spent how much money
without substantial evidence of effectiveness? Like, there's very little way
(32:49):
to measure that it's done any good for anybody. Forty
five trillion dollars wow, Medicare and Medicaid since nineteen sixty five,
sixty years ago yesterday, forty five trillion dollars with little
evidence of any effectiveness for helping the situation for people
(33:11):
in general.
Speaker 4 (33:13):
You know, and I don't know this.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
We're looking forward to talking to Craig, the healthcare guru
about this in the next day or two. I'm not
an authority, but whenever you have the wrong solution to
a problem in place for a very very long time
and spend a tremendous amount of money on it, the
problem being, you know, people need medical care in some way,
(33:37):
in some way, shape or form, and it's expensive.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
What do you do about it?
Speaker 1 (33:41):
But if you have the wrong solution in place for
a very long time, what does that prevent folks or
what does that remove the incentive to find? Obviously the
right solution, So I would argue it's been worse than
just a waste of money.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
A Wall Street Journal opinion piece. If Medicare and Medicaid
were drugs, the US FDA would not approve them and
would imprison their salesman for claiming they saved lives.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
Yeah, I like that.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Medicare and Medicaid spend about a trillion dollars a year currently.
The best evidence suggests that uh, one third of Medicare
spending is pure waste. About a third absolutely unbelievable. And
(34:34):
we'll have Craig go on tomorrow to go through some
more of the stats of what it was supposed to
do and what it hasn't done and everything. But it's
the moment, amazing.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
The moment Republicans suggest, hey, like healthy, working age men
who are on Medicaid for no reason, how about we
make them like, try to work a little bit. The
Democrats immediately go berserk and scream that they're gooda. They're
throwing plane children off of Medicaid out of pure wanton cruelty.
(35:04):
That's how stupid our politics are. Democracy doesn't work.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Speaking of stupid, there is a stupid essay in The
New York Times today about screen time and attention spans
and all that sort of stuff. It's very interesting, though
the root conversation. Their conclusion is often the case with
progressives is stupid about how it's another the rich taking
(35:30):
advantage of the poor, or something that they get to
with screen time. But I do want to talk about
that next hour, because that's really really good. What was
the other thing that I wanted to jam in? I
know I had something I don't remember. I'll think about it.
Oh yeah. Kamala Harris has got a book coming out,
which is proof positive, proof positive that she's running for president,
because that's what you do. You put out a book
(35:50):
so you can do the interview circuit and talk about
how you're going to fix America and blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
So given her intellect, I wonder, is it a coloring book?
Speaker 3 (35:58):
I know, I really look forward to the fact that,
according to The New York Times, also she thinks she
didn't do enough interviews when she ran for president last time,
so she's going to do a lot more podcasts and
mainstream media interviews and bring it on.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
Can't tell you how much I love that idea, kam La.
Speaker 4 (36:14):
I know it.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
That's easy to do it some of the best things
I've heard in a long time. Puts a skip in
my step. We got a lot more on the way
Speaker 1 (36:21):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty arm Strong
and Getty and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Pressure for cease far and an end to the suffering
in Gaza Grove, the images shocking the world, the children
of Gaza skin and bone, those scenes fueling the growing
pressure to end the wall.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I wish I had a better handle on what is
actually going on there. As I mentioned the other day,
even NPR, for the first time I've ever heard them,
gave some air to the Israeli side, saying that look,
we're trying to hand out food.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
We're not.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
It's not us.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
There's not actually an attempt by us to keep people
from eating. NPR said this cannot be validated or what
is the word they always use verified by NPR, But
it is the first time they ever gave that any air,
which to me meant they're not solid on what's actually
happening either. Well, given the fact that you could use
that phrase for every statement Hamas makes and their health authority,
(01:20):
it's unbelievable hypocrisy that they use it there.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
But you're right, that does show something somebody.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Did headline Wall Street Journal Gaza starvation photos tell a
thousand lies.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Oh, I want to hear more than that. Because somebody
texted the other day and I thought this was an
interesting question. Then there might be an answer. You have
seen a lot of really skinny kids that look like
they're really really hungry, but not adults.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Why is that?
