September 1, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of the Monday, Sept 1, 2025 A&G Replay contains:
- Rep. McClintock talks to Jack redistricting & the National Guard
- Joe Newsom Rant
- Tim Sandefur talks automated tech, self driving cars & AI
- Ken Burns on Rev War/Jack Happy About Positive Look at History
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 (00:10):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Get Kid and he Armstrong and Getty strong Man not
live from Studio c Armstrong and Getty. We're off for
taking a break.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
And as long as we're off, perhaps you'd like to
catch up on podcasts, subscribe to Armstrong and Getty on
demand or one more thing we think you'll enjoy.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
It, sir well.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
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 by 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 (01:05):
How are you this morning? Tom?
Speaker 5 (01:07):
I'm fine? Jack. How are you doing great?
Speaker 4 (01:09):
You've been in California politics forever. 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 (01:22):
Well, as 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,
(01:45):
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 science and it can
(02:05):
now be used to badly distort the partisan the choices
that the voters make in every election.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
And is there any way to do away with this?
I mean, it's been going on since the very very beginning.
Lots of democratic states are all jerry mandered to hack.
As we all should know by now, Texas isn't inventing
something new.
Speaker 5 (02:30):
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
(02:54):
every constituency and community in the state, and they drafted
a consensus plan 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 well.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
So Republicans account for about thirty eight percent of the
vote the last election around, and if Gavin gets his way,
would have seven percent of the House members in the state.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
So that's obviously out of proportion.
Speaker 5 (03:34):
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 Pornia Republicans.
(03:56):
You look at the vote nationally in twenty twenty four,
Democrats dot 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 gary manders
are absolutely brutal. You know, in Illinois, California's got Republicans
(04:16):
got forty seven percent of the vote, seventeen percent of
the seats. Massachusetts, California's Republicans got thirty five percent of
the vote and zero seats.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
That is really interesting stuff. I wish the mainstream media
was better at presenting that. And then the jerrymandering 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 (04:41):
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, whatever their politics, having in it night an
(05:03):
innate sense of fairness, and I think that's going to
be decisive when this comes up to a vote.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
So talking with Republican California Congressman Tom McClintock of California.
The most recent piece i'm reading here about immigration. I
wish that somehow, some way 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
(05:33):
thing with 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 in states
across the country. Can we just pick and choose federal
laws that we want to ignore and which ones we
want to go with.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
What's your take on it? Currently?
Speaker 5 (05:50):
All right? And if you're going to tolerate illegal immigration,
it makes legal immigration pointless and startles 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
(06:12):
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
(06:35):
wording of the law. Shall be detained. It is 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
(06:58):
that they unleashed now has to be followed by the
biggest deportation.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
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 (07:21):
Right, Well, it is already the law of the land.
And remember the Democrats saying, oh, there's nothing we can
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 get close
to two million illegal migrants have now departed the country,
(07:44):
either voluntarily or been for simply removed. But we also,
and this is where Congress comes in, We've got to
enact law 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
(08:06):
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 to
congresscate them. We've got to revamp our unaccompanied minor laws
to prevent human trafficking that ran rampant under Biden. And
(08:28):
we've got to rescue the hundreds of thousands of children
that 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 an asset to America
can take advantage of them. The Office to Inspector General
is about to come out with the report I think
that they documented that during the Biden administration there were
(08:51):
thirteen million visas granted that were completely unbetted. 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 bude
by the terms of the visa. Thirteen million such visas
(09:12):
were issued under Biden without any betting whatsoever, and that's
what the administration's reviewing.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
Now another topic before we let you go, Congressom McClintock.
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 of the federal government
has the constitutional right to do that in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
How do you feel about National Guard troops in Chicago.
Speaker 5 (09:42):
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.
(10:04):
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 needs
(10:25):
to remain in local hands, no matter how badly those
local hands are handling it.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
I would agree with that. Interesting. Tom McLintock, appreciate your
time today. Tom, Thank you very.
Speaker 5 (10:35):
Much, my pleasure. Jack good talking to you.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
I would agree with that.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
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 Jo's in England on vacation.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
He's going to call in later.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
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,
uh like maybe send troops Chicago, 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
(11:18):
doesn't like the way that place is being run.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
No, I don't.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
Armstrong, the Armstrong and Yetti show the LATINX stuff that.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
By the way, not one person ever in my office
has ever used the word LATINXT. So can we finally
put that to bed? But where did that even know?
More LATINX? Everybody? Well, I just didn't even know where
it came from, And like, what are people talking about?
Speaker 7 (11:43):
I hope we can really paint a picture in terms
of our consciousness of how impactful.
Speaker 5 (11:49):
This has been on the LATINX community.
Speaker 7 (11:51):
About three quarters of renters in the state that have
fallen behind and rent represented the Latino in African American community.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
The Latin and Black communities.
Speaker 5 (12:01):
You've got politicians that are banning not assault.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Rifles, but the word latin X. They're not even serious. Wow,
that's even further.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
So that's Gavin Newsom doing his bro podcasts that he's
doing all across the country now as he tries to
be like just a regular guy running for president, and
he's doing a pretty good job of it might work
for him, but claiming that latin X whoever even heard
of that before?
Speaker 2 (12:25):
What does that even mean?
Speaker 4 (12:26):
And then a little montage of him using the term
in recent years, including one and where he's fighting against
trying to take away the word latin X lasting anybody
who would dare disparage it?
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Oh boy, but how bet it works.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
People don't hear the you know, like in newspapers or books,
there's the big headline and then there's a little sentence underneath.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
People don't hear the sentence underneath.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Ninety percent of people, they just get the big headline
of everything, of every story.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And you know that's funny.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Though, He's got to run away from so much of
that stuff because it's so freaking crazy.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Oh yeah, I mean yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
The list is long of policies that are abhorrent to
most Americans and or results that are abhorrent to Americans.
For instance, as we outlined last hour, cal Unicorney has
lost one hundred and a half hundred thousand private sector
jobs and added three hundred and sixty one thousand government
jobs since twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
It's just astonishing.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
Well, let's be here, let's be happy about this stuff though, people,
Rather than condemning the hypocrisy, we should be happy he
understands that he needs to run away from the nonsense
like trans boys in girls sports or the term LATINX,
which is one of the dumbest things that's ever happened
in my lifetime. He has to run away from it
(13:48):
if he wants to be present. He is determined, and
he's right, and that's good news, right it is.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Although don't let down your guard because we've received I
don't know half a dozen emails just in the last
four eight hours from folks that are getting ready to
get back in the classroom as teachers in California and
are going through their state mandated DEI white supremacist woke
doctrine right now. They're getting educated in that quote unquote educated.
