October 17, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Anastasia Boden, civil rights attorney from Pacific Legal Foundation, talks to Jack & Joe
- Hotdog alcohol & Jack's free treats
- The joke that is the NYC mayoral race
- LA homeless count
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):
I'm Strong and Getty and Pee Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
And in the state of Louisiana, that analysis was conducted
in the narn case and it was clear that regardless
of party, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates,
whether they were Democrats or not. And we know that
there is such a significant chasm between how black and
white voters vote in Louisiana that there's no question that
(00:47):
even if there is some correlation between race and party,
that race is the driving factor.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
What's that that is a representative from the naac P
arguing in a recent Supreme Court case to continue racism
in the name of ending racism, specifically race specific redrawing
of congressional districts one of the important cases in front
of the Supreme Court. This decision this session rather super
(01:15):
interesting group of cases and what a great opportunity this
is around here at the Armstrong and Getty Show. We
love the Pacific Legal Foundation that has for decades now
fought for individual liberty in the United States. And Anastasia
Boden is a civil rights attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation,
focusing on economic opportunity and equality for the law before
the law, including a lot of great stuff I'd like
(01:36):
to talk about, but I don't want to take the time. Anastasia,
how are you welcome doing well?
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Oh, it's our pleasure. So I've come up with a
truly innovative plan. Let's talk about the cases they've already
talked about this session, then moved to the cases they
haven't talked about yet. So okay. The first one that
really got my attention was Child versus Salazar. That bans
what they the attorneys kept referring to as conversion therapy,
(02:08):
when in my opinion, it was just counselors helping kids
who are confused about their gender sort it out. How
did that go?
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, well, it's interesting because notice that term conversion therapy
is a one way ratchet. If someone wants therapy to
affirm that they are straight, it's considered it's actually considered
conversion therapy. But if you wanted to say, hey, I'm queer,
but I want you to affirm that, that's considered affirmation.
(02:40):
So it's only if you want to affirm your straight
that it's that it's considered conversion, which means.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
This is a viewpoint. It's a viewpoint based band speech.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, yeah, it absolutely is. I was going to say.
The more blatant and obvious example is if I'm a
boy who wants to become a girl, that's affirmation and
totally legal. If I'm a boy who wants to stay
a boy, that's called conversion therapy. What's being converted exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
It's totally dishonest, it is, And the state, I think
knows that if the court considers this a ban on speech,
which it obviously is, it's gonna lose.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
The state can't ban one viewpoint on speech.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
So it's come up with this novel argument that no,
it's not banning speech, it's banning medical treatment, which it
considers conduct. Because when conduct is that issue, then courts
are far more deferential.
Speaker 4 (03:35):
To the legislature. So this whole.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Argument sort of circled around whether conversion therapy is speech
or or medical conduct, meaning that the state has a
lot more leeway and regulating it.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
So and it's entirely talk therapy they were talking about.
So it's it's almost a ridiculous question to me. But
I know it's hard to interpret how the oral arguments
went and that sort of thing. We've heard that one
hundred times. But how do you think the oral arguments went?
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Well, I think the plane off here is absolutely going
to win. And for me, that's because there was one
jaw dropping moment in the oral argument where the state
had to admit that if this were the nineteen seventies,
when attitudes towards queer people were a lot different and
you know, more anti and antiquated.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
Just Leo asked, could the state have.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Banned therapy affirming that you're queer? On the prevailing theory
back then that people with those feelings were experiencing mental illness.
That was the prevailing you know idea at that time.
Of course, we've gone beyond that now we don't believe
that anymore. But at that time, that was the prevailing
medical consensus. And Justice Leo says, hey, if that was
(04:51):
the consensus, could they have banned that type of therapy
affirming homosexuality in the nineteen seventies, And the government they
have to lean into this, They have to say yes,
they have to say that whatever the prevailing medical consensus
means that they can ban.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
What's outside of that consensus?
Speaker 1 (05:05):
And I think when you admit as the government that
back in the nineteen seventies you could affirm therapy, affirming
homosexuality on the theory that those people have a mental condition,
I think at that point you've lost.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
No justice is gonna uphold the law after that.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
Yeah, some of my favorite pundits have said if it's
they're only gonna be disappointed if it's not nine to nothing.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
That's because it should be right right right now. I
could Justice.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Jackson was really really skeptical. She was the only hold
out here in my opini.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
Can we boot her off? The quarters are a way
to do that? Is there a constitutional way to just
eliminate her? And a eight person court? I could talk
about this stuff all day long, but we need to
move along because of the limited time.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Louisiana versus Calais on the Voting Rights Act thing, Can
you explain for Layman real quickly the tension between the
fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Yes, So, the fourteenth and fifteenth eighteen, fourteenth and fifteenth
Amendments were passed in the wake of the Civil War
to guarantee the rights of recently freed slaves. But also,
you know, these amdments were written broadly to protect all people.
So those amendments get rid of slavery, they protect the
(06:17):
rights of everyone, and then they also say that states
shall not deprive people of the right to vote. But
of course, even after those amendments were passed, states continued
passing laws that burdened people's right to vote, and in
particular Black Americans right to vote. So you know, the
traditional things we all think of in history, like poll
taxes and these things that were meant to sort of
(06:38):
subtly depress the black vote. So after that, Congress goes
ahead and passes the Voting Rights Act, which is intended
to be a stronger enforcement tool, stronger de terrantive states
to stop suppressing.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
The black vote.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
But over time that Act has been interpreted pretty liberally
to not just prohibit outright voter suppression, but things like
what the government calls vote dilution. So this is when
an election system, usually through drawing district lines, you know, redistricting,
(07:12):
diminishes the ability of minority voters to elect candidates and.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
I quote of their choice.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
And notice this language here, Oh, minority voters can't elect
the candidates of their choice, which is a really odd
thing to say, because usually when we think about equal protection,
we think of it in terms of protecting individual rights
and the right of people to be free of stereotypes.