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I mean, obviously kids are more heart tugging pictures, but
they're hungry.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Adults also are. Yeah, I've seen some skinny adults, but
I don't know and where was that video taken and
by whom?
Speaker 4 (02:02):
And did they choose the people in it? And just
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
It's an information war at this point, clearly, and it's
it's notable click baity dishonesty in a lot of cases.
I think that most news outlets don't recognize that. I mean,
you can arrive at whatever conclusion you want, maybe you're
like waiving the flag in the streets and wearing a kafia,
(02:27):
but you have to admit the information war is as important,
or maybe more important than the guns and guys shooting
the war.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Absolutely, it's more important in terms of well, first of all,
pushing Trump one direction or another on how much he's
gonna stand by Israel and what they want to do,
or I guess bb Net and Yahoo and what he
wants to do, or not. If Trump is swayed by
the stuff he sees on TV, which this week it
(02:58):
seemed like he is being swayed by those pictures on television.
The problem I haven't I already said this earlier this week,
so I'll make it short. But if your information is
coming from Hamas, the conversation ends for me, do you
have any other source? Do you have any source other
than Hamas for what is happening?
Speaker 4 (03:21):
That's great question, great follow up.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
That's the sort of question that an editor would ask
as automatically as a reflex test. I mean, okay, you've
wait a minute. Your source is Hamas, You've got a
lot more work to do. Let me know when you
have something verifiable, they would say automatically. For like, you know,
the last century of quote unquote journalism in America.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
So we have some analysis from a smart geopolitical thinker.
But what is the Wall Street journals? How did they
come to the conclusion that the pictures of starving people
tell a thousand lies?
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Well, it's a it's.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
An editorial by app person, but he points out the
infamous story of little Mohammed, the skin and bonesy guy
who whose picture was on the front page of the
New York Times was that on Sunday. I'm not sure,
and the New York Times has said quote it's since
learned new information, updated or story to ad context about
(04:22):
Mohammed's pre existing health problems. The poor little ad has
cerebral palsy palsy I think it is, and yeah, and
just anyway, But CNN briefly noted that he has a
muscle disorder, but then stopped talking about it completely. Mohammads
isn't the only recent case of babies afflicted with terrible
illness is being exploited to promote a false narrative that
(04:44):
Israel is intentionally starving gods and children. There was another
viral photo of a different child whose first name is Osama.
Interestingly enough, like Muhammad, Osama looked emaciated, and critics claimed
he too, is starving due to Israel's action and the
lists the number of people. Yet, according to locals and
(05:06):
the boy's mother to the Associated Press, the poor little
lad suffers from cystic fibrosis and Israel coordinated his evacuation
to Italy in June along with his mother and brothers
so he could get medical treatment. And he also mentions
that there are tons and tons and tons and tons
of food sitting there that the United Nations is refusing
to distribute for various political reasons, and it's just it's
(05:30):
all so confused, and he just echoes the point that
as he summarizes instead, and he lists a bunch of
facts about how much humanitarian resistance or assistance is getting
in the tons of supplies and all the complications.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
But these facts rarely break through the noise.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Instead, the world sees a photo of a suffering child,
assumes what news editors want them to assume, then shares
it without asking questions the context. The context is stripped away,
is real suffering in Gaza. But when that suffering is
exploited for propaganda, and when humanitarian systems are paralyzed by
politics and ideology, it is the most vulnerable, like young Muhammad,
who pay the price.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
But man pictures can move opinions. Is the very famous
picture from the Vietnam War that you've probably seen that
played a major role in turning American opinion away from
we were doing any good over there? Remember the picture
of a soldier executing a guy in the street, gun
into his head and him grimacing, which turned out to
(06:35):
be the backstory, and that was completely opposite of the
way it was portrayed.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Oh yeah, absolutely, I was entirely justified.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
And then you combine that though with the poor little
girl running naked from a nate palm attack, and those
two photographs may have been as significant as any ten
politician speeches, oh by far, or like all of the speeches.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
And so this photo was going to be maybe was
one of those that probably what it's probably what moved
Trump because he's an old guy from New York. I
guarantee he gets a paper version of the New York Times.
