August 25, 2025 • 37 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Military Analyst Mike Lyons talks to Jack Armstrong
- Jack's sailing lessons
- Congressman Tom McClintock talks to Jack Armstrong
- US open & bad behavior in sports trickling down to our kids
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.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Jetie and he Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Enraged when you learned that Russia targeted an American company
based in Ukraine. I don't like it, Kristen, but this
is a war, and this is why we want to
stop the killing. The Russians have done a lot of
things that we don't like. A lot of civilians have died.
We've condemned that stuff from the get go. And frankly,
President Trump has done more to apply pressure and to
(00:46):
apply economic leverage to the Russians, certainly than Joe Biden
did for three and a half years when he did
nothing but talk but do nothing to bring the killing
to a stop. So you asked me what I'm enraged by.
What I'm enraged by is the continuation of the war.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
So, yeah, if you didn't hear that, storry, Russia, I'm
sure on purpose hit an American factory in western Ukraine
the other day. We say that they're just making like
toasters and electronics, commercial goods. There, Russia's claiming that we're
manufacturing something that can be used in the war and
(01:23):
that's why they attacked it. That's its own separate story.
We'd like to welcome to the Armstrong and Getty Show.
On the topic of war, and whenever we have a
military thing, we always go to Mike Lyons military analyst.
You find him popping up all over the place and
certainly on the Armstrong in Getty Show. If you want
to follow him on Twitter, you can follow him at
maj as in Major Mike Lions, or you can read
(01:44):
his pieces that he writes for Real Clear Defense Mike Lions.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Welcome, Hi you.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
This morning, Aji, great, thanks for letting me back.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Hey, when you get up in the morning and you
want to check in on wars, where do you go
to first? I really like that open source intelligence feed
on Twitter or sw Institute for the Study of War.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
But what do you look at?
Speaker 4 (02:04):
Yeah, in super Study of War. I know those guys
I see you know they monitor the situation both in
the Middle East as well as in Europe. There might
go to guys, Okay, first, I'll reach back out to them.
Have some folks that at the NSC as well. I
just try to follow there and try to monitor. But
there's lots of good sources that you can look at
(02:25):
just kind of get a lay of the land. Because
time matters here, right, I mean, you wake up in
six hours ahead over there, so something's happened usually, and
so trying to get up to speed quickly on something
that's already happened is really the hard part sometimes interesting.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
So, as you just heard jd Vance, there are the
administrations making the argument all the time that they've done
a hell of a lot more to arm Ukraine than
Joe Biden ever did.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
And Joe Biden was hardcore.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Ukraine was not able to fire across the border into Russia,
and Trump has loosened those restrictions. In fact, Trump has
made a number of noises about Ukraine is allowed to
use some of the weapons that we have given them
or that they purchased that came from US.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
To attack Russia.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Well, there was a story in the Wall Street Journal
over the weekend that the Pentagon doesn't like that and
doesn't want us to be doing that, and they're kind
of maybe going against the president wishes. First of all,
would that be a good idea for Ukraine to be
firing into Russia or not?
Speaker 4 (03:21):
Well? I think so, First of all, maximum military pressure
by Ukraine is what's going to take Russia to possibly
come to the negotiation table. I went up the Post
this morning, for example, on the inside articles is Lavrov
saying We're not going to negotiate. So I never thought
there was enough pressure on Russia to negotiate anyway. Right now,
they still feel that they can win on the battlefield.
(03:41):
Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. But
from what I've seen projections and what I've also seen
Intel reports that have come out, I'm surprised I saw
that report because the Biden administration got off to a
very slow start, did not turn up the thermostat at all,
but did create a logistical support eye chain in order
to make things happen. And then the last year, the
(04:03):
last six months or so with a Biden administration, they
did allow those cross border attacks to military targets. And
then Trump takes over and it was shut down. And
I am surprised by that, but I think it has
a lot to do with probably a dysfunctional NSC in
some level, the fact that if we had better national
security advisors with the president making sure that the Pentagon
(04:25):
did what the president wanted, because it's likely just a
couple of personalities in the Pentagon that doesn't think that
we should be doing this, and that's that's why it
got shut down. So it's passive aggressive behavior. They just
have to approve the strike. It just takes them too
long because a lot of these strikes are targets of opportunity.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Well, it's interesting those of us who just casually follow
the world, we assume that if the president and his
crew decide something, that that's what happens. But the bureaucracy
is big enough, there are people to constin me.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
That sometimes it is and I think it's gotten worse,
not just this administration, but go back to you know,
we just haven't add a really well connected, you know,
national security advisory and council with the president that's overseeing
all the different levers of American national security. We used
to say that, you know, the for there would be
very bike Potterson support for national security interests, and they
(05:15):
would that that you know, on our shores is where
it ends, and we're all together. But you've seen this
president travel and Democrats mock that travel when he goes
to farm ways. We had the Russia hoax that that
that really stymied the last the first Trump administration. It's
been a while. I'd like to get us back to
the eighties and nineties again, I know, returned. You know,
maybe we never get there, but of really making sure
(05:39):
that the National Security Advisor is you know, telling the
Pentagon what the president intent is and then can monitor that.
Because it's also taken now four or five months for
that report to come out. It took the media to
figure that out. Now the Trump administration, I think is
scrambling and making sure that doesn't look like we're supporting
Ukraine like we say we are.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Well, it obviously gives the Russians a tremendous advantage if
they know that Ukraine can actually did fight any offense.
So if you were in charge, how much time would
you spend worried about kicking off a nuclear war?
Speaker 2 (06:13):
I mean that was Biden's big concern.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
I guess according to a couple of different books are out,
he didn't want Ukraine, you know, using our weapons.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
It would start a nuclear war.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Yeah, I mean, so I had this argument this morning
with somebody about that. And Russia really hasn't flexed its
true military power because if it wanted to, it could
launch a nuclear weapon, and the account argument to that was, well,
what good would that do? Well? I guarantee it when
we did it in the Second World War, where the
Japanese got the message and they decided to stop and
negotiate quickly. At that point in time, knew the war
was going to be over if Russia fires. Let's just
(06:45):
put all these scenarios on the table, that Harkiev or
La Viv, that that eastern or that western city in Ukraine,
if they threatened and were able to drop a nuclear
weapon there killed ten thousand civilians. That would be incredible escalation,
that would still be fundamentally within theater. What would the
world do?
Speaker 5 (07:04):
Then?
Speaker 4 (07:04):
Again, all of these sanctions and economic things and levers
that they're trying to pull, Russia knows that will take
eight to ten to twelve months in order to take effect.
They still have India, China on their side, and Germany
is the biggest wild you know, outlier because they still
buy a lot of oil and gas from Russia. So
Russia still has not used all its military might yet,
(07:25):
which is why I believe they feel that they can
still do what they're doing, because I do think that's
an option I do think a short, a smaller tactical
nuke like that, they they can deliver it, and they
have it.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
How do you think the world would react to that?
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Well, I think the world would be you know, not happy.
Obviously there would be you know, United Nations, you know
the issues there. But I but again, what could the
world do. Is the world willing to deploy a NATO
army as well? Is the world willing now? So, I
mean that's the thing. I mean, Russia, you know, can
can play this thing to that to that point if
(08:03):
it chooses to. I just don't believe that there's any
appetite within the European community to actually go on the
offense because that's what it would take. It would take,
it would take doing that. Now, Russia has already said
now that they're not going to allow Western troops inside
of Ukraine as part of the security agreement that they
that would have. So so again that's off the table.
There's no there's no negotiation that's going to take place
(08:24):
anytime soon.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Wow, that's really interesting. I hope it doesn't come to
that point, but I could imagine it. And no, I
don't think the world there would be your usual condemnation
from the un WI. Right, we condemned this in the
strongest terms. Of course Putin doesn't get a crap about that.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Right, Yeah, it would be you know, like a letter
of admonishment or something. Right. I mean he understands one
thing and that's that's power. And I believe that. You know,
if you look, there was an interesting chart offso in
the journal or as it might have been, the post
about the land masks that you know, they really haven't
gotten anywhere in three years down the Domebass region, and
Russia wants those complete oblifs. They want all of the area.
(09:03):
They want area that they haven't even taken over yet.
And again that this is what their maximist position is
and it and it can remain that way as long
as they feel like it win the battle on the ground.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Switching gears to the other war that where semi involved in.