And yet here baked into.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
This whole system is the idea.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
That racial groups think alike, vote alike, have the same preferences,
and therefore must have a majority district so they can
get their candidate. So it's a very racist way to
think about voting in the names of equal protection.
Speaker 5 (07:51):
Well, I've always said that as a white male, we're
the only group that is looked at as getting to
just make decisions based on who we think would be
the best person. Every other group other than white males,
you're kind of supposedly beholden to your gender or race
or whatever you're.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Supprit and you and the only thing you would ever
do is vote for one of yours, because we know
people like you well. And the super simplified version answer
to the question I asked is the Constitution says you've
got to treat everybody equally, and the Voting Rights Act
says you got to look super carefully at race and
who's what color and where how they might vote and
(08:28):
where they live and the rest of it as opposed
to a colorblind society. But it'll be interesting to see
how that comes out. A couple of big cases coming up.
What's uh, what do you think is the most impactful
or important one that they're about to hear?
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Anastasia, Oh, this is a great question, because this is
actually a really big term. And I love when the
Supreme Court's back in session, a couple can't you're free? Yeah, okay, yeah,
this is because this is our chance, you know, when
the court's back in session, to claw back our rights
effectively from overreaching government. So the Court's going to hear
a really interesting involving home equity theft. This is the
(09:02):
practice where if you owe even a few dollars. We
had a case at PLF here where somebody by mistake
owed eight dollars on their tax bill, and so the
government seizes your house in order to recoup those funds,
and it keeps not just the eight dollars, but everything
from the proceeds of the sale of your house.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Oh my god.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Yeah, it's horrifying, it's absolutely horrifying. And you know, fortunately
actually PLF got rid of that practice at the Supreme
Court a few years ago when the court deemed it unconstitutional.
But states are going to stay and they're really recalcitrant
about this, and they find ways to sort of evade
what the constitution demands. So in this case that's now
(09:43):
before the Supreme Court, this term a family. Effectively, they
argue that.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
They never owed money at all. It's pretty clear that
they didn't.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
But the government said that they had improperly claimed some
tax credit for their home, and so they ended up
owing that money back retroactively, and before they can kind
of of litigated out, the government seizes their house, sells
it doesn't even give them proper notice, they don't even
really have the time to fight it, and then tries
to keep everything right. And of course PLS won the case.
(10:12):
So now, okay, the family's entitled to get their money back.
We want a separate case entitling this family to their
money back. But what the government did was, even though
itself had assessed that house at two hundred thousand dollars,
made the family pay taxes at a value of two
hundred thousand dollars, it sold the house for seventy six
(10:33):
thousand dollars at auction.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
That investor. Yeah. Crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
That investor turns around the next week or month sells it.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
For two hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
So there's no doubt this house is worth two hundred
thousand dollars. But the question is what is that family
owed because they're owed the excess above their alleged tax efficiency, right,
And the government says, well, we sold it for seventy
six thousand dollars.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
You owed two thousand dollars, so we owe you just
seventy four thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
And the family says, no, our hole has worth two
hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
All right, suits have.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
To one hundred and ninety eight thousand, of course.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, the soups have to get rid of that. Oh
my god, that's that's outrageous and rapacious. Anastasia boden Is
with a Pacific Legal foundation. We've just got like one
more minute. Can you give us thoughts on the upcoming
banning transgender athletes in sports case, because around here we
don't care what you do as an adult. You have
the right to live present however you want and it's
(11:31):
none of my business, but leave the kids alone. And
I'm a pretty firm believer in preserving girls and women's
spaces and sports. What are the soups being asked here, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
They're being asked to consider a couple of states bans
on trenngender athletes and single sex sports and schools. And
why do those bands violate the Civil Rights Act or
the Equal Protection Clause. And it's really interesting because in
past cases, in previous terms, the courts, you know, in
some cases at least said that those laws protect the
individual rights of trans people to not be discriminated against.
(12:06):
But here those rights are, as you said, bumping up
against the rights of women in sports with the Civil
Rights Laws.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
Title NIND was passed specifically to.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Protect those women's rights to compete fairly. And so it's
going to be interesting to see what the court does
when these purported rights of individual trans people are depriving
women of the very rights that the Civil Rights Act
was intended to protect.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Anastasia Boden is, a civil rights attorney at the Pacific
Legal Foundation. Really enjoyed the chat Onastasia. I hope we
can do it again.
Speaker 4 (12:41):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Absolutely our pleasure. Jack follow up quickly or don't.
Speaker 5 (12:48):
The decision on that transsports thing is going to be
huge if it goes the wrong way.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Especially, Oh it's an opening shutcase. My god. Ho Title
nine can't exist unless there are men and there are women. Otherwise,
why is it there?
Speaker 5 (13:04):
Good Lord, word from our friends that simply save Home Security?
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Holy cow? Is this better than the old systems. It's
AI powered cameras identifying someone lurking around your home and
alerting simply safe professional monitoring agents who can take action immediately,
confront the criminal, trigger sirens, spotlights, dispatch the police, and
kill the interloper with a ray gun. All right, That
last part's my personal fantasy. But they can do all
(13:29):
that other stuff. I like that.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
They can talk to the person. Hey, captain Lerco, what
are you doing out there?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
We can see you.
Speaker 5 (13:34):
Then they get a job, junkie boy. They probably scamper off,
which is good. Then they didn't break into your house.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
My favorite line, what are your grandparents think of you
in your life right now?
Speaker 6 (13:43):
Huh?
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Why don't you think about that, you jackass? Anyway, simply hey,
simply Save Home Security is amazing. Sixty day money back guarantee,
no long term contracts. Simply Safe earns your business every
single day, keeps you and your stuff and your loved
ones safe and right now, our listeners can say fifty
on a simply safe home security system, it's simply safe.