He saw that picture on the front page and was
horrified by it, right, yeah, Yeah. This guy's name is
Richard Hass. He used to run one of your super
(07:19):
smart think tanks about international stuff. Pretty smart guy. Sometimes
I agree with him, sometimes I don't. But he had
these takes on the current situation.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
And what we're.
Speaker 5 (07:28):
Beginning to see is the change an international public position
thinking about Israel and Israel has to be careful here
in the United states. You do not want this issue
of Israeli support to become a totally part of an issue.
And second, or more broadly, Israel doesn't want to make
itself the pariah.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
And I think there's a warning here.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
And the real question is will this reverberate in Israeli
politics so far or not?
Speaker 4 (07:51):
But I think it should.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
It's so far domestically in Israel, this hasn't become that.
They're not a their current government's strategy. There are rumbles
more on that to come, but they're holding on so far.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Anyway, He goes on to say, you've.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
Got to have a uni Palestinian state. No, that's not
the way to do it. You want Palestinians to earn it.
You want Palestinians to say, here's the conditions we're prepared
to sign up to. They've got to reassure Israel at
the end of the day, a Palestinian state cannot be
imposed from the outside. So again, this is all science
that the world has grown weary with what Israel is
drewing in Gaza and increasingly opposes it.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Yeah, with the Macrone and Starmer in Great Britain and
now Canada all coming out and saying.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
We are signing on to the idea of a Palestinian state.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
It's a it's a gesture that we're done with supporting Israel,
you know, giving them a blank, a blank chech support
along with the United States.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
You could argue that's because they're getting too much heat
because the pictures and videos we were just talking about.
Or they might just think, as one of my favorite writers,
does that look. Plan A for Israel is not going
to work. They need a Plan B.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And then finally, this on Trump's role in the whole thing.
Speaker 5 (09:15):
But the president has political standing in Israel, they even
bb Nets and Yaku doesn't have. If the President wants
to move the needle in Gaza, he can do it.
He can put pressure on Israel, not by declaring a
support for Palestinian state unconditionally, but by pushing the Israelis
to come up with a day after plan to stop
(09:35):
to open up the air at Gaza, to food aid,
to stop new settlements in.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
The West Bank.
Speaker 5 (09:40):
There's a lot of things this president can do if
he really wants to get serious about promoting positive movement
between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
And the Wes Bank.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
So far he's been reluctant to do it. But the opportunity,
some would argue, the necessity is there.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
What could the possible day after Plan B. I understand
the whole next day problem, which is often the problem. Okay,
you're gonna invade the country, what are you going.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
To do then? But in this case, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Well, we got to kill Hamas because they just, you know,
came in and did the worst thing that's happened to
us since the Holocaust.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
So we'll worry about that later. Uh.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
And they're still worrying about that later, I guess. But
what are you possibly going to do? What are you
going to do with that chunk of land and a
couple of million people whose current government is Hamas? I mean,
I can't even imagine what you do.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
One of my favorite writers sort of addressed that question,
and I've got a bit of a yin and yang
for you. I suggest humbly that we take a break
and finish the discussion in the next segment, because this
may be the ultimate. This whole situation is the ultimate.
Both are true situation. People argue as if all right,
(10:49):
October seventh, happened. Therefore Israel can do anything, well, not really,
as Richard Haas was talking about. Or or people say
that people in uh Gaza are suffering, look at the
bay and they need food. Therefore Israel should not do anything.