(14:17):
So getting back to Gavy, and we talked about this
fairly recently. If you're just tuning in, but the whole
bed bath and beyond thing, the head of bed bath
and beyond. Do you have that statement or I mean
for people who are not familiar, just real quickly.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Yes, I do.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
I'm sorry, this is I got the other screen up
about shrekking, a dating trend in which people are dating
unattracted people on purpose. That story we got to get
to later this hour. Yes, yes, yes, and different species
of giraffes. Yes, I already did the giraffes shreaking. We
will do this hour though. It's an actual thing and
it's really quite an entertaining point. So the CEO of Bed,
(14:54):
Bath and Beyond puts out a statement yesterday we will
not operate or open retail stores in California. This decision
isn't about politics, It's about reality. California has created one
of the most overregulated, expensive and risky environments for business
in America. It's a system that makes it harder to
employ people, harder to keep doors open, and harder to
deliver value to customers. The result higher taxes, higher fees,
(15:16):
higher wages that many businesses simply cannot sustain.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
And then Gavin Newsom, in a snarky social media post yesterday, replied.
Speaker 6 (15:24):
The company that already went bankrupt and closed every store
across the country two years ago.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Okay, all right, so Gavin, here is my response to
your sarcasm.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Anti rooms. Oh yeah, Foyer, window, don't get.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
Me started, window Fredow Treatments.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Okay, that's all absolutely, yes, although you do have windows
in beds and baths.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Michael, So is it really it's a good point.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Yeah, Okay, where were we I'm sure there was a thread.
Oh yes, So Gavin's snark about a CEO saying your
state is so hostile to business and so difficult to
operate in, we're not even going to try. And instead
of addressing policy, he says, oh yeah, the same company
(16:14):
that went bankrupt and closed all their stores two years ago.
Let me explain something to you, Gavin. Because you were
born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you've been
successful in business because you've been bankrolled up to your ears.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
By all of your rich relatives. Uh. But here's the
way it works.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Big companies sometimes failed to adjust with the times. Something
you know, changes whatever, they're unsuccessful, they declare bankruptcy and
they reorganize. Bed Bath and Beyond has a lot of fans.
It's a cool store. I'm a fan, Judy and I
shop there for a lot of stuff for years and years,
(16:50):
and we're super bummed to hear it was closing. Well,
now they're reopening with a little different concept that's going
to be better for consuming and more likely to be
a successful business.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
It's the very thing we treasure in America.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
Gavin innovation, adaptation, creativity.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
And sticking to it.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
And these people who are doing that said, the one
place we're not gonna bother is California because it's so
hostile to business. Go ahead, gavey, give us some more
of your clever clever snark.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
H what a blank? That's That was the perfect way
to end my screed.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
The Armstrong and Getty Show or Jack yourghoe.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
Podcasts and our hot links.
Speaker 6 (17:41):
The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (17:45):
Now old friend of the Armstrong and Getty Show and
a fan favorite. We always get so many texting emails saying, man,
I love Tim. It's Tim Sanderfer from the Goldwater Institute. Tim, welcome,
thanks for having me. Is there a title you want.
Speaker 5 (18:01):
A title? Uh?
Speaker 8 (18:03):
Well, I know as a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican, small government libertarian,
I'm against titles. But my official title is a vice
president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, which is
a free market think tank and litigation organization headquartered in Phoenix,
and my job is to sue the government for a living.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Best job in the world. Oh, thank God for you.
Speaker 8 (18:29):
And I win every time, right, you know, but.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
But just well, sometimes you do win. And the fact
that they know they can be sued is probably got
to keep them mining their p's and ques at least
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Sometimes.
Speaker 8 (18:43):
Yes, as long as the government still respects the law,
you know, hopefully there will be myself, my colleagues, and
you know, our sister organizations across the country who are
trying as best we can to hold the government's feet
to the constitutional fire.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
I'm feeling a wide range conversation today for some reason.
That is just my mood. So you started with mentioning titles.
Why do you think people refer to dictators by the
title that they want all the time? I'm amazed that
everybody in the media, including President Trump, calls putin president putin, I.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Mean, and Bobama did two and Biden did too.
Speaker 4 (19:19):
So it's not just Trump, but why they're not president,
they're a dictator.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
So why do we go along with their language? We
do the same thing, we presidently agree.
Speaker 8 (19:27):
This has bothered me for years. This has bugged me
so long that but you know, it's because we don't
want to be judgmental.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
We don't want to.
Speaker 8 (19:33):
We don't want to call things by their right names
and say Dictator Putin because that might offend him. So
instead we give him the kind of false legitimacy that
is exactly what he craves. I think it's a terrible thing,
but it's in that way all my life.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Yeah, that's that's weird that the the the Free West
does that. You want us to call you by a
certain name. Oh, sure we will. Oh, okay, I guess
that's what we did. Another question for you, So I
was just reading.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
I know you know a lot about Wayman.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Oh the robotox is you actually visited their plant?
Speaker 2 (20:04):
They make them in Phoenix.
Speaker 8 (20:06):
They well, I don't think they make them in Phoenix,
but they have a headquarters in Phoenix. Phoenix is one
of their largest cities that they are operating in, and
they have a garage there which is where all the cars,
you know, they're all electric cars, so that's where they
go to recharge. And my wife and I got a
chance to go down there and take a tour of
their facility and ride for our first time in a
way Mow And since then, I've I've I take every
(20:27):
excuse I can to ride in them because I just
there's the technology is just mind bogging, and I just
loved standing there in the garage watching these cars come
in and look for parking spaces, and they looked exactly
like a human was driving them, you know, pausing and
backing up because oh there's a spot, and that sort
of thing, exactly like me at the airport, and yet
(20:47):
there's nobody driving them. And I had thought that it
would feel weird to ride in one, and that went
away in five seconds. After that, it felt exactly like
riding in a car with somebody driving it, except there
was nobody in the I have'n't seen it interesting, absolutely
marvelous technology.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
I wondered about that because I've got a self driving Tesla,
so I'm used to the concept, and I wondered what
it was like for people who haven't done that before.