Dot com slash armstrong. That's simply safe dot com slash armstrong.
(14:07):
There's no safe like simply safe. Trump threatened to kill
Hamas again yesterday. We will kill Hamas. We could talk
about that and a whole bunch of other stuff. We'll
get to this hour. Stick around arm Strong.
Speaker 7 (14:18):
And in order to turn hot dogs into delicious alcohol,
I needed a way to extract the hot dog flavor
into something fermentable. Once I had a concentrated pot of
hot dog water, it was time to sterilize it with
a pressure cooker. And our hot dog water can be
used as a base for a meat. I started with
a few pounds of honey, enough to supply enough sugar
hit sixteen percent alcohol. All that was left to do
is at our yeast and let this hot dog you
(14:39):
mix ferment for thirty days. Now, all that's left to
do is have a taste. You could collect the liquid
that's at the bottom of the garbage bin at a
baseball game.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
That is what we're drinking. Right. If you've ever wondered
how to use hot dogs to make alcohol. Now you
know the hot dog water after you make hot dogs
OILM what is the scenario I find myself in whereby
(15:07):
I have hot dogs, I want to get my buzz on,
but I have no alcohol nor means to get it.
All I have are hot dogs, honey apparently, and thirty
days to wait and problems I need to forget. Yes,
I gotta believe it tastes really horrible. You can make
(15:31):
booze out of really practically anything, right, which is I
guess kind of the point there. So yeah, I think
I'll pass thing. Oh god, I was just reading.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
I worked all my life so I don't have to
eat fermented or drink fermented hot dog water. Right right
at the grocery store. We're at the grocery store last night.
We're leaving the mercado. It's called near my home, say
Mexican grocery store. Anyway, the owner there, super nice guy,
very friendly, always welcomes us. And every time I go
in there, and we're leaving this kind of later at night,
(16:02):
and he said, hey, you want a couple of these.
I was gonna throw them away, but better to give
them to you. And throw away and it was ice
big giant mint chocolate chip ice cream sandwiches. No Oreo
mint chocolate chip ice cream sandwiches, which looked fantastic, But
so my son was gonna eat one, and I said,
I'll take this one to Henry and he said, you
(16:23):
don't want it. I said, no, it's not. It's not
the lack of money that's keeping me from eating Oreo
mince chocolate ice cream sandwiches. Like the fact that he
said it was free. Yeah, that is not the really
the defining factor for me. On the other hand, you're
the greatest treat scavenger I've ever known, between Freebee Donuts
(16:44):
at the end of the day and giant ice cream
sandwiches from the local mercado. Good gracious, you make the rounds.
It's a six forty five every night, don't you. But
I got to say this out loud to convince myself
because we've all done it many, many times. You you
know you're trying to eat well, you had no intention
of eating crap, but somebody brought crap to work, and
then you eat it because it's there and it's free.
(17:06):
I mean, unless you're really on hard times, the difference
between having three donuts this morning and not is not
the price. You didn't think it was a good idea
in the first place, right, It's why I didn't buy
the donuts on the way to work, or planned to
buy them on the way, or I didn't order them.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I didn't do it.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
I don't want them. So don't eat the look donuts
in the lunch room. Right anyway, So the thing I
have to say in my mind all the time, don't
eat it because it's free. That's not a good enough reason, right. Anyway,
I was reading this thing about the woman a sphere,
you know, the manosphere that they claim exists and is powerful.
Maybe it is, I don't know, with your Joe Rogan's
(17:42):
and your Theovon's and your the Tate Brothers and all
these different things that they claim to the manister somebody,
they're trying to get this thing going at that there's
a woman o sphere out there that is catching hold.
Maybe there is, Maybe there is, no, I don't know.
Maybe we can talk about that later.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
I don't know. New York debate last night for Mayor.
Speaker 5 (18:01):
I can summarize it for you, and we got a
pretty good clip from it. Momdanni is good. Cuomo sucks
and is a criminal. Uh, that's why they're going to
end up with a communist mayor in that town. But
we'll play that for you.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
Coming up, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (18:20):
Blacko down a satellite cut and sign to stop at
the six's. Higgins brilliant, just brilliant. Could have got in,
but this way he stops the clock. One thirty seven
courses Pittsburgh to use its timeouts and sets. It could
be a game winning field goal.
Speaker 5 (18:39):
A couple of forty year old quarterbacks looking like they
were in their Super Bowl winning heydays last night in
a shootout that they called an instant classic. I wish
I had seen the game because it looked very exciting.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Those guys get hurt, what do you go? It's like
fifty year old guys just moving up the ladder. Is
in the NFL, just too many injuries, right they did?
Speaker 5 (18:59):
I think this the just start happening more often as
the NFL has become a the last three minutes lots
happens league where you can't score too early. The Chiefs
did this a week or so ago. You scored your
touchdown your big fourth quarter drive which used to work.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
But now the other team's always gonna.
Speaker 5 (19:20):
Score if they got like a minute left, so you
need to drag your heels. And they did that last night.
The Bengals guy was gonna run in for a touchdown.
He laid down to eat up time so that you
couldn't let the other team march down the field. It's
I think the strategy's gonna have to change, partially because
of what you said, because guys can kick fifty five
yard field goals.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
You don't have to get that far down the field.
Oh and more. Yeah, fifty five's like you ought to
make this.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're expected to anyway. That's fun. I'm
glad I did not watch the New York mayoral debate
last night. I don't live in New York. I hate
the emphasis mainstream media puts on everything New York. I
do think it's a big deal that a guy it's
practically a communist and anti semidi the sycologic.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Extremist or supremacist. I should say the anti Semite parts
completely true.