That's not true either. So little yin and yang for you,
a little perspective coming up next.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Sounds a little deep for me. I want to argue
about that blue jeans commercial. That's what we're going to
do that too.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Later.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Oh we are take care of with your big boobies
into blue jeans.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
Yeah, we'll do that.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
There's more on that story, Oh so much more. God,
all right, stay here. This will be a good lead
into Joe's dilemma about the problem in Gaza. This is
breaking from the u n with the numbers up until
the twenty ninth, which is two days ago. The UN
(11:43):
itself says that eighty seven percent of the over two
thousand food trucks going into Gaza or hijacked by armed
groups Hamas.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
That's from the UN's own website. Days after, The New
York Times cited to Israeli officials saying Hamas, we have
no evidence that Hamas steals the food information war misinformation
war that You're right, that's the perfect lead in. So
just a quick kind of sort of a side it's
(12:15):
there's a story in the Free Beacon about an organization
New York based charity quote unquote called Westpac, which has
been supporting pro Palestinian pro Hamas groups like Crazy. Well
they're embroiled in a bunch of different lawsuits because they've
been backing terrorists essentially, and a lot of the groups
that they backed have sought other financial funding. And I
(12:36):
thought this was significant to bring up the Palestinian Youth Movement,
which the Israeli government says maintains close ties with the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group. It
used to get its money through Westpac, but now they
began they've gotten their donations via Honor the Earth, which
is quote an Indigenous led organization fighting to dismantle settler colonialism,
(13:03):
racial capitalism, white supremacy, and imperialism. So if you've ever
thought that when I'm talking about the Permanent Omnik cause
and how it's all tied to anti Western civilization Marxism,
there's some more proof for you. Why would a pro
(13:25):
Palestinian group get all their funding from someone who wants
to dismantle settler colonialism, racial capitalism, whatever the hell that is,
white supremacy and imperialism.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
Okay, moving along.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Bill Galston writes for the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page,
among other things, and his recent piece is Hamas will
never surrender and in the little time we have left,
I'll just summarize. He quotes Lindsey Graham as saying, I
think Israel has come to conclude that he can't achieve
a goal of ending the war with Hamas that would
be satisfactor to the safety of Israel. And they're going
(14:01):
to do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin,
obviously referring to World War Two. But Galston points out
the problem is that after demanding unconditional surrender and getting
it through the use of force, we had to occupy
those lands for decades.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
I mean, we're still there, honestly, and.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
The idea of Israel doing that in Gaza is just
not possible because there would be one hundred year long
guerrilla war.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
He thinks he also didn't have TikTok videos of what
was going on in Berlin and Tokyo.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Right, which might have changed the will of the West
to impose that unconditional surrender, and he mentions the photos
of the hungry children allegedly, and I'm sure there are
hungry children, but the occupation of Gaza would likely prove
untenable in the long term. It would exert huge pressure
on Israel's reserve base terry forces. The IDF would face
(15:01):
a steady stream of casualties the hands of fanatical guerrilla fighters.
The parents of IDF soldiers in Gaza wouldn't tolerate this indefinitely.
Neither would the broader Israeli public, and he mentions that
public opinions shifting in Israel. In January of twenty four,
fifty one percent of Israeli said bringing home hostages should
be the main goal. Thirty six percent said toppling Hamas
(15:23):
should be. This April, sixty eight percent said it's about
bringing back the hostages. Only twenty eight percent gave higher
priority to the destruction of Hamas. So a very very
short summary of what he suggests is a regional coalition
to maintain order in Gaza and finance its reconstruction and
(15:46):
presumably keep Hamas from reasserting its control.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
To and who are these countries that are willing to
sign on to that or have Does anybody talk to them?
Speaker 4 (15:55):
The country's in the region, Jack, a regional coalition.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Has anybody asked them? And if they say yes, yeah,
that was a joke.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Yeah, that's that.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Yeah, there are plenty of countries in the region, and
he got every reason to help.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
But they're like, no, no, we don't want.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Any Palestinians in this country.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Please, and no, we have no help to offer.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Okay. The whole Muslim's solidarity thing that you hear shouted
so much in the Middle East is entirely to keep
in check the domestic populations of uneducated religious fanatics. They're
not gonna lift a finger. They might write a check,
but it's phony.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
It's horrifying to me that Joe says there is another
round of commentary on the whole blue Jens Gens white supremacy.