Certainly the president is Yahoo deciding to try to finish
off Hamas and I guess occupy Gaza.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
How difficult a military operation is? That going to be
very tough.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
I think that's going to be tunnel warfare, that's going
to be that fourth dimension underground. Israel won't be able
to use a lot of its technology and advantages there.
That's going to be the last remnants of Hamas. Likely
the if those hostages are there, they're going to be
collateral damage. Unfortunately I had to use that term like
that so one personally. But those tunnels are going to
(09:48):
get destroyed, They're going to be flooded, they'll be blown up.
That that that tunnel structure that Hamas has still is
there is their shield and their sword. It's their last
remaining power base that the Mosque has. You know, you
look in history and sometimes to win wars you have
to attack center of gravities of places, or in our
civil war, you have to attack an army. The Lincoln
(10:10):
knew that he had to find a general that was
going to attack the Confederate army and chase them. In
this case, their strength is their infrastructure. So Natanya who
knows he has to attack and destroy this infrastructure, this
tunnel system. That's what's coming in Gaza City. It's going
to be a lot long. It's going to be twice
as long as whatever they think it's going to take.
And I think you'll see tunnels destroyed, but you'll also
see unfortunately high Israeli casualties because it's going to be
(10:33):
close in it's going to be bloody wow.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
And it'll be interesting to see what public opinion is
on that in Israel. Final question, my brother was in
the National Guard for a while. I'm trying to picture
him if he got deployed to Washington, DC or Chicago
with a crime fighting mission with a gun at your side,
we are you Are you concerned about that for some
of our troops that aren't exactly that's you know, and
(10:56):
then you know a lot of people ended up in
the National Guard didn't think they'd ever be going to
a racker Afghanistan either.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Yeah, I'm absolutely concerned about it. We're definitely over We're
doing too much of our military right now. And I
think that it was the same problem we had in
Iraq anyway. I mean, we deployed active duty troops and
we made them peacekeepers on one block, and then the
next block they were war fighters. And I got into
an argument with a four star about this, and he
thought it was fine because of the discipline of our
troops over our weapon system on because it's got nothing
(11:23):
to do with that. It's just human nature. It's just
too hard to flip that switch. Well, now you bring
in National Guard troops that don't really have law enforcement training.
Now if they're going to help in the back, or
they're going to help logistically or provide just the presence. Oh,
look at New York City. Every day there's National Guard
troops in the subway system at Grand Central Station. You
see them there. They're not carrying loaded magazines. They're just
(11:43):
more of a presence. But if we're going to arm
them and expect them to go out on police raids,
that's a bridge too far. So I'd I'd like to
see less of it. And I think that this is
the President probably using too much for the military. Someone
needs to be countering this argument with regard to the
National Guard in the room, and I hope someone's doing that.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Thank you as always for your time, Mike Lines. You
can follow him at at Maj. Major Mike Lyons on
Twitter or read him a real clear defense or look
for him where every pops up.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Thanks Mike, Thanks Checklimmy. Yeah, I just I.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Think it's always easier to picture military stuff if you
picture one of your own relatives. Would you want your dad,
brother whoever going to iraqar Afghanistan or in Chicago carrying
a gun and uh, I.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Don't know that I would. I'm all for cracking down
on the crime. Maybe more on that later.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Speaking of crime, I don't worry about it much in
my own home because I've got simply Safe, which is
really really handy. Simply Safe with their new Active Guard
outdoor protection to help stop break ins before they happen.
AI powered cameras, live monitoring agents that will detect suspicious
activity around your property. If someone's lurking around your house,
(13:00):
agents can actually talk to them, Hey, what are you doing, lurker?
They can turn on the spotlights, call the police, proactively
deterring crime before it even starts. Cnet called it the
best home security system in twenty twenty five no contract.
Four million Americans trust simply Safe. I'm one of them.
Ranked number one in customer service by Newsweek and USA Today.
Visit simply safe dot com slash armstrong today to claim
(13:22):
fifty percent off a new system with a professional monitoring
plan and get your first month free. That's simply safe
dot com slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply Safe.
The US Open tennis tournament started over the weekend I
just watched some guy.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
I don't follow tennis that closely. I don't know who.
This guy was.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Losing his ass on the court. Did you see the
video of the guy sitting there? He loses a point
or something, loses his mind and he can't stop smashing
his racket on his bag and stuff.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
You saw that, Katie?
Speaker 5 (13:48):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (13:48):
Yeah, Well what happened was a photographer delayed the game
and he lost one of the points, and so that
photographer came out onto the I don't know what it's
called the court. Yeah, and so the guy starts yelling
at him and then that was the end of his racket.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
I turned to smithereens I heard about the photographer thing,
but man, he lost his mind there.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
For that's exciting stuff.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
We got a lot more to talk about on the
way as an AI problem that's a real problem, among
other things coming up. Stay here, hey, So coming up,
we're going to talk to Republican Congressman Tom mcclin talk
about a couple of things about immigration and maybe redistricting.
He's a California congressman, so obviously he's interested in what
(14:29):
Gavin Newsom wants to do in California to try to
fight the evil Republicans who are redistricting Texas. That's according
to Gavin Newsom. So I took my sailing lessons over
the weekend, a phrase I never thought I would ever
say in my life. Not exactly come from sailing folk
from western Kansas, but I always wanted to try to
(14:50):
learn how to do that. And this neighborhood I live
in has got this little private, man made lake in
it and it's big enough that people sail little boats
around on it and everything like that. Was over working
out at the club and had a sign up and
said adult sailing lessons, and you sign up for it,
and it's two hours on a Saturday, two hours on
(15:11):
a Sunday for a total of four hours, and then
you get some sort of certificate.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
I don't know. I don't know what that certificate entitles
me to do.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
So I did that and I had the sailing lessons
over the weekend, and the main thing I learned is
it's way more complicated than I know. I don't know
how many of you ever been on a sail boat,
but it's super compliment complicated, and you're constantly doing things
and making decisions. It's not like you just get to
only if you've been out of motor boats, you mostly
chill right you drive out there, you're either driving and
(15:41):
anybody can drive a boat. You can even have done
it before. You can give the eight year old kid
to let him drive the boat around, and anybody can
do it. Not everybody can. Say you got to know
what the hell you're doing. And so the first thing
we did was sit down with the instructor and he
had a couple of visual aids, like big charts with
all parts on there and everything like that, and go
(16:01):
through the various parts of the boat. And I thought,
I'm never gonna remember all this. And so we'd get
out into the water and he'd say, grab the Halliard. No,
that's the that's the Forestay, not the forestay.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Get the backstay. That's not the right, Get that, Jim Halliard.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
That's the main sale howyard that I couldn't remember what
all the parts were.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
I just couldn't.
Speaker 7 (16:22):
It didn't even sound like English, I know.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
And and.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
As trying to explain this to my son, when you
get older, learning is so much harder than when you're younger. God,
cause your brain is in the when you're young, your
brain every single day. When you go to school, you're
learning new stuff. And then after you get out of school,
out of college, if you go to college, you know
you might not learn another thing again the rest of
your life. So my brain is out of practice for
getting hit with thirty new terms and immediately being able
(16:49):
to memorize them and everything like that. I found that
quite funny. Is that's not the main stay. I don't
even remember what that is. I'm just grabbing random things
hoping you'll say, yes, that's what's happening.
Speaker 6 (17:03):
Process of elimination. I'm gonna grab everything until I get
it right.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
And the instructor was super super awesome, really chill. He's
a high school kid, and what a background he had.
He lived on a boat with his dad from age
like six to nine when he was a kid, running
stuff on a sail boat from Cape Cod to Florida,
back and forth. And he did that for three years
of his life, doing like homeschool on the ship. Then
(17:27):
he went to New Zealand and competed in sailing and
finished third in the nation for speed sailing. And now
he's anyway, he's in my town and giving sailing lessons
among other things. As a sixteen year old, but he
really knew what he was doing. But all of us,
there were other six of us, these other six adults,
we had no idea what we're doing.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And it was quite hilarious.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
But I got to tell the story a little bit
later about me getting into the argument with the old
man who kept telling me what to do that turned
very ugly for a while.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
I should have pushed him into the sea. That's what
I should have done.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Yes, well, he goes, yes, sorry, blub blub nice knowing
y'all tell nice, I'll tell your wife that you died. Valiately,
we're gonna talk to Congressman Tom McClintock coming up in
just a second of you miss a segment? Orn, howur
get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Armstrong and Geddy.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
Well.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Currently, Tom McClintock is represents the fifth District of California.