Speaker 5 (20:11):
The communist is like, you know, you could quit, but
he's close enough it's probably going to be the next mayor.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
So they had their debate last night.
Speaker 5 (20:18):
It was him up there against Andrew Cuomo, which just
a quick reminder in case you don't remember, he was
the governor of New York during the pandemic. He forced
old people into old folks homes, killed a whole bunch
of people, lied about it, destroyed evidence to try to
cover it up, and groped female staff.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
He's all kinds of an awful human being. He's on
the stage as a communist, he's on stagon, Donnie.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
And then he got this other guy, Curtis Leeva, who
you're not going to hear his voice. I just took
in the post game coverage. It was a Mark Alprin
with the New York Post combined YouTube video last night.
I watched like a half hour of it, and they
said this was the most boring debate I've ever seen.
It was two hours along with three candidates, which is
way too long with only three people on stage, and
(21:04):
they all talked about how they were scrolling their phones
and shopping on Amazon halfway through, and they get paid
to pay attention, so they didn't think anybody else was
paying attention.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Nothing was learned, nothing was changed, so so you know,
it's great.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
So you didn't miss anything, and so we're not going
to waste oart time on a whole bunch of highlights.
But I've heard people regularly talk about how good Mamdanni
is just a good speaker, charismatic and is good in
that Trump sort of way or Barack Obama sort of way,
like getting the things quickly. And I think this is
a fairly good example here where Andrew Cuomo is going
(21:40):
to try to do the whole he's inexperienced. Fang In
Mandani's reply was pretty clever.
Speaker 8 (21:47):
In other words, what the assemblyman said is he has
no experience, and this is not a job for someone
who has no management experience to run three hundred thousand people,
no financial experience to run one hundred and fifteen billion
dollar budget.
Speaker 9 (21:59):
He literally never had a job. On his resume it
says he interned for his mother. Uh, this is not
a job for a first timer. Any day. You gotta
have a hurricane and you God forbid a nine to eleven,
a health pandemic.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
If you don't know what.
Speaker 7 (22:15):
Are you doing?
Speaker 10 (22:16):
People have to do so, Mom, Donnel, I want to respond.
And if we have a health pandemic, then why would
New Yorkers turn back to the governor who sent seniors
to their death and nursing homes. That's the kind of
experience that's on offer here today. What I don't have
an experience, I make up for an integrity, And what
you don't have an integrity, you could never make up
for an experience.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
I thought that was pretty good. Yeah, it's not really
a satisfactory answer, but it's clever as hell. Yeah.
Speaker 11 (22:39):
Well, and if i'm Coel moost people, I'm like, you, idiot,
how many times have we told you don't bring up
the affing pandemic? No kidding, no kidding, shame honey.
Speaker 5 (22:54):
Not only did you make an incredibly unwise decision that
killed people, but some people could give you a pass
for that.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
You know, you get it.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Makes quick decisions and you're doing your best with the
information you had at the time something. But then you
destroyed evidence to try to hide any investigation.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
You're a crook.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
So don't bring up the pandemic, you moron. It's like
Joe Biden running for re election bringing up and then
we had urk withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Yeah that was great. I read a quote from some
prominent New Yorker who said Andrew Cuomo would be a
terrible mayor, but next to ma'm donnie would be Winston Churchill.
There are a lot of New Yorkers who just hate
the idea of Mamdannie running the city. And well, I
(23:46):
still say it will lead to the sort of things
that thoroughly discredit progressives. I hope you're right. I hope
you're right.
Speaker 5 (23:54):
The only other thing always there was Douglas Murray, who
we like, was making the argument the other day that
that might not be true, that it just discredits socialism
because you got a young left leaning crowd there that
might just continue to double down on the Well, it
hasn't been implemented enough, you know, for a for cycle
(24:14):
after cycle and do a real lot of damage.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
We just taxed the rich two percent. It ought to
be ten more, you know, we ought to take seventy
five percent of what they may Yeah, sure that you
can keep doubling down. The only other thought I had,
in reading various recaps of the debate was that Mundani
Mamdani or run Mandani. Yeah, that's actually that's actually wrong. Letitia,
(24:41):
you jackass. And the uh that he disavowed his long
held defund the police stuff. Two days after refusing to
answer Martha McCallum's question about whether Hamas should lay down
their arms, he finally said, of course, that's what a
ceasefire is. Ever anyone needs to lay down their arms.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
And I'm reminded once again of you know what I've
harped on a couple of times today, Marxists just lie.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
They lie overtly and blatantly.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
A conversation, a debate is not a way of getting
to the truth. It's a forum for manipulation. They lie routinely.
One of Mark Alprin's questions was pretty funny last night.
So they went to a viewer calls and there was
a young guy in there saying that I he leaned
Mundami whatever his name is for uh, just because he
(25:38):
was hitting on some of the issues. He cared about
prices and all that sort of stuff. And Alprin's reply was,
how do you feel about having a mayor who just
nine years ago wasn't old enough to rent a car?
Which is pretty funny. Well, the guy's never had a
real job. Yeah, that should be a pointed out more often.
(25:59):
Your resid your only job, as you work for your
mom once.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Wow. Yeah, that's so weak.
Speaker 12 (26:07):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (26:07):
And New York's gonna experiment with that. And he's got
like a twenty point lead, so I mean it's not
even close.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
That's wild.
Speaker 5 (26:14):
And the Republicans are going to do their best to
hang the Democratic Party nationally around this guy's neck, the
same way they tried to do that fairly successfully with
Nancy Pelosi for many years.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Well, Nancy Pelosi is is dead and gone relevance wise.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
Do we have that?
Speaker 2 (26:32):
Do we have a Nancy Pelosi clip today? I hear
the visual way. The visual is the key to my mind. Yeah,
but she just turns around and screeches, shut up at us.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
She should have I wish, I wish every time I
see Nancy Pelosi. I don't think she drives me crazy.