But that's why I was when I wrote a Waymo
for the first time in San Francisco. Within a couple
of seconds, it was, oh cool, I get to control
the music, and I was looking at the little computer
in front of me and picking my mind.
Speaker 8 (21:19):
I haven't been this enthusiastic about a piece of technology
in a very long time. They have already just statistically speaking,
they have already saved tens of thousands of lives, probably
in the amount of in just the amount of time
they've already been operating in these cities. They're going to
make driving as safe as flying. It's incredible. I'm blown
away by how safe and natural it feels to ride
(21:42):
in these and you know, it's particularly good for the blind.
You know, blind people particular love this technology because they
can they don't have to get in the car with
somebody they don't know, like.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
They do with Uber.
Speaker 8 (21:54):
And they can take their dogs, which you sometimes can't
do in an Uber. And when you call the someon
your your robot car, it arrives and it plays a
tune so you know where it is, you know, and
these sorts of techno. It's just a marvelous how it's
opened up the door for people who otherwise wouldn't have
had those opportunities.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (22:12):
I like the technology and everything. This is where we're
probably going to part. I hate the idea that the
autonomy of getting to drive where I want to go
and having control over it is going to go away,
whether I like it or not.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
I hate that so much. It makes me want to cry.
Speaker 8 (22:29):
I do worry about that. No, I worry about that,
and I worry about the how easy it would be
for the government to say, well, we want to track
where everybody drives, and you know, we'll run their record
while they're in the car, and then if we think
that they need to be arrested, we'll just reroute the
car to the police station or something like that. You
can easily imagine the dystopian ends to which this can
be used, But all technology can be abused in that way,
(22:53):
and there is no abolishing the technologies of the solution.
The solution is good philosophical and political idea. Isn't a
belief in individual rights and limited government? And since we've
thrown that on the bonfire in the past decade or so,
I mean, this is basically, honestly, this is the least
of our concerns in that respect.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Yeah, but I think about when I was Now, it's
not that many years ago. I'm an old man. I
mean the winter of my life, but it wasn't that
many decades ago.
Speaker 8 (23:21):
Look a day over eighty.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
But I've driven all over this country. I long, I
love long road trips.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
But I used to head out on road trips, and
you know, I'd stop at a hotel. I stay in
cheap hotels. They'd have the key hanging on a peg
behind the door. Nobody knew I was there. Nobody knew
I was there.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
After I left.
Speaker 4 (23:41):
Now I've got a self driving car that keeps track
of every mile I drive, everywhere I go, I parked,
there's license plate readers going through every parking lot checking
where I was, and they've got all the information at
the hotel. I mean, my entire trip is tracked. So
in my lifetime it's gone from I could have traveled
across the country completely without.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
A single human being knowing where I was.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
To now thousands of people and maybe all governments knowing
where I am.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
I find that trouble.
Speaker 8 (24:09):
I totally sympathize. I think this is I would say
this is there's something very American about this tension between
on one hand, wanting the convenience that modern technology gives
you and modern civilization gives you, but on the other hand,
the want the desire to light out for the territory
and just be away and free and keep something you
might say wild alive in your spirit is a very
(24:32):
important part of life, and so I totally get that.
My wife and I love to go on long drives
and get away from things also, and so I. But
on the other hand, with this option available for those
who are willing to sacrifice a little bit of their
privacy in exchange for the enormous convenience of it. The
answer is that that both options should be available, and
both options would be available in a society that respected
(24:54):
individual rights. Unfortunately, our society respects that so much less
now is that I do very much worry about a
future where truly, you know, individual cars allowing you to
drive wherever you want are outlawed. I can imagine that, Oh,
insurance companies.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
Will take Yeah, the insurance companies will take care of that,
because as soon as this just the stats are so
overwhelmingly true that it's less likely you're going to get
our wreck with an automated car than without one. The
insurance company is going to make it so expensive you
can't afford to drive a car on your own.
Speaker 8 (25:26):
Yeah, I can imagine that. It's sort of a gatica
kind of a situation.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
I don't know that term.
Speaker 8 (25:32):
Oh Gatka is a great movie from the nineties to
about a dystopian future where it's just run along these
lines where your entire genetic code is sort of sequenced
the head of time, and so people know whether you're
likely to develop a health condition in the future and
limit your opportunities accordingly, not necessarily through government control, but
through a sick blend of government and private companies that
(25:53):
exercise their power to deprive you of opportunity. Ah, if
you haven't seen the movie, you should, It's great.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
One more away, more comment, and then I promise after
the break we'll let you talk about some of your
wins suing the government, which are important. I saw the
former may so they want to get WEIMO in New
York City. That'd be a huge win for WEIMO obviously.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
I saw the former mayor build A Blasio come out
and say, yesterday, WEIMO New York is not a town
for WEIMO.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
We should not have them.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
And uh, and I wonder if is that just to
protect all the jobs of Is that what that was? Oh?
Speaker 8 (26:26):
Yes, it's It's exactly the same way about Uber. Back
in the day, if you remember they were, they were
very resistant to Uber because the tax they're the taxi drivers,
you know, unions and things like that. They don't want
the competition, and so it's the convenience thing to do
is use the government to exclude it legitimate competition in
order to raise your prizes and screw the consumer. And
(26:46):
that's been the recipe for centuries. And unfortunately Wemo and
other companies you know, face that that opposition. And it's
really just an attempt by people who don't want to
compete fairly to use the govern to block legitimate competitions
so that they can raise their prices at your expense.
It's the violation of individual liberty and it's economically foolish.
(27:09):
But New York has been that way first centuries.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
Technology comes along eliminates another a lot of jobs, but
throughout history it's also created other different jobs. However, right,
I don't think that's going to continue with AI, do you?
Speaker 8 (27:23):
Oh, I have no doubt that it will continue. Really
free time. Every time that technology has come along and oh,
they're taken our jobs. Every time that happens, it turns
out that it actually develops more jobs, not just you know,
people think, well, yeah, but these people become programmers.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
No, it's not that.
Speaker 8 (27:39):
It's that new technology opens up new opportunities for economic growth.
That people could never have foreseen in the years before then,
you know the cell phone. When I remember when I
got my first iPhone years ago, nobody could ever have
imagined something like Uber Eats or door Dash at that time.
And now look at how many many people earn money
(28:01):
working for those companies thanks to smartphone technology. That these
new technologies open up vistas that nobody could possibly have imagined,
and people take advantage of that and the economy grows.