Will that remain the same after Gavin Newsom gets If
Gavin Newsom gets his way about redistricting in California to
try to take on the evil Texans? Any who Welcome
to the Armstrong and Getty Show. Old friend Tom McClintock again,
Republican Congressman fifth District of California.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
How are you this morning, Tom?
Speaker 5 (18:44):
I'm fine, Jack.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
How you doing great? You've been in California politics forever.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
What is the back and forth over the years, as
you know it of like drawing up districts and whether
it was fair or not and all that sort of
stuff in California?
Speaker 5 (18:59):
Well, guys, you know California, all state's reapportion every ten
years because of population shifts. The populations of the districts
have to be as equal as we could make them. That,
of course, then opens the door to Gary mandering, which
has a long history. It goes back to Elbridge Gary,
governor of Massachusetts, signer of the Declaration of Independence, you know,
(19:22):
who first began a joggling line so that his party
would benefit. He drew one district that looked like a salamander.
A newspaper editor said, no, let's call it a Gary mander,
and the name stuck. But the problem is, over the
years has gone from artwork to to science and it
can now be used to badly distort the partisan choices
(19:50):
that the voters make in every election.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
And is there any way to do away with this?
I mean, it's been going on since the very very beginning.
Lots of demo deocratic states are all jerrymandered to hack.
As we all should know by now, Texas isn't inventing
something new.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
Yeah, well, California did get sick and tired of it,
and they adopted constitutional provision calling for it independent commission.
That's what News was trying to bypass. The California Commission
this year in order to do the reapportionment, held one
hundred and ninety six public meetings, They received more than
thirty thousand written communications over nine months. They listened to
(20:31):
every constituency and community in the state, and they drafted
a consensus plan in public. This I guess you could
call it a Gavin mander was drafted behind closed doors
in a matter of days. And if they succeed, I
think we'd expect this to happen after every election that
the Democrats don't like the way a particular district voted.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Well, so Republicans account for about thirty eight percent of
the vote last election around, and if Gavin gets his way,
would have seven percent of the House members in the state.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
So that's obviously out of proportion.
Speaker 5 (21:11):
And that's with the Independent Commission it's still a stack
deck against California Republicans, mainly because illegal aliens are counted
for districting, which increases the proportional influence in democratic regions. So,
as you point out, it's not only stacked against California
(21:31):
Fornia Republicans. You look at them vote nationally. In twenty
twenty four, Democrats got forty seven percent of the congressional vote,
they got forty nine percent of the congressional seats. That
that's eight seats more than their vote would entitle them.
And that's because in the democratic seat states, the gerrymanders
are absolutely brutal. You know, in Illinois, California's got Republicans
(21:53):
got forty seven percent of the vote, seventeen percent of
the seats. Massachusetts, California's Republicans got thirty five center of
the vote and zero seats.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
That is really interesting stuff. I wish mainstream media was
better at presenting that. And then the jerry mandering, gary
mandering as you call it, polls very low, like six
percent of Americans liked the idea, but it happens all
across the country.
Speaker 5 (22:18):
Well, right, and again, Californians got rid of that. The Democrats,
by the way, tried to abolish the Independent Commission once before.
That was in twenty ten with Proposition twenty seven. Voters
rejected at sixty forty. So, you know, and I think
most Americans, you know, whatever their politics, having in it
(22:38):
night an innate sense of fairness. And I think that's
going to be decisive when this comes up to a vote.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
So, talking with Republican California Congressman Tom McClintock of California,
the most recent piece I'm reading here about immigrations, I
wish that somehow, someway quickly it would get to the
Supreme Court. This whole notion of a sanctuary city, sanctuary county,
sanctuary state, which seems obviously crazy. The whole thing with
(23:10):
illegal immigration, the way Joe and I have been presenting
it for quite some time, is if you're going to
ignore the federal law, what other federal laws can we
ignore if we don't like them?
Speaker 2 (23:20):
In states across the country. Can we just pick and choose.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Federal laws that we want to ignore, in which ones
we want to go with? What's your take on it?
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Currently?
Speaker 5 (23:27):
All right? And if you're going to tolerate illegal immigration,
it makes legal immigration pointless. Start with some simple truths.
If we don't enforce our immigration laws, we have no
immigration laws. If we have no immigration laws, we have
no border. If we have no border, we have no country.
It's not complicated. Our immigration laws weren't written to keep
(23:49):
people out. They were written to assure that when someone
comes to this country, they come with a sincere desire
to become an American, to obey our laws and contribute
to our nation. Illegal immigration undermines that whole process. And
that's why our current law requires any adult who is
illegal in this country to be detained. That's the exact
(24:11):
wording of the law. Shall be detained. It's not voluntary,
it is required under the law. That's the law that
Biden and the Democrats ignored over the last four years,
producing the biggest illegal migration in American history. And now
they're shocked that the biggest illegal migration in American history
(24:35):
that they unleashed now has to be followed by the
biggest deportation.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
So Republicans control Congress right now and the Senate. Is
there anything Congress can do to strengthen immigration laws so
that it's the law of the land and not just
something that one administration does. So that if the Democrats
win next time around, they can go the other direction.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
Right, Well, it is already the law of the land.
And remember the Democrats saying, oh, there's nothing we could
do about this without granting amnesty. And as Trump pointed out,
we didn't need new laws, we needed a new president.
We got one, and within thirty days the borders were secured.
And I think the last number is we're getting close
to two million illegal migrants have now departed the country,
(25:21):
either voluntarily or been for simply removed. But we also,
and this is where Congress comes in, We've got to
enact laws so that a future Democratic president can't once
again simply throw our borders wide open. So we've got
to reform our asylum laws to ensure that only legitimate
claims will be honored and those who are making such
(25:42):
claims are detained until they're adjudicated. We've got to close
the loopholes, and that means, you know, making the loopholes
that allowed Biden to abuse the limited parole authority that
Congress gave him. We've got to revamp our unaccompany a
minor laws to prevent human trafficking that ran rampant under Biden,
(26:04):
and we've got to rescue the hundreds of thousands of
children that Biden simply lost track of. And we've got
to restore integrity to our temporary and permanent visa programs
so that only those who are in an asset to
America can take advantage of them. The Office to Inspect
Your General is about to come out with a report.
I think that they documented that during the Biden administration
(26:27):
there were thirteen million visas granted that were completely unvetted. Now,
when you apply for a visa, you go to the
American consulate in your country and there's an interview. They
interview you, they check your background to be sure that
as you come in with the visa, you're not going
to do any harm and you know that you're going
to buy by the terms of the visa. Thirteen million
(26:48):
such visas were issued under Biden without any betting whatsoever,
and that's what the administration's re viewing.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Now another topic before we let you go, Congressome mcqua.
One of the big news stories of today, Trump talking
about sending National Guard troops to Chicago to deal with
their crime. Now, I think we're all up to speed
on the fact that the president. The federal government has
the constitutional right to do that in Washington, d C.
(27:15):
How do you feel about National Guard troops in Chicago.
Speaker 5 (27:19):
Well, I'm a federalist, and the federal government is absolutely
supreme in the federal District of Columbia, as you pointed out,
and they are also supreme in the enforcement of federal
laws like our immigration laws, and the President has been
brilliant at both. But local laws are subject to local jurisdiction.
(27:40):
I think we want to be careful if a city
is not actually asking for assistance. I think we want
to be careful about how we insert federal authority into
the enforcement of strictly local laws. And that's going to
play out obviously, I'm not entirely clear what the President's
proposing for Chicago, but in a local law enforcement theys
(28:02):
to remain in local hands, no matter how badly those
local hands are are handling it.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
I would agree with that. Interesting. Tom McClintock, appreciate your
time today, Tom, Thank.