I think, why don't we have her Republican as good
as her? That's what I think every time, especially.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
In her prime. Yeah. But anyway, Nancy Pelosi is dead
and gone in terms of like visible leadership of the party,
and it's now AOC and Bernie. You hear Republicans saying
that all the time. And if they could add the
curly that is Mum Donnie to the MOE and Larry,
that is AOC and Bernie and I think that that
(27:16):
will work very well.
Speaker 5 (27:17):
But the interim is going to be really interesting. I'll
move off inside California politics after this. But did you
hear who's going to run for Nancy Beluci's seat? Scott
Wiener And so people, those of you nationally, you don't
know who Scott Wiener is. He is a crack pot, adberant,
(27:38):
sexual guy, like so far out there on.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
Every issue you can't even imagine so.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
And boy loves fine drag, queen kindergarten, just you know,
legalizing teenage prostitution, and so I kind of hope he
ends up in Congress to discredit those views and make
them more well known.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Oh that reminds me. I know you said we're going
to move on from state politics, whether New York or
I guess that was city politics.
Speaker 5 (28:04):
But uh, how about next hour? You remember Katie Porter
get out of my thing shot. That's that's angry bitter
ball of hatred. Anyway, one of the gals who intends
to step up and grab the baton from her and
(28:27):
become become the governor has decided to raise her profile.
She was on Piers Morgan the other day went poorly,
very poorly. Well, feature that for you in hour four. Okay,
saw a story yesterday. Maybe we can get to that
coming up. Counting homeless in Los Angeles, they weren't even
close in counting, according to one activist group because of
(28:51):
this wild criteria they used, you know, to fudge the numbers.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Pretty interesting, among other things. On the way stay.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Here asleep, and the doorbell.
Speaker 12 (29:03):
Rang I answered the door and opened the door, and
there was a guy standing here and he was stark
thinking through a pot of plant through my truck window
and tore the lights off the front of the house.
Speaker 13 (29:13):
He pulled this screen out, laid it down, attempted to
get the window open, we guess, and couldn't. So then
he goes back here, grabbed an axe, and came back
onto the back porch.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
We don't know why he didn't use it.
Speaker 13 (29:28):
We see him open up the fridge, grab a bottle
of beer and a can of soda.
Speaker 5 (29:33):
You know, the fact that the guy is naked and
terrorizing the neighborhood is really kind of just a interesting
side note. I mean, if his sartorial excellence was, you know,
in the top one percent, you still come on my
back porch with an axe and start breaking out my door.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
I still don't like it. So a couple of the
neighbors pointed out, we're all Second Amendment here in Penelas Park.
We will shoot you. Lucky we didn't wake up. Wow,
a guy looks exactly like you'd think scabby, drug addict, loser. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:07):
Yeah, it's which we got to figure out a thing
to deal with, which brings me to this. This is
from the La Times yesterday. The LA homeless count misses
people who aren't intense or cars. According to a new
Rand study, it's well known that eighty six percent of
statistics are worthless. And the older I get, the more
(30:29):
I believe that, just because everybody's always got an agenda
and a reason to come up with a way to
count things that benefit them. And then this, in a
lot of cases, there's an advantage to counting coming up
with a higher number of homeless people because you're trying
to get funding. But sometimes politically you're trying to come
up with the lower numbers so that there's not so
(30:50):
much pressure to do something about your problem. And in
this case, for whatever reason, they were counting homeless people
in LA but they didn't count people who are what
they call living rough. According to the rand, people living
rough means you're not in a car or a tent,
you're just on the street. Well, that's a lot of people.
And so nearly a third of the homeless people that
(31:11):
haven't been getting counted any of the numbers that they
throw out. So whenever you hear a number in LA
or lots of cities probably and you think, man, it
sure seems like there's a lot more people than that.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
There are a lot more people than that. Anything that
undercounts anything by a third is not a thing worth doing. Correct.
Speaker 5 (31:28):
And also, you don't count the people living rough. Those
are the people that are affecting my quality of life
the most. The guy who's got a car park somewhere
and living in it technically homeless.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
We got to figure out whether we should do something
about that or not.
Speaker 5 (31:40):
But he's not scaring my kids or getting in my
way going to the ATM or whatever. So you're not
counting the people we care most about odd living rough.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
And again in the state of cal Unicornia, not only
do they not have any idea how effective the billions
of dollars they've thrown out the problem are do you
even have a means for finding out?
Speaker 5 (32:02):
Haw I hope Gavin Newsom is already practicing his answer
to that one, because somebody's gonna hit him with half
of the homeless people in America live in your state.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
What's the deal? He needs to come up with an
answer for that. He needs to have Abraham Lincoln and
Shakespeare co write his answer, because it's going to have
to be really, really good. So, speaking of the left,
the clowning itself, this is one of my favorite examples
of this sort of thing I've come up with in
recent days. Christian Schneider in the National Review.
Speaker 5 (32:32):
You know the whole A non deaf person shouldn't portray
a deaf person in a movie, right, Or a person
who's hispanic must portray your hispanic character. And it's even
gone so far as you can't have a straight person
play a gay person.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
I mean that's exactly yeah, absolutely true. Oh, for God's sake,
hang on a second, is this it? Oh my god, sorry,
stupid website that doesn't keep me signed in? Okay, there
it is, there we go. Okay.
Speaker 5 (33:09):
So, in twenty twenty three, San Diego County Libraries was
gonna had invited author and actress and Ed Hubbell to
perform a few selections from her book Woman Warriors, which
tells the story of female heroes throughout history.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
Okay, that's good stuff.
Speaker 5 (33:27):
It's it's also you know, sympathetic to the left stuff.
But weeks before her performance, she was informed she needed
to remove two black historical figures, Harriet Tubman and Mary
mclaud Bethune from the show. What because Hubble is white?