Speaker 4 (16:47):
The Sydney Sweeney backlash.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
Jack, that's correct, the eugenics commercial for Eagles Outfitters.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Genes write supremacy. Clearly.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
I can't believe there's more to that story. Oh my god,
there's more of the Epstein story too. I once again
I say, oh my god, there's new thing on that
and other stuff too. I hope you can stay with
us if you missed a second to get the podcast
Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining
traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My
jeans are blue, Sydney Sweeney has great genes. So is
that just a hot chick laying in bed, speaking just
(17:35):
above a whisper as if you're in bed with hair
trying to sell jeans or is it something much much darker?
Speaker 6 (17:42):
The pun good genes activates a troubling historical associations for
this country, the American eugenics movement, and it's primed between
like nineteen hundred and nineteen forty weaponized the idea of
good genes.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
What I was thinking white supremacism.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Yep, that's exactly what I first first thing I thought
when I heard about this Jen's ad, which is it's
it's an echo of the early twentieth century and eugenics
in white supremacy.
Speaker 4 (18:10):
It's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Oh wait, I see a friend across the parking lot. No,
I'm waving. That's not a na season and this.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Is anyway Number one story on the Globe for young
men in Ukraine fighting Russians in the trenches talking about this,
Oh Lord, too much perspective.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
So this idiotic, fake controversy, which is great fun because
it further unmasks the woke.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Honestly. Oh, that's one of the reasons I enjoy it.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
I good comment on that. I'm glad you reminded me.
Let me find that for when you're done. All right,
So a couple of things that I've really enjoyed.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Number One, Jonah Goldberg brilliant man, a fine writer, but
he cannot tell you what time it is in less
than five thousand words. He is writing about this fake
controversy and pointed out, as I did yesterday, that the
whole eugenics movement was absolute from the left, from the
progressives of the twentieth century. So plays and secondly, this,
(19:06):
which I really enjoyed, I'm the pretext for the outrage. Apparently,
the phrase good jens is a eugenics term that literally
gave us Hitler, and given the fact that Sidney Sweeney
is a blue eyed blonde, the ad must be intended
as a dog whistle or fog horn shouting.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Nazism is awesome.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Yes, I'm sure that some twenty five year old in
Cell has laid down his tiki torch in his copy
of Mine Kampf as he eased into his race car
bed in his parents' basement and asked an AI program
to draw Sweeney in an SS uniform riding a winged
horse like an updated valkyrie in pursuit of aryan Onanism.
Speaker 4 (19:41):
The heart wants with the heart wants and all that.
I never understand.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
I've never understood these things just in general. Like the
e elon wave into the crowd. Now it's clearly you know,
a Nazi salut who like it doesn't make sense to me,
just your point of view doesn't make sense to me,
Like he's secretly signaling people's I mean, what was the goal?
Speaker 1 (20:11):
It just I don't know. I've never quite understood it well.
And to not even enter into the discussion that well,
I think he was just waving. You know, he extended
his arm wave to me right now, See that looks
like a.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
Not oh Nazi germanity.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
No they don't. But what good would the secret signal do?
Speaker 4 (20:30):
Even if I'm true? Right right? I know, I know?
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (20:35):
And then CJ.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Pearson I appreciate appreciated this writing too in Fox News.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
Oh, and he quotes the the.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
University linking the good genes thing to to the eugenics thing.
Let's cut the nonsense. Progressive women aren't mad at Sydney
Sweeney because she's setting women back. That's just the excuse
they're throwing around because they don't want to admit the truth.
They're mad because she's young, hot, white, and blonde, and
they're mad that corporations are finally waking up to the
(21:05):
truth that the American people are done with woke. If
she were three hundred pounds and identified as gender fluid,
she'd be hailed as a revolutionary. If she threw her
pronouns in every interview, were a feminist crop top to
the red carpet, and spouted progressive talking points on cue,
they'd be tripping over themselves.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
To give her a glad Award.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
But because Sidney Sweeney simply exists, confident, traditionally feminine, and
not bending the need of the WO agenda, she's a target.