Speaker 5 (28:12):
You very much, my pleasure. Jack good talking to you.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
I would agree with that.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
I am not only skeptical of his legal power to
send National Guard troops to Chicago, but I don't know
how I feel about that as a president, and as
Joe and I always talking about Joe's in England on vacation.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
He's going to call in later.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
But as Joe and I are always talking about the
problem with giving your guy the power to do something
or looking the other way if he does something that.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Like maybe send troops Chicago.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Is the other guy the other side's going to be
in charge at some point? And do you want you know,
President Gavin Newsom sending National Guard troops into a conservative
city somewhere because he doesn't like the way that place
is being run. No, I don't horrifying. So that's what
we got to keep our eye on for today. I
(29:05):
want to tell you about this before we take a
little break. I don't know if you've ever known anybody
or maybe it's happened to you where you've had your
bank account hacked by somebody got in there. It can
be a nightmare to straighten out, take you weeks, months,
years of being on the phone and online and blah
blah blah. It's just horrible. You can avoid that. That's
(29:26):
why we trust Webroot Total Protection it monitors for stolen identities,
credit fraud and even scans the dark web for your
info to see if it pops up somewhere. So we
want to hook you up with a great offer right now.
Get fifty percent off Webroot Total Protection or Webroot Essentials
at webroot dot com slash armstrong. I'll never again not
(29:46):
have something like that. If something goes wrong, you're backed
up with up to a one million dollars in reimbursement.
It's fast, it's light, waited installs in minutes, No annoying
pop ups, just which you know, there's I don't know
if you've used some of these other companies, they're pop
ups are endless, drive you nuts. No pop ups with
Webroot even includes a VPN for secure browsing and password
(30:08):
manager to keep your log in safe. Love that, don't
risk being the next victim. Get fifty percent off Webroot
Total Protection or Webroot Essentials right now webroot dot com
slash armstrong again, that's webroot dot com slash armstrong. Protect yourself,
protect your family, live a better digital life. And you
can set it up for like I'm gonna set it
(30:28):
up for me and my kids, for instance. But you
can get a whole bunch of other people in your
family on there. At the same time, the whole redistricting
thing finally being presented in a much fairer way. I
thought on the Sunday talk shows yesterday, we can play
some clips of that later and talk about exactly what
Gavin's trying to do in California, which would make it
(30:50):
just unbelievably jerrymandered. Oh, I thought it was interesting. It
doesn't surprise me Tom McClintock, being the kind of guy
he is, that he goes ahead and says Gary Mandard
because that strictly the right word, as you heard from
the original guy named Gary who the name comes from.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
But everybody says Jerry Mander.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
But Tom McClintock is the sort of guy that is
going to go with Gary Mandard because that's the correct thing, in.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Spite of that's what everybody else says. I'm the other.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
If everybody's saying Jerry Mander, I'm gonna say Jerry manderd
So that's the way it goes. So how I almost
pushed an old man into the sea at sailing lessons
among other things on the way.
Speaker 5 (31:29):
Army Strong and.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
Geddy, the US Open is officially kicking off.
Speaker 8 (31:34):
The record breaking crowds pouring into New York from all
over the world. All eyes are on Tennis Royalty and
Venus Williams set to return to Grand Slam tennis Monday
after two years.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Yeah, super thrilling to be back.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
It does not get old, It just gets more exciting.
Speaker 8 (31:51):
The forty five year old getting a wild card invitation
to play. It's the first time in forty four years
someone her age has competed in women's singles at the USA.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
So that's one interesting story around the US Open tennis tournament.
If you follow tennis at all, or you might start
following tennis more often if what is happening at the
US Open becomes more of the norm. So the headline
in the New York Times, I don't follow tennis. I
just became aware of this. At the US Open. Tennis
etiquette no longer rules, and some players want that to
(32:21):
be the norm, so they kind of encourage a more
rambunctious atmosphere at the US Open tennis tournament there in
New York, music blasting in between points, that sort of
thing like happens at other big sporting events. Right, didn't
used to have that at Major League Baseball games or
NFL games when I was a kid, but now you
(32:41):
do constantly, uh to just provide a little more buzz,
a little more entertainment all the time. And trash talking
your opponent, like pointing at them, saying things to them.
Stuff like that is starting to catch on and a
lot of players think cool.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I think it would be better for.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
The sport.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
To find interesting because the.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
I don't know which side of me what would be
the right term, the law and order side of me,
I guess likes decorum, connetiquette and all that sort of
stuff in all manner of life. But the am I
ever gonna watch this sport as a TV show? Part
of me life loves pointing in people's faces and trash
talking and music in between points.
Speaker 7 (33:24):
It definitely makes it more entertaining, no doubt.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
And as Joe is always pointing out, these are TV shows.
These are just like every other TV show on television.
The NFL, the US Open, the Bachelorette or Law and Order.
They're all the same. It's just how many people can
we get to watch so we can charge as much
as possible for the commercials in between.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
Yeah, by the whole point, and.
Speaker 6 (33:46):
By allowing that behavior, I mean think over the last
couple of years, how many more tennis headlines we've seen
because of the behavior and people are paying attention to it.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Culturally, I don't like it as I've seen it move
into youth sports. I talked about this last year when
my son was playing football. It was amazing to me
on how this was two years ago. I guess eleven
year olds after every mundane play, they're popping their jerseys
and doing the stances and stuff like that. It's just
(34:16):
for eleven year olds play for just every play, and
the and the and the coaches just I mean no coach.
When I was a kid, the coach would have benched
you immediately for doing that. But the coaches didn't say
anything about it. It's just it's just part of the culture.
And is that good or bad?
Speaker 2 (34:31):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
We don't need to make eleven year old football more
entertaining for advertisements.
Speaker 7 (34:35):
I think, I think leave the kids out of it.
Speaker 6 (34:38):
If the adults want to go out there and smash
their tennis rackets and call each other efforts, that's.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
Cool, but you can't have one without the other though
the kids. The kids watch their heroes and whatever sport
they're in, and they're going to emulate them, and it's
just that's just the way it is. There's no getting
around that. So that's the part that bothers me. Uh,
because guaranteed it will sift down to you know, high
school tennis. You'll have have somebody score an ace on
(35:02):
the other player. That's when you hit the ball and
it lands in the little square and it's so fast
that the other guy can't even get their racket on it.
Usually you're like, yo, you know that sort of stuff,
and eh, it'll just happen for better or worse. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
For instance, in the WNBA, you throw marital aids under
the court. If I'm more likely to watch part probably
if there's a chance that sexy toys are going to
be thrown onto the court, and I can, you know.
Speaker 7 (35:29):
Watch ever laugh I'm in can't get a good laugh.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Exactly how much time I got, Michael, depends on how
you keep eating. Yeah no, they've got about two minutes.
Speaker 6 (35:40):
And the guy who threw the shmildo is in quite
the oh hot water.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
So he's charged with ten different things. I had you
look that up. So that shmildough that's a good word.
So the guy that threw the shmildo on the court
being charged with ten different things.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
You looked it up. What are they?
Speaker 6 (35:54):
The top charge is second degree attempted assault, a felony
that carries a maximum of seven years in prison.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Second, what's the assault? I g if it hits somebody
in the head.
Speaker 6 (36:03):
Well, it did hit one of the players, Oh okay.
Among the other charges are interference with a professional sporting event,
reckless engagement, harassment, and obscenity.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
Not guilty, doll, Yeah, Uh, interruption of a professional sporting event?
Speaker 2 (36:19):
Is it crime?
Speaker 7 (36:20):
I didn't know that.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
I didn't know that either, for throwing a shmildo on
the court. Bright launching a bright green mildow. Wait, I
didn't realize it hits somebody in the noggin.
Speaker 6 (36:31):
I don't know that it hit her in the nog
It hit one of the players, I want to say,
in the shoulder or something, and she screeched and jumped back.
Speaker 7 (36:36):
And then you know, I started as this lime green.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
You know, if I'm if I'm standing around and something
hits me in the head, I think, WHOA, what was that?
And then I looked down and see that it's a
bright green shmildough. I would think it not a good day.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
Hmm, who threw that? And what are they?
Speaker 7 (36:54):
What is why it was not on my fingo card?
Speaker 1 (36:57):
What message are they sending me right this moment? I
would very confused?
Speaker 7 (37:01):
They attracted to me?
Speaker 1 (37:02):
How am now? How am I supposed to react to
this with anger? Am I supposed to be turned on?
I'm not exactly sure it's supposed to happen there. We
do a lot of hours, a lot of segments, and
if you miss when, you can get our podcast, Armstrong and.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Getty on demand.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
We got Joe Getty calling into the show on the
fourth hour to kick it off, so you're gonna want
to catch that.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Lots of stuff on the way for the Armstrong and
Getty Show. Thanks for joining us Armstrong and Getty.