So you can't tell the stories including quotes from those
(33:49):
women as a white woman, because it would be weird
to have a white woman doing a black woman's words.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Quote. The branch manager said, our administration was uncomfortable with
you performing a black character as the white woman, and
asked her to replace these women with white historical figures.
This is the wall cleft insisting on that, Miss Hubble.
Miss Hubble, to her credit, said I'm not going to
just pay tribute to white women. So the library canceled
(34:17):
the performance altogether.
Speaker 5 (34:18):
Oh my god, you people are so crazy.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
I know. Hubble filed lawsuit against the library, arguing its
decision to kill the show solely because of her race.
Violet in the fourteenth Amendment of the Civil Rights act
yet time.
Speaker 5 (34:32):
I don't know what the particular law involved in here is,
but can't there be some sort of blanket you're nuts statute?
Speaker 2 (34:38):
You're nuts.
Speaker 5 (34:39):
You're not going to honor Harriet Tubman, who people have
you talked about how to be on the twenty dollars bill?
Speaker 2 (34:44):
Right?
Speaker 5 (34:45):
And only have white people because she's white? You don't
You don't understand how you're doing your your side more
harm than good?
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Here? Are you very insane? They're cultists? Yeah, such barriers
are still erected movies and plays across America. Paul Thomas
Anderson's recent film One Battle after Another features a full
sleigh to black women in challenging, complicated roles, the types
of characters Hollywood has lacked for nearly its entire history.
Yet Anderson, who wrote the film, is being criticized for
his quote hyper sexualization of the women and his fetishized
(35:12):
depiction of interracial relationships. By the way, Anderson, who is white,
is famously in a long term relationship with biracial actress
and comedian Maya Rudolph, with whom he has four children.
I didn't know Maya Rudolph was his wife his forever anyway.
In Island so and in the original novel, the women
(35:34):
are white, but he thought, I'm going to put black
women in the movie. I think it would be more
interesting and give black women roles. And he's being now
condemned for that. So, according to the Racial Bean Counters,
America could be better off had an influential white filmmaker
like Paul Thomas Anderson refused to fight for more black
representation in his films. Get It, I get it. Oh
(35:54):
my gosh, there's that is best. Why we don't have
time easy?
Speaker 5 (35:57):
Well, you got to bring it back up an hour
four because that what interesting. Them eating themselves nutjob story,
this year's Tony Award winner for Best Musical a perfect
example of what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (36:11):
These people are insane. Their cultists don't listen to them.
Speaker 5 (36:14):
If you don't get this our four, subscribe to our
podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand
Speaker 2 (36:24):
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):
I'm Strong and Getty and Pee Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
And in the state of Louisiana, that analysis was conducted
in the narn case and it was clear that regardless
of party, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates,
whether they were Democrats or not. And we know that
there is such a significant chasm between how black and
white voters vote in Louisiana that there's no question that
(00:47):
even if there is some correlation between race and party,
that race is the driving factor.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
What's that that is a representative from the naac P
arguing in a recent Supreme Court case to continue racism
in the name of ending racism, specifically race specific redrawing
of congressional districts one of the important cases in front
of the Supreme Court. This decision this session rather super
(01:15):
interesting group of cases and what a great opportunity this
is around here at the Armstrong and Getty Show. We
love the Pacific Legal Foundation that has for decades now
fought for individual liberty in the United States. And Anastasia
Boden is a civil rights attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation,
focusing on economic opportunity and equality for the law before
the law, including a lot of great stuff I'd like
(01:36):
to talk about, but I don't want to take the time. Anastasia,
how are you welcome doing well?
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Oh, it's our pleasure. So I've come up with a
truly innovative plan. Let's talk about the cases they've already
talked about this session, then moved to the cases they
haven't talked about yet. So okay. The first one that
really got my attention was Child versus Salazar. That bans
what they the attorneys kept referring to as conversion therapy,
(02:08):
when in my opinion, it was just counselors helping kids
who are confused about their gender sort it out. How
did that go?
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, well, it's interesting because notice that term conversion therapy
is a one way ratchet. If someone wants therapy to
affirm that they are straight, it's considered it's actually considered
conversion therapy. But if you wanted to say, hey, I'm queer,
but I want you to affirm that, that's considered affirmation.
(02:40):
So it's only if you want to affirm your straight
that it's that it's considered conversion, which means.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
This is a viewpoint. It's a viewpoint based band speech.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, yeah, it absolutely is. I was going to say.
The more blatant and obvious example is if I'm a
boy who wants to become a girl, that's affirmation and
totally legal. If I'm a boy who wants to stay
a boy, that's called conversion therapy. What's being converted exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
It's totally dishonest, it is, And the state, I think
knows that if the court considers this a ban on speech,
which it obviously is, it's gonna lose.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
The state can't ban one viewpoint on speech.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
So it's come up with this novel argument that no,
it's not banning speech, it's banning medical treatment, which it
considers conduct. Because when conduct is that issue, then courts
are far more deferential.
Speaker 4 (03:35):
To the legislature. So this whole.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Argument sort of circled around whether conversion therapy is speech
or or medical conduct, meaning that the state has a
lot more leeway and regulating it.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
So and it's entirely talk therapy they were talking about.
So it's it's almost a ridiculous question to me. But
I know it's hard to interpret how the oral arguments
went and that sort of thing. We've heard that one
hundred times. But how do you think the oral arguments went?
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Well, I think the plane off here is absolutely going
to win. And for me, that's because there was one
jaw dropping moment in the oral argument where the state
had to admit that if this were the nineteen seventies,
when attitudes towards queer people were a lot different and
you know, more anti and antiquated.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
Just Leo asked, could the state have.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Banned therapy affirming that you're queer? On the prevailing theory
back then that people with those feelings were experiencing mental illness.