It's almost like creating something out of literally nothing. It's
it's amazing to see. So there's I have no doubt
that self driving technology will in the long run increase
(28:22):
employment opportunities and more importantly, increase wealth. And if it's
allowed to flourish, if the government doesn't get in the
way and create roadblocks.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
I really really want you to be right about that
with AIS.
Speaker 8 (28:35):
Well, historically speaking, I've been right about that in every
single time that a new technology has come about. With
the buggy whip makers, I'm sure they complained when the
automobile came along and nobody was hiring buying buggy whips anymore,
and they were saying, oh, our jobs are going to
go for overseas. We need to outlock cars so that
the union, the buggy whip Union, can can flourish. And
(28:56):
what about the workers, et cetera, et cetera. And here
we are living in a society where hardly anybody buys
buggy with and we have more employment and more opportunity,
and more wealth and more technologies than they did back then.
So I have no doubt that I'm right about this.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Oh God, I hope you are.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Gretty the Armstrong and Getty Show,
The Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 9 (29:26):
The American Revolution is the most important offense since the
birth of Christ in all of world history.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Here I loved hearing that flipping on face. The nation
got back from vacation and they had Ken Burns, the
documentary filmmaker, the most famous documentary filmmaker who's ever lived,
on there to talk about his new documentary about the
American Revolution, which is coming out in November. But they
interviewed him for Fourth of July weekend and him presenting
(29:55):
it in this is a fantastic thing that happened for
world history terms. It's just my whole life that was normal.
But after the last, you know, four or five years
of wokeness. It kind of was a little like knocked
me down. Whoa people still think this.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Well, I don't want to get off on this tangent
too much, but I find myself a little bit surprised,
as ken Burns has been a little howard zinish for
me in recent years.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
But I'm glad to hear it.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Maybe he's just a canny businessman and he knows who's
going to watch these this documentary.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
But I love what he said. I hate to be
that a cynical. Well, that makes you a sap.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
Before we get into the more of the interview, Well,
I don't want to steal this thunder.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
We'll do that first. Then I've got another great quote
that's a similar sort of sentiment.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
Yeah, we missed fourth of July with you while we
were gone on vacation, so we're catching up a little
on that sort of talk here.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
And here's ken Burns talking about his documentary.
Speaker 7 (30:56):
You called the revolutionary period a civil war? Is that
always your conception of the repe How did you come
to think about that way?
Speaker 9 (31:04):
I think because there's no photographs and there's no newsreels,
and they're in stockings and breaches and powdered wigs.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
There's a sense of distance from them. I think we
also are so.
Speaker 9 (31:15):
Proud, rightfully of the power of the big ideas that
we just don't want to get into the fact that
it was this bloody civil war patriots against loyalists, disaffected people,
native people, enslaved and free people within it, foreign powers
that are ultimately engaged in.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
This is a big world war by the end.
Speaker 9 (31:36):
I think we perhaps are fearful that those big ideas
are diminished, and they're not in any way. They're in
fact become even more inspiring that they emerge from the turmoil.
Speaker 7 (31:45):
How should we think about the declaration of independence this
period in America in our present day.
Speaker 9 (31:51):
First of all, I think the American Revolution is the
most important event since the birth of Christ in all
of world history.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
I mean, it turned world.
Speaker 9 (32:00):
Upside down, which is the cliche. Before this moment, everyone
was a subject, essentially under the rule of somebody else.
We had created in this moment a very brand new
thing called a citizen, and this has had powerful effects.
It's going to set in motion revolutions for the next
two plus centuries all around the world, all attempting to
(32:23):
sort of give a new expression to this idea that
all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their
creator with certain unalienable rights, and that's a big, big
deal in world history.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
Yeah, and hearing ken Burns say that and CBS, you know,
going along with it, it shouldn't be like cold water
being splashed in my face, but it was, and I
was happy to hear it.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
I remember when, for a long time, the notion, again
the Howard Zinish down with American notion was it wasn't
a revolution. It was just a rebellion. I mean, the
colonists not happy with the crown, and they decided they
wanted a different government, and it came to blows. And no,
I mean it instituted on Earth an experiment in self
(33:08):
governance and a lot of other incredibly important fundamentals like
free speech that had not been tried. Yeah, it was
a rebellion against the crown, but in favor of trying
something wildly new, which is perhaps the most successful experiment
that's ever been done well.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
And to take it further than that, the fact that
the sixteen nineteen Project ELM sway there for a couple
of years and unfortunately still does in your freaking schools,
your school's library. The idea that no, the revolution was
to found slavery and make sure we could keep the
whole slavery thing going. That was the point of the revolution,
and that was the prevailing view there for like a
(33:46):
year along.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
To people with the megaphones of society, Yeah, education and media.
It's an I've seen a suggestion, absolutely obscene. You know,
I'm going to hit you with this real quickly from
Jonah Goldberg. Then we can get back to the interview.
Just don't want to steal all of us thunder. The
birth of the United States of America was not merely
the most important geopolitical event since the fall of Rome
or the most important intentional political event ever. Because Rome's
(34:11):
fall wasn't exactly a planned out exercise. It was the
signature catalyst for the real world realization of various Enlightenment
principles like democracy, human rights, free speech, and representative government.
The unfolding success of that experiment over the subsequent two
and a half centuries, with America becoming the single most
influential and powerful country in the world, lends even more
(34:31):
weight to the momentousness of the American founding, and it
certainly ranks among the most consequential events in all of
human history, political and non political alike.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
No doubt.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
I mean to argue against that is well, it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
You can't.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
I hope it's over, but you can't look at enough
that period. We just came through it all. Oh, George
Floyd's sixteen nineteen project tearing down the statues, which I
saw some of in New York, all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
Just craziness. We lost our minds. Thank god that didn't
win the day. At the time, it felt like it
was gonna win the day, right right, And if you
were fighting against it, good for you.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
And I'm so excited that Ken Burns thought, you know,
I'm gonna do a documentary about the American Revolution and
present it as a good thing, like a great thing,
like one of the greatest things that ever happened to
human beings.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Right.
Speaker 3 (35:32):
As I've said many, many times about religion and a
dozen other subjects, if you ask human beings to be
in charge of something, it's gonna get screwed up.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
That's the way we are.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
But that doesn't diminish the greatness, the wonder of the
founding of the country and the principles on which it
was founded. Yeah, human beings were in charge, so we
did a bad job of it. But it's still a
wondrous thing.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
It's the Armstrong in Getty show.