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Jetie and he Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Enraged when you learned that Russia targeted an American company
based in Ukraine. I don't like it, Kristen, but this
is a war, and this is why we want to
stop the killing. The Russians have done a lot of
things that we don't like. A lot of civilians have died.
We've condemned that stuff from the get go. And frankly,
President Trump has done more to apply pressure and to
(00:46):
apply economic leverage to the Russians, certainly than Joe Biden
did for three and a half years when he did
nothing but talk but do nothing to bring the killing
to a stop. So you asked me what I'm enraged by.
What I'm enraged by is the continuation of the war.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
So, yeah, if you didn't hear that, storry, Russia, I'm
sure on purpose hit an American factory in western Ukraine
the other day. We say that they're just making like
toasters and electronics, commercial goods. There, Russia's claiming that we're
manufacturing something that can be used in the war and
(01:23):
that's why they attacked it. That's its own separate story.
We'd like to welcome to the Armstrong and Getty Show.
On the topic of war, and whenever we have a
military thing, we always go to Mike Lyons military analyst.
You find him popping up all over the place and
certainly on the Armstrong in Getty Show. If you want
to follow him on Twitter, you can follow him at
maj as in Major Mike Lions, or you can read
(01:44):
his pieces that he writes for Real Clear Defense Mike Lions.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Welcome, Hi you.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
This morning, Aji, great, thanks for letting me back.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Hey, when you get up in the morning and you
want to check in on wars, where do you go
to first? I really like that open source intelligence feed
on Twitter or sw Institute for the Study of War.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
But what do you look at?
Speaker 4 (02:04):
Yeah, in super Study of War. I know those guys
I see you know they monitor the situation both in
the Middle East as well as in Europe. There might
go to guys, Okay, first, I'll reach back out to them.
Have some folks that at the NSC as well. I
just try to follow there and try to monitor. But
there's lots of good sources that you can look at
(02:25):
just kind of get a lay of the land. Because
time matters here, right, I mean, you wake up in
six hours ahead over there, so something's happened usually, and
so trying to get up to speed quickly on something
that's already happened is really the hard part sometimes interesting.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
So, as you just heard jd Vance, there are the
administrations making the argument all the time that they've done
a hell of a lot more to arm Ukraine than
Joe Biden ever did.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
And Joe Biden was hardcore.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Ukraine was not able to fire across the border into Russia,
and Trump has loosened those restrictions. In fact, Trump has
made a number of noises about Ukraine is allowed to
use some of the weapons that we have given them
or that they purchased that came from US.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
To attack Russia.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Well, there was a story in the Wall Street Journal
over the weekend that the Pentagon doesn't like that and
doesn't want us to be doing that, and they're kind
of maybe going against the president wishes. First of all,
would that be a good idea for Ukraine to be
firing into Russia or not?
Speaker 4 (03:21):
Well? I think so, First of all, maximum military pressure
by Ukraine is what's going to take Russia to possibly
come to the negotiation table. I went up the Post
this morning, for example, on the inside articles is Lavrov
saying We're not going to negotiate. So I never thought
there was enough pressure on Russia to negotiate anyway. Right now,
they still feel that they can win on the battlefield.
(03:41):
Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. But
from what I've seen projections and what I've also seen
Intel reports that have come out, I'm surprised I saw
that report because the Biden administration got off to a
very slow start, did not turn up the thermostat at all,
but did create a logistical support eye chain in order
to make things happen. And then the last year, the
(04:03):
last six months or so with a Biden administration, they
did allow those cross border attacks to military targets. And
then Trump takes over and it was shut down. And
I am surprised by that, but I think it has
a lot to do with probably a dysfunctional NSC in
some level, the fact that if we had better national
security advisors with the president making sure that the Pentagon
(04:25):
did what the president wanted, because it's likely just a
couple of personalities in the Pentagon that doesn't think that
we should be doing this, and that's that's why it
got shut down. So it's passive aggressive behavior. They just
have to approve the strike. It just takes them too
long because a lot of these strikes are targets of opportunity.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Well, it's interesting those of us who just casually follow
the world, we assume that if the president and his
crew decide something, that that's what happens. But the bureaucracy
is big enough, there are people to constin me.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
That sometimes it is and I think it's gotten worse,
not just this administration, but go back to you know,
we just haven't add a really well connected, you know,
national security advisory and council with the president that's overseeing
all the different levers of American national security. We used
to say that, you know, the for there would be
very bike Potterson support for national security interests, and they
(05:15):
would that that you know, on our shores is where
it ends, and we're all together. But you've seen this
president travel and Democrats mock that travel when he goes
to farm ways. We had the Russia hoax that that
that really stymied the last the first Trump administration. It's
been a while. I'd like to get us back to
the eighties and nineties again, I know, returned. You know,
maybe we never get there, but of really making sure
(05:39):
that the National Security Advisor is you know, telling the
Pentagon what the president intent is and then can monitor that.
Because it's also taken now four or five months for
that report to come out. It took the media to
figure that out. Now the Trump administration, I think is
scrambling and making sure that doesn't look like we're supporting
Ukraine like we say we are.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Well, it obviously gives the Russians a tremendous advantage if
they know that Ukraine can actually did fight any offense.
So if you were in charge, how much time would
you spend worried about kicking off a nuclear war?
Speaker 2 (06:13):
I mean that was Biden's big concern.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
I guess according to a couple of different books are out,
he didn't want Ukraine, you know, using our weapons.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
It would start a nuclear war.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Yeah, I mean, so I had this argument this morning
with somebody about that. And Russia really hasn't flexed its
true military power because if it wanted to, it could
launch a nuclear weapon, and the account argument to that was, well,
what good would that do? Well? I guarantee it when
we did it in the Second World War, where the
Japanese got the message and they decided to stop and
negotiate quickly. At that point in time, knew the war
was going to be over if Russia fires. Let's just
(06:45):
put all these scenarios on the table, that Harkiev or
La Viv, that that eastern or that western city in Ukraine,
if they threatened and were able to drop a nuclear
weapon there killed ten thousand civilians. That would be incredible escalation,
that would still be fundamentally within theater. What would the
world do?
Speaker 5 (07:04):
Then?
Speaker 4 (07:04):
Again, all of these sanctions and economic things and levers
that they're trying to pull, Russia knows that will take
eight to ten to twelve months in order to take effect.
They still have India, China on their side, and Germany
is the biggest wild you know, outlier because they still
buy a lot of oil and gas from Russia. So
Russia still has not used all its military might yet,
(07:25):
which is why I believe they feel that they can
still do what they're doing, because I do think that's
an option I do think a short, a smaller tactical
nuke like that, they they can deliver it, and they
have it.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
How do you think the world would react to that?
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Well, I think the world would be you know, not happy.
Obviously there would be you know, United Nations, you know
the issues there. But I but again, what could the
world do. Is the world willing to deploy a NATO
army as well? Is the world willing now? So, I
mean that's the thing. I mean, Russia, you know, can
can play this thing to that to that point if
(08:03):
it chooses to. I just don't believe that there's any
appetite within the European community to actually go on the
offense because that's what it would take. It would take,
it would take doing that. Now, Russia has already said
now that they're not going to allow Western troops inside
of Ukraine as part of the security agreement that they
that would have. So so again that's off the table.
There's no there's no negotiation that's going to take place
(08:24):
anytime soon.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Wow, that's really interesting. I hope it doesn't come to
that point, but I could imagine it. And no, I
don't think the world there would be your usual condemnation
from the un WI. Right, we condemned this in the
strongest terms. Of course Putin doesn't get a crap about that.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Right, Yeah, it would be you know, like a letter
of admonishment or something. Right. I mean he understands one
thing and that's that's power. And I believe that. You know,
if you look, there was an interesting chart offso in
the journal or as it might have been, the post
about the land masks that you know, they really haven't
gotten anywhere in three years down the Domebass region, and
Russia wants those complete oblifs. They want all of the area.
(09:03):
They want area that they haven't even taken over yet.
And again that this is what their maximist position is
and it and it can remain that way as long
as they feel like it win the battle on the ground.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Switching gears to the other war that where semi involved in.