That was the prevailing you know idea at that time.
Of course, we've gone beyond that now we don't believe
that anymore. But at that time, that was the prevailing
medical consensus. And Justice Leo says, hey, if that was
(04:51):
the consensus, could they have banned that type of therapy
affirming homosexuality in the nineteen seventies, And the government they
have to lean into this, They have to say yes,
they have to say that whatever the prevailing medical consensus
means that they can ban.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
What's outside of that consensus?
Speaker 1 (05:05):
And I think when you admit as the government that
back in the nineteen seventies you could affirm therapy, affirming
homosexuality on the theory that those people have a mental condition,
I think at that point you've lost.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
No justice is gonna uphold the law after that.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
Yeah, some of my favorite pundits have said if it's
they're only gonna be disappointed if it's not nine to nothing.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
That's because it should be right right right now. I
could Justice.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Jackson was really really skeptical. She was the only hold
out here in my opini.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
Can we boot her off? The quarters are a way
to do that? Is there a constitutional way to just
eliminate her? And a eight person court? I could talk
about this stuff all day long, but we need to
move along because of the limited time.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Louisiana versus Calais on the Voting Rights Act thing, Can
you explain for Layman real quickly the tension between the
fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Yes, So, the fourteenth and fifteenth eighteen, fourteenth and fifteenth
Amendments were passed in the wake of the Civil War
to guarantee the rights of recently freed slaves. But also,
you know, these amdments were written broadly to protect all people.
So those amendments get rid of slavery, they protect the
(06:17):
rights of everyone, and then they also say that states
shall not deprive people of the right to vote. But
of course, even after those amendments were passed, states continued
passing laws that burdened people's right to vote, and in
particular Black Americans right to vote. So you know, the
traditional things we all think of in history, like poll
taxes and these things that were meant to sort of
(06:38):
subtly depress the black vote. So after that, Congress goes
ahead and passes the Voting Rights Act, which is intended
to be a stronger enforcement tool, stronger de terrantive states
to stop suppressing.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
The black vote.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
But over time that Act has been interpreted pretty liberally
to not just prohibit outright voter suppression, but things like
what the government calls vote dilution. So this is when
an election system, usually through drawing district lines, you know, redistricting,
(07:12):
diminishes the ability of minority voters to elect candidates and.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
I quote of their choice.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
And notice this language here, Oh, minority voters can't elect
the candidates of their choice, which is a really odd
thing to say, because usually when we think about equal protection,
we think of it in terms of protecting individual rights
and the right of people to be free of stereotypes.
And yet here baked into.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
This whole system is the idea.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
That racial groups think alike, vote alike, have the same preferences,
and therefore must have a majority district so they can
get their candidate. So it's a very racist way to
think about voting in the names of equal protection.
Speaker 5 (07:51):
Well, I've always said that as a white male, we're
the only group that is looked at as getting to
just make decisions based on who we think would be
the best person. Every other group other than white males,
you're kind of supposedly beholden to your gender or race
or whatever you're.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Supprit and you and the only thing you would ever
do is vote for one of yours, because we know
people like you well. And the super simplified version answer
to the question I asked is the Constitution says you've
got to treat everybody equally, and the Voting Rights Act
says you got to look super carefully at race and
who's what color and where how they might vote and
(08:28):
where they live and the rest of it as opposed
to a colorblind society. But it'll be interesting to see
how that comes out. A couple of big cases coming up.
What's uh, what do you think is the most impactful
or important one that they're about to hear?
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Anastasia, Oh, this is a great question, because this is
actually a really big term. And I love when the
Supreme Court's back in session, a couple can't you're free? Yeah, okay, yeah,
this is because this is our chance, you know, when
the court's back in session, to claw back our rights
effectively from overreaching government. So the Court's going to hear
a really interesting involving home equity theft. This is the
(09:02):
practice where if you owe even a few dollars. We
had a case at PLF here where somebody by mistake
owed eight dollars on their tax bill, and so the
government seizes your house in order to recoup those funds,
and it keeps not just the eight dollars, but everything
from the proceeds of the sale of your house.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Oh my god.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Yeah, it's horrifying, it's absolutely horrifying. And you know, fortunately
actually PLF got rid of that practice at the Supreme
Court a few years ago when the court deemed it unconstitutional.
But states are going to stay and they're really recalcitrant
about this, and they find ways to sort of evade
what the constitution demands. So in this case that's now
(09:43):
before the Supreme Court, this term a family. Effectively, they
argue that.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
They never owed money at all. It's pretty clear that
they didn't.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
But the government said that they had improperly claimed some
tax credit for their home, and so they ended up
owing that money back retroactively, and before they can kind
of of litigated out, the government seizes their house, sells
it doesn't even give them proper notice, they don't even
really have the time to fight it, and then tries
to keep everything right. And of course PLS won the case.
(10:12):
So now, okay, the family's entitled to get their money back.
We want a separate case entitling this family to their
money back. But what the government did was, even though
itself had assessed that house at two hundred thousand dollars,
made the family pay taxes at a value of two
hundred thousand dollars, it sold the house for seventy six
(10:33):
thousand dollars at auction.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
That investor. Yeah. Crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
That investor turns around the next week or month sells it.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
For two hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
So there's no doubt this house is worth two hundred
thousand dollars. But the question is what is that family
owed because they're owed the excess above their alleged tax efficiency, right,
And the government says, well, we sold it for seventy
six thousand dollars.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
You owed two thousand dollars, so we owe you just
seventy four thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
And the family says, no, our hole has worth two
hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
All right, suits have.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
To one hundred and ninety eight thousand, of course.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, the soups have to get rid of that. Oh
my god, that's that's outrageous and rapacious. Anastasia boden Is
with a Pacific Legal foundation. We've just got like one
more minute. Can you give us thoughts on the upcoming
banning transgender athletes in sports case, because around here we
don't care what you do as an adult. You have
the right to live present however you want and it's
(11:31):
none of my business, but leave the kids alone. And
I'm a pretty firm believer in preserving girls and women's
spaces and sports. What are the soups being asked here, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
They're being asked to consider a couple of states bans
on trenngender athletes and single sex sports and schools. And
why do those bands violate the Civil Rights Act or
the Equal Protection Clause. And it's really interesting because in
past cases, in previous terms, the courts, you know, in
some cases at least said that those laws protect the
individual rights of trans people to not be discriminated against.