This isn't about feminism, it's about envy. It's about a
cultural movement that now punishes beauty, shame's feminimity and exalts
victimhood is the highest form of virtue. Oh and then
the one more point. Where was all this feminist outrage
(21:45):
when Dylan mulvaney, a male, was handed women's brand endorsements
by Nike, bud Light, and Maybelene for quote unquote celebrating womanhood.
Where were these voices when Moulveni mocked the female experience
with Barbie cosplay in ampon tutorials.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Nowhere?
Speaker 1 (22:02):
In fact, they were applauding because in today's woke dystopia,
a man pretending to be a woman gets more respect
than an actual woman who dares to look like what?
Speaker 3 (22:12):
That was pretty good, so perfect, Michael. I came across
this and it almost swam.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
I'm sorry. I said I was done, but I'm not.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Where are these self proclaimed champions of women's rights when
actual female athletes were getting steamrolled by males in their
own sports, when Leah Thomas was shoving real women off
the podium?
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Where was the outrage?
Speaker 1 (22:31):
Crickets Because defending the rights of actual women doesn't fit
the narrative, It's not politically useful.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
All right now, I'm done? Maybe probably so.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
When I first read this, it kind of swayed me.
But then I thought, but wait a second. Somebody tweeted out,
how do we address this is coming from a Democrat,
how do we address the fact that Democrats apparently have
to be accountable for the thoughts of every left of
center social media account with more than a few hundred followers.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
They're talking about how it.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
Just fringeos that are worried about this, but now it
the entire Democratic Party is being painted with it, and
this I'm guessing sort of mainstreamish democrat is saying, how
do we get out.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Of this situation?
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Right?
Speaker 3 (23:13):
Part of it, though, you should blame that professor we
played a few minutes ago as a professor talking about
well her the language she used smacks of early twentieth
century eugenics or white supremacy or whatever that.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
Was from Good Morning America.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
That's a mainstream, dominant media, Democrat news outlet.
Speaker 4 (23:36):
They covered it, So that's not just.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
A wing nut with a couple hundred flowers followers on Twitter.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Well, and if roughly the number of the same number
of people who attended your local Litera League game last
night or marching through the streets to Charlottesville chanting, they
will not replace us. Every Republican in the world is
asked to explain that in account for it and deny
association with it. So, yeah, what's good for sauce for
the goose is sauce for the gander. I agree, it's stupid,
(24:10):
but you stop it, and we'll stop you.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
Lay down your arms.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Yeah, exactly, you first, because you've been doing it for
the fifty years. Yeah, PABs, Huh, Sorry, I got a
little fired up there. I used some really unhappy word
the letters there. I am.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
So we're gonna we got some Ebstein stuff, some actually
new Ebstein stuff that we'll do an hour three. But
that scandal and this one, which I don't think ranks
to be called a scandal. But nah, I just I
can't figure out what's real anymore. I feel like my
sense of figuring out is this a real thing or
not has been completely broken, like in just the last month.
(24:55):
I'm sorry to hear that I can't figure out what
actually is impacting people are not like I thought.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
So you've become unmoored from reality.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Is that fair? Yes?
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Ever since I became untethered from reality, doctor, my rabbit.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Friend told me, Jack, you need to get more rest.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
I used to, uh, feel like I had a good
sense of that. But like I thought, when I first
heard this blue Jeen thing, I thought, well, this is
completely made up. It's probably even being pushed by Eagle Outfitters.
Is that the name of the gene company American Eagle?
American Eagle. Okay, When I first heard this, I thought, well,
this is one of those it's it's it's It's like
Abercrome and Fitch used to do. They would purposefully start
(25:41):
a controversy and everybody would find about doing the product.
And I thought it was just one of those, and
I thought, you know, ho hum. But then it was
on Good Morning America being treated seriously by a college professor,
and I thought, okay, I'm untethered from reality.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Yeah, the only I think you're right. First of all,
you're one hundred percent right in the first part. I
think the significance of it is that America has gotten
so tired of and pissed off by the woke agenda
because you and me, you and I, Katie, most of us,
(26:20):
we only felt the humiliation and the anger of being
forced to sit through the woke training sessions by proxy
through our listeners. And but we you know, I read dozens,
maybe hundreds of emails from people who had to sit
there jaw clenched because their kids need their college money
(26:42):
and they couldn't argue. They couldn't even ask questions about
at these sessions lest they be you know, railroaded out
of their jobs. And there is deep, deep not to
mention you saw your city burn during the George Floyd protests,
which were mostly peace and the only gatherings allowed during COVID.