Certainly the president is Yahoo deciding to try to finish
off Hamas and I guess occupy Gaza.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
How difficult a military operation is? That going to be
very tough.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
I think that's going to be tunnel warfare, that's going
to be that fourth dimension underground. Israel won't be able
to use a lot of its technology and advantages there.
That's going to be the last remnants of Hamas. Likely
the if those hostages are there, they're going to be
collateral damage. Unfortunately I had to use that term like
that so one personally. But those tunnels are going to
(09:48):
get destroyed, They're going to be flooded, they'll be blown up.
That that that tunnel structure that Hamas has still is
there is their shield and their sword. It's their last
remaining power base that the Mosque has. You know, you
look in history and sometimes to win wars you have
to attack center of gravities of places, or in our
civil war, you have to attack an army. The Lincoln
(10:10):
knew that he had to find a general that was
going to attack the Confederate army and chase them. In
this case, their strength is their infrastructure. So Natanya who
knows he has to attack and destroy this infrastructure, this
tunnel system. That's what's coming in Gaza City. It's going
to be a lot long. It's going to be twice
as long as whatever they think it's going to take.
And I think you'll see tunnels destroyed, but you'll also
see unfortunately high Israeli casualties because it's going to be
(10:33):
close in it's going to be bloody wow.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
And it'll be interesting to see what public opinion is
on that in Israel. Final question, my brother was in
the National Guard for a while. I'm trying to picture
him if he got deployed to Washington, DC or Chicago
with a crime fighting mission with a gun at your side,
we are you Are you concerned about that for some
of our troops that aren't exactly that's you know, and
(10:56):
then you know a lot of people ended up in
the National Guard didn't think they'd ever be going to
a racker Afghanistan either.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Yeah, I'm absolutely concerned about it. We're definitely over We're
doing too much of our military right now. And I
think that it was the same problem we had in
Iraq anyway. I mean, we deployed active duty troops and
we made them peacekeepers on one block, and then the
next block they were war fighters. And I got into
an argument with a four star about this, and he
thought it was fine because of the discipline of our
troops over our weapon system on because it's got nothing
(11:23):
to do with that. It's just human nature. It's just
too hard to flip that switch. Well, now you bring
in National Guard troops that don't really have law enforcement training.
Now if they're going to help in the back, or
they're going to help logistically or provide just the presence. Oh,
look at New York City. Every day there's National Guard
troops in the subway system at Grand Central Station. You
see them there. They're not carrying loaded magazines. They're just
(11:43):
more of a presence. But if we're going to arm
them and expect them to go out on police raids,
that's a bridge too far. So I'd I'd like to
see less of it. And I think that this is
the President probably using too much for the military. Someone
needs to be countering this argument with regard to the
National Guard in the room, and I hope someone's doing that.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Thank you as always for your time, Mike Lines. You
can follow him at at Maj. Major Mike Lyons on
Twitter or read him a real clear defense or look
for him where every pops up.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Thanks Mike, Thanks Checklimmy. Yeah, I just I.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Think it's always easier to picture military stuff if you
picture one of your own relatives. Would you want your dad,
brother whoever going to iraqar Afghanistan or in Chicago carrying
a gun and uh, I.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Don't know that I would. I'm all for cracking down
on the crime. Maybe more on that later.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Speaking of crime, I don't worry about it much in
my own home because I've got simply Safe, which is
really really handy. Simply Safe with their new Active Guard
outdoor protection to help stop break ins before they happen.
AI powered cameras, live monitoring agents that will detect suspicious
activity around your property. If someone's lurking around your house,
(13:00):
agents can actually talk to them, Hey, what are you doing, lurker?
They can turn on the spotlights, call the police, proactively
deterring crime before it even starts. Cnet called it the
best home security system in twenty twenty five no contract.
Four million Americans trust simply Safe. I'm one of them.
Ranked number one in customer service by Newsweek and USA Today.
Visit simply safe dot com slash armstrong today to claim
(13:22):
fifty percent off a new system with a professional monitoring
plan and get your first month free. That's simply safe
dot com slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply Safe.
The US Open tennis tournament started over the weekend I
just watched some guy.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
I don't follow tennis that closely. I don't know who.
This guy was.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Losing his ass on the court. Did you see the
video of the guy sitting there? He loses a point
or something, loses his mind and he can't stop smashing
his racket on his bag and stuff.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
You saw that, Katie?
Speaker 5 (13:48):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (13:48):
Yeah, Well what happened was a photographer delayed the game
and he lost one of the points, and so that
photographer came out onto the I don't know what it's
called the court. Yeah, and so the guy starts yelling
at him and then that was the end of his racket.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
I turned to smithereens I heard about the photographer thing,
but man, he lost his mind there.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
For that's exciting stuff.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
We got a lot more to talk about on the
way as an AI problem that's a real problem, among
other things coming up. Stay here, hey, So coming up,
we're going to talk to Republican Congressman Tom mcclin talk
about a couple of things about immigration and maybe redistricting.
He's a California congressman, so obviously he's interested in what
(14:29):
Gavin Newsom wants to do in California to try to
fight the evil Republicans who are redistricting Texas. That's according
to Gavin Newsom. So I took my sailing lessons over
the weekend, a phrase I never thought I would ever
say in my life. Not exactly come from sailing folk
from western Kansas, but I always wanted to try to
(14:50):
learn how to do that. And this neighborhood I live
in has got this little private, man made lake in
it and it's big enough that people sail little boats
around on it and everything like that. Was over working
out at the club and had a sign up and
said adult sailing lessons, and you sign up for it,
and it's two hours on a Saturday, two hours on
(15:11):
a Sunday for a total of four hours, and then
you get some sort of certificate.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
I don't know. I don't know what that certificate entitles
me to do.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
So I did that and I had the sailing lessons
over the weekend, and the main thing I learned is
it's way more complicated than I know. I don't know
how many of you ever been on a sail boat,
but it's super compliment complicated, and you're constantly doing things
and making decisions. It's not like you just get to
only if you've been out of motor boats, you mostly
chill right you drive out there, you're either driving and
(15:41):
anybody can drive a boat. You can even have done
it before. You can give the eight year old kid
to let him drive the boat around, and anybody can
do it. Not everybody can. Say you got to know
what the hell you're doing. And so the first thing
we did was sit down with the instructor and he
had a couple of visual aids, like big charts with
all parts on there and everything like that, and go
(16:01):
through the various parts of the boat. And I thought,
I'm never gonna remember all this. And so we'd get
out into the water and he'd say, grab the Halliard. No,
that's the that's the Forestay, not the forestay.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Get the backstay. That's not the right, Get that, Jim Halliard.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
That's the main sale howyard that I couldn't remember what
all the parts were.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
I just couldn't.
Speaker 7 (16:22):
It didn't even sound like English, I know.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
And and.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
As trying to explain this to my son, when you
get older, learning is so much harder than when you're younger. God,
cause your brain is in the when you're young, your
brain every single day. When you go to school, you're
learning new stuff. And then after you get out of school,
out of college, if you go to college, you know
you might not learn another thing again the rest of
your life. So my brain is out of practice for
getting hit with thirty new terms and immediately being able
(16:49):
to memorize them and everything like that. I found that
quite funny. Is that's not the main stay. I don't
even remember what that is. I'm just grabbing random things
hoping you'll say, yes, that's what's happening.
Speaker 6 (17:03):
Process of elimination. I'm gonna grab everything until I get
it right.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
And the instructor was super super awesome, really chill. He's
a high school kid, and what a background he had.
He lived on a boat with his dad from age
like six to nine when he was a kid, running
stuff on a sail boat from Cape Cod to Florida,
back and forth. And he did that for three years
of his life, doing like homeschool on the ship. Then
(17:27):
he went to New Zealand and competed in sailing and
finished third in the nation for speed sailing. And now
he's anyway, he's in my town and giving sailing lessons
among other things. As a sixteen year old, but he
really knew what he was doing. But all of us,
there were other six of us, these other six adults,
we had no idea what we're doing.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And it was quite hilarious.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
But I got to tell the story a little bit
later about me getting into the argument with the old
man who kept telling me what to do that turned
very ugly for a while.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
I should have pushed him into the sea. That's what
I should have done.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Yes, well, he goes, yes, sorry, blub blub nice knowing
y'all tell nice, I'll tell your wife that you died. Valiately,
we're gonna talk to Congressman Tom McClintock coming up in
just a second of you miss a segment? Orn, howur
get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Armstrong and Geddy.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
Well.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Currently, Tom McClintock is represents the fifth District of California.