Speaker 5 (35:55):
Armstrong in Gdyrong.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
And the conscients of the nation
Speaker 6 (36:04):
Are strong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Get Kid and he Armstrong and Getty strong Man not
live from Studio c Armstrong and Getty. We're off for
taking a break.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
And as long as we're off, perhaps you'd like to
catch up on podcasts, subscribe to Armstrong and Getty on
demand or one more thing we think you'll enjoy.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
It, sir well.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
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 by 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 (01:05):
How are you this morning? Tom?
Speaker 5 (01:07):
I'm fine? Jack. How are you doing great?
Speaker 4 (01:09):
You've been in California politics forever. 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 (01:22):
Well, as 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,
(01:45):
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 science and it can
(02:05):
now be used to badly distort the partisan the choices
that the voters make in every election.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
And is there any way to do away with this?
I mean, it's been going on since the very very beginning.
Lots of democratic states are all jerry mandered to hack.
As we all should know by now, Texas isn't inventing
something new.
Speaker 5 (02:30):
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
(02:54):
every constituency and community in the state, and they drafted
a consensus plan 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 well.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
So Republicans account for about thirty eight percent of the
vote the last election around, and if Gavin gets his way,
would have seven percent of the House members in the state.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
So that's obviously out of proportion.
Speaker 5 (03:34):
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 Pornia Republicans.
(03:56):
You look at the vote nationally in twenty twenty four,
Democrats dot 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 gary manders
are absolutely brutal. You know, in Illinois, California's got Republicans
(04:16):
got forty seven percent of the vote, seventeen percent of
the seats. Massachusetts, California's Republicans got thirty five percent of
the vote and zero seats.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
That is really interesting stuff. I wish the mainstream media
was better at presenting that. And then the jerrymandering 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 (04:41):
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, whatever their politics, having in it night an
(05:03):
innate sense of fairness, and I think that's going to
be decisive when this comes up to a vote.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
So talking with Republican California Congressman Tom McClintock of California.
The most recent piece i'm reading here about immigration. I
wish that somehow, some way 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
(05:33):
thing with 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 in states
across the country. Can we just pick and choose federal
laws that we want to ignore and which ones we
want to go with.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
What's your take on it? Currently?
Speaker 5 (05:50):
All right? And if you're going to tolerate illegal immigration,
it makes legal immigration pointless and startles 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
(06:12):
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
(06:35):
wording of the law. Shall be detained. It is 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
(06:58):
that they unleashed now has to be followed by the
biggest deportation.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
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 (07:21):
Right, Well, it is already the law of the land.
And remember the Democrats saying, oh, there's nothing we can
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 get close
to two million illegal migrants have now departed the country,
(07:44):
either voluntarily or been for simply removed. But we also,
and this is where Congress comes in, We've got to
enact law 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
(08:06):
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 to
congresscate them. We've got to revamp our unaccompanied minor laws
to prevent human trafficking that ran rampant under Biden. And
(08:28):
we've got to rescue the hundreds of thousands of children
that 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 an asset to America
can take advantage of them. The Office to Inspector General
is about to come out with the report I think
that they documented that during the Biden administration there were
(08:51):
thirteen million visas granted that were completely unbetted. 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 bude
by the terms of the visa. Thirteen million such visas
(09:12):
were issued under Biden without any betting whatsoever, and that's
what the administration's reviewing.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
Now another topic before we let you go, Congressom McClintock.
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 of the federal government
has the constitutional right to do that in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
How do you feel about National Guard troops in Chicago.
Speaker 5 (09:42):
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.
(10:04):
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 needs
(10:25):
to remain in local hands, no matter how badly those
local hands are handling it.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
I would agree with that. Interesting. Tom McLintock, appreciate your
time today. Tom, Thank you very.
Speaker 5 (10:35):
Much, my pleasure. Jack good talking to you.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
I would agree with that.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
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 Jo's in England on vacation.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
He's going to call in later.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
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,
uh like maybe send troops Chicago, 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
(11:18):
doesn't like the way that place is being run.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
No, I don't.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
Armstrong, the Armstrong and Yetti show the LATINX stuff that.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
By the way, not one person ever in my office
has ever used the word LATINXT. So can we finally
put that to bed? But where did that even know?
More LATINX? Everybody? Well, I just didn't even know where
it came from, And like, what are people talking about?
Speaker 7 (11:43):
I hope we can really paint a picture in terms
of our consciousness of how impactful.
Speaker 5 (11:49):
This has been on the LATINX community.
Speaker 7 (11:51):
About three quarters of renters in the state that have
fallen behind and rent represented the Latino in African American community.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
The Latin and Black communities.
Speaker 5 (12:01):
You've got politicians that are banning not assault.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Rifles, but the word latin X. They're not even serious. Wow,
that's even further.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
So that's Gavin Newsom doing his bro podcasts that he's
doing all across the country now as he tries to
be like just a regular guy running for president, and
he's doing a pretty good job of it might work
for him, but claiming that latin X whoever even heard
of that before?
Speaker 2 (12:25):
What does that even mean?
Speaker 4 (12:26):
And then a little montage of him using the term
in recent years, including one and where he's fighting against
trying to take away the word latin X lasting anybody
who would dare disparage it?
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Oh boy, but how bet it works.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
People don't hear the you know, like in newspapers or books,
there's the big headline and then there's a little sentence underneath.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
People don't hear the sentence underneath.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Ninety percent of people, they just get the big headline
of everything, of every story.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And you know that's funny.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Though, He's got to run away from so much of
that stuff because it's so freaking crazy.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Oh yeah, I mean yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
The list is long of policies that are abhorrent to
most Americans and or results that are abhorrent to Americans.
For instance, as we outlined last hour, cal Unicorney has
lost one hundred and a half hundred thousand private sector
jobs and added three hundred and sixty one thousand government
jobs since twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
It's just astonishing.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
Well, let's be here, let's be happy about this stuff though, people,
Rather than condemning the hypocrisy, we should be happy he
understands that he needs to run away from the nonsense
like trans boys in girls sports or the term LATINX,
which is one of the dumbest things that's ever happened
in my lifetime. He has to run away from it
(13:48):
if he wants to be present. He is determined, and
he's right, and that's good news, right it is.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Although don't let down your guard because we've received I
don't know half a dozen emails just in the last
four eight hours from folks that are getting ready to
get back in the classroom as teachers in California and
are going through their state mandated DEI white supremacist woke
doctrine right now. They're getting educated in that quote unquote educated.