(27:03):
By the way, you couldn't go to your blank in church,
but you could burn down your local target store in
the name of George Floyd or something.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
And people are pissed.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
And this is another opportunity to now speak out and
say no, that garbage is not true, we don't believe.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
It, and they're not going to run our country. Amen.
End of screen.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
So Tom Brady just said something interesting. Might have to
get to that first. Tell you about this topic.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
No, Oh, thank goodness, because I thought that was a
real nice cap to it. Oh, different topic.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
Simply safe makes me feel good, It really really does.
I love the fact that I've got the sensors on
all the windows and doors and the cameras and the
AI live action guard monitoring and all that sort of stuff,
And it's about a dollar a day and you could
have it too.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
And the old style security says, which were bad and expensive,
they would essentially tell you, I tell you what.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
After they kicked down your door, an alarm will go off.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Well, the beauty of simply Safe's new Active Guard outdoor
protections that helps stop breakings before they happen. AI powered cameras,
live monitoring agents to tech suspicious activity around your property.
Someone's lurking, the agents can talk to them in real time,
turn on your spotlights, call the police, proactively deterring crime
before it starts.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
So cool, so affordable.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Visit simply safe dot com slash armstrong to claim fifty
percent off on a new system with a professional monitoring
playing gets first one free, no long term contracts.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
They earn your business every day.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Simplysafe dot com slash armstrong.
Speaker 4 (28:40):
There's no safe like simply Safe.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
I'll have to dig up the actual quotes because I
just saw them up on the television and just caught
them a little bit out of context. But apparently Tom
Brady the football player was responding to that golfer.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Best golfer in the world. You said, what's his name,
Oh Scotti Scheffler.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Who the comments A couple of weeks ago we played
all about how he just, you know, he doesn't get
that mussatisfaction out of winning golf and family and that's
all that really matters, and blah blah blah. Apparently Tom
Brady was asked about that it was in a bit
of a weird situation and that he may have lost
his family over the fact that he prioritized sports over that.
(29:20):
And I was just reading this quote up there, and
he said, I felt like I was doing I was
doing the right thing for my family by prioritizing my
profession and becoming a teacher.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Okay, increasing our net worth from one hundred and fourteen
million dollars to one hundred and twenty one million dollars.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
Yeah, a teacher, that's what you're doing. You were teaching
younger quarterbacks how to quarterback, and that was for your
family somehow, Okay. But apparently Giselle Bunchin did not feel
the same way about it. Of course, who knows.
Speaker 4 (29:53):
You never know what.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
The actual problem was.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
Right.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
Couple of things that I want to get to. Media
coverage of the Russia hoax back in the day versus
media coverage of Tulsi Gabberd's claim that it was all orchestrated.
That's quite the stark difference. Also, we got the big
anniversary this week's sixty year anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid.
Quick look at how well that's worked out, and a
(30:23):
whole bunch of other stuff.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
I hope you can stay here. What makes you think
free Eye ant lists could actually be an alien spacecraft?
Speaker 7 (30:32):
Well, it's moving on a very special trajectory that lines
up with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
With that plane, it will get closest to the Sun
when we won't be able to see it because we
will be exactly on the opposite side of the Sun.
It gets unusually close to all the inner planets with
a likelihood of less than one part in twenty thousand
(30:56):
and Moreover, it moves in the opposite direction to the
motion of the Earth around the Sun. That basically prevents
us from reaching it or intercepting it with any of
our rockets.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
So that's a Harvard professor claiming something is alien spacecraft.
Speaker 4 (31:12):
It can't be a coincidence.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
It's it's orbit is designed purely to evade our detection
of its actual purpose, and you know what it is.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
A Harvard professor says it's an alien spacecraft. Seems like
that should have been the lead story today is in
my mind, in my heart, culmination of the Fermi paradox
of well, where is everybody?