Will that remain the same after Gavin Newsom gets If
Gavin Newsom gets his way about redistricting in California to
try to take on the evil Texans? Any who Welcome
to the Armstrong and Getty Show. Old friend Tom McClintock again,
Republican Congressman fifth District of California.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
How are you this morning, Tom?
Speaker 5 (18:44):
I'm fine, Jack.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
How you doing great? You've been in California politics forever.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
What is the back and forth over the years, as
you know it of like drawing up districts and whether
it was fair or not and all that sort of
stuff in California?
Speaker 5 (18:59):
Well, guys, you know California, all state's reapportion every ten
years because of population shifts. The populations of the districts
have to be as equal as we could make them. That,
of course, then opens the door to Gary mandering, which
has a long history. It goes back to Elbridge Gary,
governor of Massachusetts, signer of the Declaration of Independence, you know,
(19:22):
who first began a joggling line so that his party
would benefit. He drew one district that looked like a salamander.
A newspaper editor said, no, let's call it a Gary mander,
and the name stuck. But the problem is, over the
years has gone from artwork to to science and it
can now be used to badly distort the partisan choices
(19:50):
that the voters make in every election.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
And is there any way to do away with this?
I mean, it's been going on since the very very beginning.
Lots of demo deocratic states are all jerrymandered to hack.
As we all should know by now, Texas isn't inventing
something new.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
Yeah, well, California did get sick and tired of it,
and they adopted constitutional provision calling for it independent commission.
That's what News was trying to bypass. The California Commission
this year in order to do the reapportionment, held one
hundred and ninety six public meetings, They received more than
thirty thousand written communications over nine months. They listened to
(20:31):
every constituency and community in the state, and they drafted
a consensus plan in public. This I guess you could
call it a Gavin mander was drafted behind closed doors
in a matter of days. And if they succeed, I
think we'd expect this to happen after every election that
the Democrats don't like the way a particular district voted.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Well, so Republicans account for about thirty eight percent of
the vote last election around, and if Gavin gets his way,
would have seven percent of the House members in the state.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
So that's obviously out of proportion.
Speaker 5 (21:11):
And that's with the Independent Commission it's still a stack
deck against California Republicans, mainly because illegal aliens are counted
for districting, which increases the proportional influence in democratic regions. So,
as you point out, it's not only stacked against California
(21:31):
Fornia Republicans. You look at them vote nationally. In twenty
twenty four, Democrats got forty seven percent of the congressional vote,
they got forty nine percent of the congressional seats. That
that's eight seats more than their vote would entitle them.
And that's because in the democratic seat states, the gerrymanders
are absolutely brutal. You know, in Illinois, California's got Republicans
(21:53):
got forty seven percent of the vote, seventeen percent of
the seats. Massachusetts, California's Republicans got thirty five center of
the vote and zero seats.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
That is really interesting stuff. I wish mainstream media was
better at presenting that. And then the jerry mandering, gary
mandering as you call it, polls very low, like six
percent of Americans liked the idea, but it happens all
across the country.
Speaker 5 (22:18):
Well, right, and again, Californians got rid of that. The Democrats,
by the way, tried to abolish the Independent Commission once before.
That was in twenty ten with Proposition twenty seven. Voters
rejected at sixty forty. So, you know, and I think
most Americans, you know, whatever their politics, having in it
(22:38):
night an innate sense of fairness. And I think that's
going to be decisive when this comes up to a vote.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
So, talking with Republican California Congressman Tom McClintock of California,
the most recent piece I'm reading here about immigrations, I
wish that somehow, someway quickly it would get to the
Supreme Court. This whole notion of a sanctuary city, sanctuary county,
sanctuary state, which seems obviously crazy. The whole thing with
(23:10):
illegal immigration, the way Joe and I have been presenting
it for quite some time, is if you're going to
ignore the federal law, what other federal laws can we
ignore if we don't like them?
Speaker 2 (23:20):
In states across the country. Can we just pick and choose.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Federal laws that we want to ignore, in which ones
we want to go with? What's your take on it?
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Currently?
Speaker 5 (23:27):
All right? And if you're going to tolerate illegal immigration,
it makes legal immigration pointless. Start with some simple truths.
If we don't enforce our immigration laws, we have no
immigration laws. If we have no immigration laws, we have
no border. If we have no border, we have no country.
It's not complicated. Our immigration laws weren't written to keep
(23:49):
people out. They were written to assure that when someone
comes to this country, they come with a sincere desire
to become an American, to obey our laws and contribute
to our nation. Illegal immigration undermines that whole process. And
that's why our current law requires any adult who is
illegal in this country to be detained. That's the exact
(24:11):
wording of the law. Shall be detained. It's not voluntary,
it is required under the law. That's the law that
Biden and the Democrats ignored over the last four years,
producing the biggest illegal migration in American history. And now
they're shocked that the biggest illegal migration in American history
(24:35):
that they unleashed now has to be followed by the
biggest deportation.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
So Republicans control Congress right now and the Senate. Is
there anything Congress can do to strengthen immigration laws so
that it's the law of the land and not just
something that one administration does. So that if the Democrats
win next time around, they can go the other direction.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
Right, Well, it is already the law of the land.
And remember the Democrats saying, oh, there's nothing we could
do about this without granting amnesty. And as Trump pointed out,
we didn't need new laws, we needed a new president.
We got one, and within thirty days the borders were secured.
And I think the last number is we're getting close
to two million illegal migrants have now departed the country,
(25:21):
either voluntarily or been for simply removed. But we also,
and this is where Congress comes in, We've got to
enact laws so that a future Democratic president can't once
again simply throw our borders wide open. So we've got
to reform our asylum laws to ensure that only legitimate
claims will be honored and those who are making such
(25:42):
claims are detained until they're adjudicated. We've got to close
the loopholes, and that means, you know, making the loopholes
that allowed Biden to abuse the limited parole authority that
Congress gave him. We've got to revamp our unaccompany a
minor laws to prevent human trafficking that ran rampant under Biden,
(26:04):
and we've got to rescue the hundreds of thousands of
children that Biden simply lost track of. And we've got
to restore integrity to our temporary and permanent visa programs
so that only those who are in an asset to
America can take advantage of them. The Office to Inspect
Your General is about to come out with a report.
I think that they documented that during the Biden administration
(26:27):
there were thirteen million visas granted that were completely unvetted. Now,
when you apply for a visa, you go to the
American consulate in your country and there's an interview. They
interview you, they check your background to be sure that
as you come in with the visa, you're not going
to do any harm and you know that you're going
to buy by the terms of the visa. Thirteen million
(26:48):
such visas were issued under Biden without any betting whatsoever,
and that's what the administration's re viewing.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Now another topic before we let you go, Congressome mcqua.
One of the big news stories of today, Trump talking
about sending National Guard troops to Chicago to deal with
their crime. Now, I think we're all up to speed
on the fact that the president. The federal government has
the constitutional right to do that in Washington, d C.
(27:15):
How do you feel about National Guard troops in Chicago.
Speaker 5 (27:19):
Well, I'm a federalist, and the federal government is absolutely
supreme in the federal District of Columbia, as you pointed out,
and they are also supreme in the enforcement of federal
laws like our immigration laws, and the President has been
brilliant at both. But local laws are subject to local jurisdiction.
(27:40):
I think we want to be careful if a city
is not actually asking for assistance. I think we want
to be careful about how we insert federal authority into
the enforcement of strictly local laws. And that's going to
play out obviously, I'm not entirely clear what the President's
proposing for Chicago, but in a local law enforcement theys
(28:02):
to remain in local hands, no matter how badly those
local hands are are handling it.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
I would agree with that. Interesting. Tom McClintock, appreciate your
time today, Tom, Thank.