(14:17):
So getting back to Gavy, and we talked about this
fairly recently. If you're just tuning in, but the whole
bed bath and beyond thing, the head of bed bath
and beyond. Do you have that statement or I mean
for people who are not familiar, just real quickly.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Yes, I do.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
I'm sorry, this is I got the other screen up
about shrekking, a dating trend in which people are dating
unattracted people on purpose. That story we got to get
to later this hour. Yes, yes, yes, and different species
of giraffes. Yes, I already did the giraffes shreaking. We
will do this hour though. It's an actual thing and
it's really quite an entertaining point. So the CEO of Bed,
(14:54):
Bath and Beyond puts out a statement yesterday we will
not operate or open retail stores in California. This decision
isn't about politics, It's about reality. California has created one
of the most overregulated, expensive and risky environments for business
in America. It's a system that makes it harder to
employ people, harder to keep doors open, and harder to
deliver value to customers. The result higher taxes, higher fees,
(15:16):
higher wages that many businesses simply cannot sustain.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
And then Gavin Newsom, in a snarky social media post yesterday, replied.
Speaker 6 (15:24):
The company that already went bankrupt and closed every store
across the country two years ago.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Okay, all right, so Gavin, here is my response to
your sarcasm.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Anti rooms. Oh yeah, Foyer, window, don't get.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
Me started, window Fredow Treatments.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Okay, that's all absolutely, yes, although you do have windows
in beds and baths.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Michael, So is it really it's a good point.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Yeah, Okay, where were we I'm sure there was a thread.
Oh yes, So Gavin's snark about a CEO saying your
state is so hostile to business and so difficult to
operate in, we're not even going to try. And instead
of addressing policy, he says, oh yeah, the same company
(16:14):
that went bankrupt and closed all their stores two years ago.
Let me explain something to you, Gavin. Because you were
born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you've been
successful in business because you've been bankrolled up to your ears.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
By all of your rich relatives. Uh. But here's the
way it works.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Big companies sometimes failed to adjust with the times. Something
you know, changes whatever, they're unsuccessful, they declare bankruptcy and
they reorganize. Bed Bath and Beyond has a lot of fans.
It's a cool store. I'm a fan, Judy and I
shop there for a lot of stuff for years and years,
(16:50):
and we're super bummed to hear it was closing. Well,
now they're reopening with a little different concept that's going
to be better for consuming and more likely to be
a successful business.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
It's the very thing we treasure in America.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
Gavin innovation, adaptation, creativity.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
And sticking to it.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
And these people who are doing that said, the one
place we're not gonna bother is California because it's so
hostile to business. Go ahead, gavey, give us some more
of your clever clever snark.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
H what a blank? That's That was the perfect way
to end my screed.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
The Armstrong and Getty Show or Jack yourghoe.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
Podcasts and our hot links.
Speaker 6 (17:41):
The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (17:45):
Now old friend of the Armstrong and Getty Show and
a fan favorite. We always get so many texting emails saying, man,
I love Tim. It's Tim Sanderfer from the Goldwater Institute. Tim, welcome,
thanks for having me. Is there a title you want.
Speaker 5 (18:01):
A title? Uh?
Speaker 8 (18:03):
Well, I know as a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican, small government libertarian,
I'm against titles. But my official title is a vice
president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, which is
a free market think tank and litigation organization headquartered in Phoenix,
and my job is to sue the government for a living.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Best job in the world. Oh, thank God for you.
Speaker 8 (18:29):
And I win every time, right, you know, but.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
But just well, sometimes you do win. And the fact
that they know they can be sued is probably got
to keep them mining their p's and ques at least
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Sometimes.
Speaker 8 (18:43):
Yes, as long as the government still respects the law,
you know, hopefully there will be myself, my colleagues, and
you know, our sister organizations across the country who are
trying as best we can to hold the government's feet
to the constitutional fire.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
I'm feeling a wide range conversation today for some reason.
That is just my mood. So you started with mentioning titles.
Why do you think people refer to dictators by the
title that they want all the time? I'm amazed that
everybody in the media, including President Trump, calls putin president putin, I.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Mean, and Bobama did two and Biden did too.
Speaker 4 (19:19):
So it's not just Trump, but why they're not president,
they're a dictator.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
So why do we go along with their language? We
do the same thing, we presidently agree.
Speaker 8 (19:27):
This has bothered me for years. This has bugged me
so long that but you know, it's because we don't
want to be judgmental.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
We don't want to.
Speaker 8 (19:33):
We don't want to call things by their right names
and say Dictator Putin because that might offend him. So
instead we give him the kind of false legitimacy that
is exactly what he craves. I think it's a terrible thing,
but it's in that way all my life.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Yeah, that's that's weird that the the the Free West
does that. You want us to call you by a
certain name. Oh, sure we will. Oh, okay, I guess
that's what we did. Another question for you, So I
was just reading.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
I know you know a lot about Wayman.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Oh the robotox is you actually visited their plant?
Speaker 2 (20:04):
They make them in Phoenix.
Speaker 8 (20:06):
They well, I don't think they make them in Phoenix,
but they have a headquarters in Phoenix. Phoenix is one
of their largest cities that they are operating in, and
they have a garage there which is where all the cars,
you know, they're all electric cars, so that's where they
go to recharge. And my wife and I got a
chance to go down there and take a tour of
their facility and ride for our first time in a
way Mow And since then, I've I've I take every
(20:27):
excuse I can to ride in them because I just
there's the technology is just mind bogging, and I just
loved standing there in the garage watching these cars come
in and look for parking spaces, and they looked exactly
like a human was driving them, you know, pausing and
backing up because oh there's a spot, and that sort
of thing, exactly like me at the airport, and yet
(20:47):
there's nobody driving them. And I had thought that it
would feel weird to ride in one, and that went
away in five seconds. After that, it felt exactly like
riding in a car with somebody driving it, except there
was nobody in the I have'n't seen it interesting, absolutely
marvelous technology.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
I wondered about that because I've got a self driving Tesla,
so I'm used to the concept, and I wondered what
it was like for people who haven't done that before.
But that's why I was when I wrote a Waymo
for the first time in San Francisco. Within a couple
of seconds, it was, oh cool, I get to control
the music, and I was looking at the little computer
in front of me and picking my mind.