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Then? Three I Atlas is the name of it. Maybe
we've found something.
Speaker 4 (31:41):
Fermi was a crank.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
It was on yesterday, sixty years ago that Lyndon Johnson
signed Medicare and Medicaid into law. We're going to have
our healthcare expert, Craig Gottwaals on tomorrow to go through
like the real stats on the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
It's just ridiculous. It was.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
It was all intended to help a tiny slice of
humanity in America that really needed help because they were
so downtrodden. And now it's like practically everybody. It's one
of the great mission creeps in the history of entitlements.
Oh yeah, really on Earth? Yeah, going through some of
the stats I've got here from Sony who tweeted about
it yesterday, it was thought it'd be worth pointing out
(32:25):
in its first ten years, Medicare had no discernible effect
on elderly mortality. Doesn't mean it didn't help, but it
doesn't certainly no proof that it did help. Since nineteen
sixty five, Medicare and Medicaid have spent how much money
without substantial evidence of effectiveness? Like, there's very little way
(32:49):
to measure that it's done any good for anybody. Forty
five trillion dollars wow, Medicare and Medicaid since nineteen sixty five,
sixty years ago yesterday, forty five trillion dollars with little
evidence of any effectiveness for helping the situation for people
(33:11):
in general.
Speaker 4 (33:13):
You know, and I don't know this.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
We're looking forward to talking to Craig, the healthcare guru
about this in the next day or two. I'm not
an authority, but whenever you have the wrong solution to
a problem in place for a very very long time
and spend a tremendous amount of money on it, the
problem being, you know, people need medical care in some way,
(33:37):
in some way, shape or form, and it's expensive.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
What do you do about it?
Speaker 1 (33:41):
But if you have the wrong solution in place for
a very long time, what does that prevent folks or
what does that remove the incentive to find? Obviously the
right solution, So I would argue it's been worse than
just a waste of money.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
A Wall Street Journal opinion piece. If Medicare and Medicaid
were drugs, the US FDA would not approve them and
would imprison their salesman for claiming they saved lives.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
Yeah, I like that.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Medicare and Medicaid spend about a trillion dollars a year currently.
The best evidence suggests that uh, one third of Medicare
spending is pure waste. About a third absolutely unbelievable. And
(34:34):
we'll have Craig go on tomorrow to go through some
more of the stats of what it was supposed to
do and what it hasn't done and everything. But it's
the moment, amazing.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
The moment Republicans suggest, hey, like healthy, working age men
who are on Medicaid for no reason, how about we
make them like, try to work a little bit. The
Democrats immediately go berserk and scream that they're gooda. They're
throwing plane children off of Medicaid out of pure wanton cruelty.
(35:04):
That's how stupid our politics are. Democracy doesn't work.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Speaking of stupid, there is a stupid essay in The
New York Times today about screen time and attention spans
and all that sort of stuff. It's very interesting, though
the root conversation. Their conclusion is often the case with
progressives is stupid about how it's another the rich taking
(35:30):
advantage of the poor, or something that they get to
with screen time. But I do want to talk about
that next hour, because that's really really good. What was
the other thing that I wanted to jam in? I
know I had something I don't remember. I'll think about it.
Oh yeah. Kamala Harris has got a book coming out,
which is proof positive, proof positive that she's running for president,
because that's what you do. You put out a book
(35:50):
so you can do the interview circuit and talk about
how you're going to fix America and blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
So given her intellect, I wonder, is it a coloring book?
Speaker 3 (35:58):
I know, I really look forward to the fact that,
according to The New York Times, also she thinks she
didn't do enough interviews when she ran for president last time,
so she's going to do a lot more podcasts and
mainstream media interviews and bring it on.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
Can't tell you how much I love that idea, kam La.
Speaker 4 (36:14):
I know it.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
That's easy to do it some of the best things
I've heard in a long time. Puts a skip in
my step. We got a lot more on the way
Speaker 1 (36:21):
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.