Speaker 5 (28:12):
You very much, my pleasure. Jack good talking to you.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
I would agree with that.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
I am not only skeptical of his legal power to
send National Guard troops to Chicago, but I don't know
how I feel about that as a president, and as
Joe and I always talking about Joe's in England on vacation.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
He's going to call in later.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
But as Joe and I are always talking about the
problem with giving your guy the power to do something
or looking the other way if he does something that.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Like maybe send troops Chicago.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Is the other guy the other side's going to be
in charge at some point? And do you want you know,
President Gavin Newsom sending National Guard troops into a conservative
city somewhere because he doesn't like the way that place
is being run. No, I don't horrifying. So that's what
we got to keep our eye on for today. I
(29:05):
want to tell you about this before we take a
little break. I don't know if you've ever known anybody
or maybe it's happened to you where you've had your
bank account hacked by somebody got in there. It can
be a nightmare to straighten out, take you weeks, months,
years of being on the phone and online and blah
blah blah. It's just horrible. You can avoid that. That's
(29:26):
why we trust Webroot Total Protection it monitors for stolen identities,
credit fraud and even scans the dark web for your
info to see if it pops up somewhere. So we
want to hook you up with a great offer right now.
Get fifty percent off Webroot Total Protection or Webroot Essentials
at webroot dot com slash armstrong. I'll never again not
(29:46):
have something like that. If something goes wrong, you're backed
up with up to a one million dollars in reimbursement.
It's fast, it's light, waited installs in minutes, No annoying
pop ups, just which you know, there's I don't know
if you've used some of these other companies, they're pop
ups are endless, drive you nuts. No pop ups with
Webroot even includes a VPN for secure browsing and password
(30:08):
manager to keep your log in safe. Love that, don't
risk being the next victim. Get fifty percent off Webroot
Total Protection or Webroot Essentials right now webroot dot com
slash armstrong again, that's webroot dot com slash armstrong. Protect yourself,
protect your family, live a better digital life. And you
can set it up for like I'm gonna set it
(30:28):
up for me and my kids, for instance. But you
can get a whole bunch of other people in your
family on there. At the same time, the whole redistricting
thing finally being presented in a much fairer way. I
thought on the Sunday talk shows yesterday, we can play
some clips of that later and talk about exactly what
Gavin's trying to do in California, which would make it
(30:50):
just unbelievably jerrymandered. Oh, I thought it was interesting. It
doesn't surprise me Tom McClintock, being the kind of guy
he is, that he goes ahead and says Gary Mandard
because that strictly the right word, as you heard from
the original guy named Gary who the name comes from.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
But everybody says Jerry Mander.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
But Tom McClintock is the sort of guy that is
going to go with Gary Mandard because that's the correct thing, in.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Spite of that's what everybody else says. I'm the other.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
If everybody's saying Jerry Mander, I'm gonna say Jerry manderd
So that's the way it goes. So how I almost
pushed an old man into the sea at sailing lessons
among other things on the way.
Speaker 5 (31:29):
Army Strong and.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
Geddy, the US Open is officially kicking off.
Speaker 8 (31:34):
The record breaking crowds pouring into New York from all
over the world. All eyes are on Tennis Royalty and
Venus Williams set to return to Grand Slam tennis Monday
after two years.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Yeah, super thrilling to be back.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
It does not get old, It just gets more exciting.
Speaker 8 (31:51):
The forty five year old getting a wild card invitation
to play. It's the first time in forty four years
someone her age has competed in women's singles at the USA.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
So that's one interesting story around the US Open tennis tournament.
If you follow tennis at all, or you might start
following tennis more often if what is happening at the
US Open becomes more of the norm. So the headline
in the New York Times, I don't follow tennis. I
just became aware of this. At the US Open. Tennis
etiquette no longer rules, and some players want that to
(32:21):
be the norm, so they kind of encourage a more
rambunctious atmosphere at the US Open tennis tournament there in
New York, music blasting in between points, that sort of
thing like happens at other big sporting events. Right, didn't
used to have that at Major League Baseball games or
NFL games when I was a kid, but now you
(32:41):
do constantly, uh to just provide a little more buzz,
a little more entertainment all the time. And trash talking
your opponent, like pointing at them, saying things to them.
Stuff like that is starting to catch on and a
lot of players think cool.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I think it would be better for.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
The sport.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
To find interesting because the.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
I don't know which side of me what would be
the right term, the law and order side of me,
I guess likes decorum, connetiquette and all that sort of
stuff in all manner of life. But the am I
ever gonna watch this sport as a TV show? Part
of me life loves pointing in people's faces and trash
talking and music in between points.
Speaker 7 (33:24):
It definitely makes it more entertaining, no doubt.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
And as Joe is always pointing out, these are TV shows.
These are just like every other TV show on television.
The NFL, the US Open, the Bachelorette or Law and Order.
They're all the same. It's just how many people can
we get to watch so we can charge as much
as possible for the commercials in between.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
Yeah, by the whole point, and.
Speaker 6 (33:46):
By allowing that behavior, I mean think over the last
couple of years, how many more tennis headlines we've seen
because of the behavior and people are paying attention to it.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Culturally, I don't like it as I've seen it move
into youth sports. I talked about this last year when
my son was playing football. It was amazing to me
on how this was two years ago. I guess eleven
year olds after every mundane play, they're popping their jerseys
and doing the stances and stuff like that. It's just
(34:16):
for eleven year olds play for just every play, and
the and the and the coaches just I mean no coach.
When I was a kid, the coach would have benched
you immediately for doing that. But the coaches didn't say
anything about it. It's just it's just part of the culture.
And is that good or bad?
Speaker 2 (34:31):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
We don't need to make eleven year old football more
entertaining for advertisements.
Speaker 7 (34:35):
I think, I think leave the kids out of it.
Speaker 6 (34:38):
If the adults want to go out there and smash
their tennis rackets and call each other efforts, that's.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
Cool, but you can't have one without the other though
the kids. The kids watch their heroes and whatever sport
they're in, and they're going to emulate them, and it's
just that's just the way it is. There's no getting
around that. So that's the part that bothers me. Uh,
because guaranteed it will sift down to you know, high
school tennis. You'll have have somebody score an ace on
(35:02):
the other player. That's when you hit the ball and
it lands in the little square and it's so fast
that the other guy can't even get their racket on it.
Usually you're like, yo, you know that sort of stuff,
and eh, it'll just happen for better or worse. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
For instance, in the WNBA, you throw marital aids under
the court. If I'm more likely to watch part probably
if there's a chance that sexy toys are going to
be thrown onto the court, and I can, you know.
Speaker 7 (35:29):
Watch ever laugh I'm in can't get a good laugh.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Exactly how much time I got, Michael, depends on how
you keep eating. Yeah no, they've got about two minutes.
Speaker 6 (35:40):
And the guy who threw the shmildo is in quite
the oh hot water.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
So he's charged with ten different things. I had you
look that up. So that shmildough that's a good word.
So the guy that threw the shmildo on the court
being charged with ten different things.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
You looked it up. What are they?
Speaker 6 (35:54):
The top charge is second degree attempted assault, a felony
that carries a maximum of seven years in prison.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Second, what's the assault? I g if it hits somebody
in the head.
Speaker 6 (36:03):
Well, it did hit one of the players, Oh okay.
Among the other charges are interference with a professional sporting event,
reckless engagement, harassment, and obscenity.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
Not guilty, doll, Yeah, Uh, interruption of a professional sporting event?
Speaker 2 (36:19):
Is it crime?
Speaker 7 (36:20):
I didn't know that.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
I didn't know that either, for throwing a shmildo on
the court. Bright launching a bright green mildow. Wait, I
didn't realize it hits somebody in the noggin.
Speaker 6 (36:31):
I don't know that it hit her in the nog
It hit one of the players, I want to say,
in the shoulder or something, and she screeched and jumped back.
Speaker 7 (36:36):
And then you know, I started as this lime green.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
You know, if I'm if I'm standing around and something
hits me in the head, I think, WHOA, what was that?
And then I looked down and see that it's a
bright green shmildough. I would think it not a good day.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
Hmm, who threw that? And what are they?
Speaker 7 (36:54):
What is why it was not on my fingo card?
Speaker 1 (36:57):
What message are they sending me right this moment? I
would very confused?
Speaker 7 (37:01):
They attracted to me?
Speaker 1 (37:02):
How am now? How am I supposed to react to
this with anger? Am I supposed to be turned on?
I'm not exactly sure it's supposed to happen there. We
do a lot of hours, a lot of segments, and
if you miss when, you can get our podcast, Armstrong and.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Getty on demand.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
We got Joe Getty calling into the show on the
fourth hour to kick it off, so you're gonna want
to catch that.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Lots of stuff on the way for the Armstrong and
Getty Show. Thanks for joining us 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.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.
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