Speaker 8 (21:19):
I haven't been this enthusiastic about a piece of technology
in a very long time. They have already just statistically speaking,
they have already saved tens of thousands of lives, probably
in the amount of in just the amount of time
they've already been operating in these cities. They're going to
make driving as safe as flying. It's incredible. I'm blown
away by how safe and natural it feels to ride
(21:42):
in these and you know, it's particularly good for the blind.
You know, blind people particular love this technology because they
can they don't have to get in the car with
somebody they don't know, like.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
They do with Uber.
Speaker 8 (21:54):
And they can take their dogs, which you sometimes can't
do in an Uber. And when you call the someon
your your robot car, it arrives and it plays a
tune so you know where it is, you know, and
these sorts of techno. It's just a marvelous how it's
opened up the door for people who otherwise wouldn't have
had those opportunities.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (22:12):
I like the technology and everything. This is where we're
probably going to part. I hate the idea that the
autonomy of getting to drive where I want to go
and having control over it is going to go away,
whether I like it or not.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
I hate that so much. It makes me want to cry.
Speaker 8 (22:29):
I do worry about that. No, I worry about that,
and I worry about the how easy it would be
for the government to say, well, we want to track
where everybody drives, and you know, we'll run their record
while they're in the car, and then if we think
that they need to be arrested, we'll just reroute the
car to the police station or something like that. You
can easily imagine the dystopian ends to which this can
be used, But all technology can be abused in that way,
(22:53):
and there is no abolishing the technologies of the solution.
The solution is good philosophical and political idea. Isn't a
belief in individual rights and limited government? And since we've
thrown that on the bonfire in the past decade or so,
I mean, this is basically, honestly, this is the least
of our concerns in that respect.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Yeah, but I think about when I was Now, it's
not that many years ago. I'm an old man. I
mean the winter of my life, but it wasn't that
many decades ago.
Speaker 8 (23:21):
Look a day over eighty.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
But I've driven all over this country. I long, I
love long road trips.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
But I used to head out on road trips, and
you know, I'd stop at a hotel. I stay in
cheap hotels. They'd have the key hanging on a peg
behind the door. Nobody knew I was there. Nobody knew
I was there.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
After I left.
Speaker 4 (23:41):
Now I've got a self driving car that keeps track
of every mile I drive, everywhere I go, I parked,
there's license plate readers going through every parking lot checking
where I was, and they've got all the information at
the hotel. I mean, my entire trip is tracked. So
in my lifetime it's gone from I could have traveled
across the country completely without.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
A single human being knowing where I was.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
To now thousands of people and maybe all governments knowing
where I am.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
I find that trouble.
Speaker 8 (24:09):
I totally sympathize. I think this is I would say
this is there's something very American about this tension between
on one hand, wanting the convenience that modern technology gives
you and modern civilization gives you, but on the other hand,
the want the desire to light out for the territory
and just be away and free and keep something you
might say wild alive in your spirit is a very
(24:32):
important part of life, and so I totally get that.
My wife and I love to go on long drives
and get away from things also, and so I. But
on the other hand, with this option available for those
who are willing to sacrifice a little bit of their
privacy in exchange for the enormous convenience of it. The
answer is that that both options should be available, and
both options would be available in a society that respected
(24:54):
individual rights. Unfortunately, our society respects that so much less
now is that I do very much worry about a
future where truly, you know, individual cars allowing you to
drive wherever you want are outlawed. I can imagine that, Oh,
insurance companies.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
Will take Yeah, the insurance companies will take care of that,
because as soon as this just the stats are so
overwhelmingly true that it's less likely you're going to get
our wreck with an automated car than without one. The
insurance company is going to make it so expensive you
can't afford to drive a car on your own.
Speaker 8 (25:26):
Yeah, I can imagine that. It's sort of a gatica
kind of a situation.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
I don't know that term.
Speaker 8 (25:32):
Oh Gatka is a great movie from the nineties to
about a dystopian future where it's just run along these
lines where your entire genetic code is sort of sequenced
the head of time, and so people know whether you're
likely to develop a health condition in the future and
limit your opportunities accordingly, not necessarily through government control, but
through a sick blend of government and private companies that
(25:53):
exercise their power to deprive you of opportunity. Ah, if
you haven't seen the movie, you should, It's great.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
One more away, more comment, and then I promise after
the break we'll let you talk about some of your
wins suing the government, which are important. I saw the
former may so they want to get WEIMO in New
York City. That'd be a huge win for WEIMO obviously.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
I saw the former mayor build A Blasio come out
and say, yesterday, WEIMO New York is not a town
for WEIMO.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
We should not have them.
Speaker 4 (26:20):
And uh, and I wonder if is that just to
protect all the jobs of Is that what that was? Oh?
Speaker 8 (26:26):
Yes, it's It's exactly the same way about Uber. Back
in the day, if you remember they were, they were
very resistant to Uber because the tax they're the taxi drivers,
you know, unions and things like that. They don't want
the competition, and so it's the convenience thing to do
is use the government to exclude it legitimate competition in
order to raise your prizes and screw the consumer. And
(26:46):
that's been the recipe for centuries. And unfortunately Wemo and
other companies you know, face that that opposition. And it's
really just an attempt by people who don't want to
compete fairly to use the govern to block legitimate competitions
so that they can raise their prices at your expense.
It's the violation of individual liberty and it's economically foolish.
(27:09):
But New York has been that way first centuries.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
Technology comes along eliminates another a lot of jobs, but
throughout history it's also created other different jobs. However, right,
I don't think that's going to continue with AI, do you?
Speaker 8 (27:23):
Oh, I have no doubt that it will continue. Really
free time. Every time that technology has come along and oh,
they're taken our jobs. Every time that happens, it turns
out that it actually develops more jobs, not just you know,
people think, well, yeah, but these people become programmers.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
No, it's not that.
Speaker 8 (27:39):
It's that new technology opens up new opportunities for economic growth.
That people could never have foreseen in the years before then,
you know the cell phone. When I remember when I
got my first iPhone years ago, nobody could ever have
imagined something like Uber Eats or door Dash at that time.
And now look at how many many people earn money
(28:01):
working for those companies thanks to smartphone technology. That these
new technologies open up vistas that nobody could possibly have imagined,
and people take advantage of that and the economy grows.
It's almost like creating something out of literally nothing. It's
it's amazing to see. So there's I have no doubt
that self driving technology will in the long run increase
(28:22):
employment opportunities and more importantly, increase wealth. And if it's
allowed to flourish, if the government doesn't get in the
way and create roadblocks.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
I really really want you to be right about that
with AIS.
Speaker 8 (28:35):
Well, historically speaking, I've been right about that in every
single time that a new technology has come about. With
the buggy whip makers, I'm sure they complained when the
automobile came along and nobody was hiring buying buggy whips anymore,
and they were saying, oh, our jobs are going to
go for overseas. We need to outlock cars so that
the union, the buggy whip Union, can can flourish. And
(28:56):
what about the workers, et cetera, et cetera. And here
we are living in a society where hardly anybody buys
buggy with and we have more employment and more opportunity,
and more wealth and more technologies than they did back then.
So I have no doubt that I'm right about this.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Oh God, I hope you are.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Gretty the Armstrong and Getty Show,
The Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 9 (29:26):
The American Revolution is the most important offense since the
birth of Christ in all of world history.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Here I loved hearing that flipping on face. The nation
got back from vacation and they had Ken Burns, the
documentary filmmaker, the most famous documentary filmmaker who's ever lived,
on there to talk about his new documentary about the
American Revolution, which is coming out in November. But they
interviewed him for Fourth of July weekend and him presenting
(29:55):
it in this is a fantastic thing that happened for
world history terms. It's just my whole life that was normal.
But after the last, you know, four or five years
of wokeness. It kind of was a little like knocked
me down. Whoa people still think this.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Well, I don't want to get off on this tangent
too much, but I find myself a little bit surprised,
as ken Burns has been a little howard zinish for
me in recent years.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
But I'm glad to hear it.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Maybe he's just a canny businessman and he knows who's
going to watch these this documentary.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
But I love what he said. I hate to be
that a cynical. Well, that makes you a sap.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
Before we get into the more of the interview, Well,
I don't want to steal this thunder.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
We'll do that first. Then I've got another great quote
that's a similar sort of sentiment.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
Yeah, we missed fourth of July with you while we
were gone on vacation, so we're catching up a little
on that sort of talk here.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
And here's ken Burns talking about his documentary.
Speaker 7 (30:56):
You called the revolutionary period a civil war? Is that
always your conception of the repe How did you come
to think about that way?
Speaker 9 (31:04):
I think because there's no photographs and there's no newsreels,
and they're in stockings and breaches and powdered wigs.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
There's a sense of distance from them. I think we
also are so.
Speaker 9 (31:15):
Proud, rightfully of the power of the big ideas that
we just don't want to get into the fact that
it was this bloody civil war patriots against loyalists, disaffected people,
native people, enslaved and free people within it, foreign powers
that are ultimately engaged in.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
This is a big world war by the end.
Speaker 9 (31:36):
I think we perhaps are fearful that those big ideas
are diminished, and they're not in any way. They're in
fact become even more inspiring that they emerge from the turmoil.
Speaker 7 (31:45):
How should we think about the declaration of independence this
period in America in our present day.
Speaker 9 (31:51):
First of all, I think the American Revolution is the
most important event since the birth of Christ in all
of world history.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
I mean, it turned world.
Speaker 9 (32:00):
Upside down, which is the cliche. Before this moment, everyone
was a subject, essentially under the rule of somebody else.
We had created in this moment a very brand new
thing called a citizen, and this has had powerful effects.
It's going to set in motion revolutions for the next
two plus centuries all around the world, all attempting to
(32:23):
sort of give a new expression to this idea that
all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their
creator with certain unalienable rights, and that's a big, big
deal in world history.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
Yeah, and hearing ken Burns say that and CBS, you know,
going along with it, it shouldn't be like cold water
being splashed in my face, but it was, and I
was happy to hear it.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
I remember when, for a long time, the notion, again
the Howard Zinish down with American notion was it wasn't
a revolution. It was just a rebellion. I mean, the
colonists not happy with the crown, and they decided they
wanted a different government, and it came to blows. And no,
I mean it instituted on Earth an experiment in self
(33:08):
governance and a lot of other incredibly important fundamentals like
free speech that had not been tried. Yeah, it was
a rebellion against the crown, but in favor of trying
something wildly new, which is perhaps the most successful experiment
that's ever been done well.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
And to take it further than that, the fact that
the sixteen nineteen Project ELM sway there for a couple
of years and unfortunately still does in your freaking schools,
your school's library. The idea that no, the revolution was
to found slavery and make sure we could keep the
whole slavery thing going. That was the point of the revolution,
and that was the prevailing view there for like a
(33:46):
year along.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
To people with the megaphones of society, Yeah, education and media.
It's an I've seen a suggestion, absolutely obscene. You know,
I'm going to hit you with this real quickly from
Jonah Goldberg. Then we can get back to the interview.
Just don't want to steal all of us thunder. The
birth of the United States of America was not merely
the most important geopolitical event since the fall of Rome
or the most important intentional political event ever. Because Rome's
(34:11):
fall wasn't exactly a planned out exercise. It was the
signature catalyst for the real world realization of various Enlightenment
principles like democracy, human rights, free speech, and representative government.
The unfolding success of that experiment over the subsequent two
and a half centuries, with America becoming the single most
influential and powerful country in the world, lends even more
(34:31):
weight to the momentousness of the American founding, and it
certainly ranks among the most consequential events in all of
human history, political and non political alike.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
No doubt.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
I mean to argue against that is well, it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
You can't.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
I hope it's over, but you can't look at enough
that period. We just came through it all. Oh, George
Floyd's sixteen nineteen project tearing down the statues, which I
saw some of in New York, all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
Just craziness. We lost our minds. Thank god that didn't
win the day. At the time, it felt like it
was gonna win the day, right right, And if you
were fighting against it, good for you.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
And I'm so excited that Ken Burns thought, you know,
I'm gonna do a documentary about the American Revolution and
present it as a good thing, like a great thing,
like one of the greatest things that ever happened to
human beings.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Right.
Speaker 3 (35:32):
As I've said many, many times about religion and a
dozen other subjects, if you ask human beings to be
in charge of something, it's gonna get screwed up.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
That's the way we are.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
But that doesn't diminish the greatness, the wonder of the
founding of the country and the principles on which it
was founded. Yeah, human beings were in charge, so we
did a bad job of it. But it's still a
wondrous thing.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
It's the Armstrong in Getty show.
Speaker 5 (35:55):
Armstrong in Gdyrong.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
And the conscients of the nation
Speaker 6 (36:04):
Are strong 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.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.