(12:06):
But here those rights are, as you said, bumping up
against the rights of women in sports with the Civil
Rights Laws.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
Title NIND was passed specifically to.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Protect those women's rights to compete fairly. And so it's
going to be interesting to see what the court does
when these purported rights of individual trans people are depriving
women of the very rights that the Civil Rights Act
was intended to protect.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Anastasia Boden is, a civil rights attorney at the Pacific
Legal Foundation. Really enjoyed the chat Onastasia. I hope we
can do it again.
Speaker 4 (12:41):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Absolutely our pleasure. Jack follow up quickly or don't.
Speaker 5 (12:48):
The decision on that transsports thing is going to be
huge if it goes the wrong way.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Especially, Oh it's an opening shutcase. My god. Ho Title
nine can't exist unless there are men and there are women. Otherwise,
why is it there?
Speaker 5 (13:04):
Good Lord, word from our friends that simply save Home Security?
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Holy cow? Is this better than the old systems. It's
AI powered cameras identifying someone lurking around your home and
alerting simply safe professional monitoring agents who can take action immediately,
confront the criminal, trigger sirens, spotlights, dispatch the police, and
kill the interloper with a ray gun. All right, That
last part's my personal fantasy. But they can do all
(13:29):
that other stuff. I like that.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
They can talk to the person. Hey, captain Lerco, what
are you doing out there?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
We can see you.
Speaker 5 (13:34):
Then they get a job, junkie boy. They probably scamper off,
which is good. Then they didn't break into your house.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
My favorite line, what are your grandparents think of you
in your life right now?
Speaker 6 (13:43):
Huh?
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Why don't you think about that, you jackass? Anyway, simply hey,
simply Save Home Security is amazing. Sixty day money back guarantee,
no long term contracts. Simply Safe earns your business every
single day, keeps you and your stuff and your loved
ones safe and right now, our listeners can say fifty
on a simply safe home security system, it's simply safe.
Dot com slash armstrong. That's simply safe dot com slash armstrong.
(14:07):
There's no safe like simply safe. Trump threatened to kill
Hamas again yesterday. We will kill Hamas. We could talk
about that and a whole bunch of other stuff. We'll
get to this hour. Stick around arm Strong.
Speaker 7 (14:18):
And in order to turn hot dogs into delicious alcohol,
I needed a way to extract the hot dog flavor
into something fermentable. Once I had a concentrated pot of
hot dog water, it was time to sterilize it with
a pressure cooker. And our hot dog water can be
used as a base for a meat. I started with
a few pounds of honey, enough to supply enough sugar
hit sixteen percent alcohol. All that was left to do
is at our yeast and let this hot dog you
(14:39):
mix ferment for thirty days. Now, all that's left to
do is have a taste. You could collect the liquid
that's at the bottom of the garbage bin at a
baseball game.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
That is what we're drinking. Right. If you've ever wondered
how to use hot dogs to make alcohol. Now you
know the hot dog water after you make hot dogs
OILM what is the scenario I find myself in whereby
(15:07):
I have hot dogs, I want to get my buzz on,
but I have no alcohol nor means to get it.
All I have are hot dogs, honey apparently, and thirty
days to wait and problems I need to forget. Yes,
I gotta believe it tastes really horrible. You can make
(15:31):
booze out of really practically anything, right, which is I
guess kind of the point there. So yeah, I think
I'll pass thing. Oh god, I was just reading.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
I worked all my life so I don't have to
eat fermented or drink fermented hot dog water. Right right
at the grocery store. We're at the grocery store last night.
We're leaving the mercado. It's called near my home, say
Mexican grocery store. Anyway, the owner there, super nice guy,
very friendly, always welcomes us. And every time I go
in there, and we're leaving this kind of later at night,
(16:02):
and he said, hey, you want a couple of these.
I was gonna throw them away, but better to give
them to you. And throw away and it was ice
big giant mint chocolate chip ice cream sandwiches. No Oreo
mint chocolate chip ice cream sandwiches, which looked fantastic, But
so my son was gonna eat one, and I said,
I'll take this one to Henry and he said, you
(16:23):
don't want it. I said, no, it's not. It's not
the lack of money that's keeping me from eating Oreo
mince chocolate ice cream sandwiches. Like the fact that he
said it was free. Yeah, that is not the really
the defining factor for me. On the other hand, you're
the greatest treat scavenger I've ever known, between Freebee Donuts
(16:44):
at the end of the day and giant ice cream
sandwiches from the local mercado. Good gracious, you make the rounds.
It's a six forty five every night, don't you. But
I got to say this out loud to convince myself
because we've all done it many, many times. You you
know you're trying to eat well, you had no intention
of eating crap, but somebody brought crap to work, and
then you eat it because it's there and it's free.
(17:06):
I mean, unless you're really on hard times, the difference
between having three donuts this morning and not is not
the price. You didn't think it was a good idea
in the first place, right, It's why I didn't buy
the donuts on the way to work, or planned to
buy them on the way, or I didn't order them.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I didn't do it.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
I don't want them. So don't eat the look donuts
in the lunch room. Right anyway, So the thing I
have to say in my mind all the time, don't
eat it because it's free. That's not a good enough reason, right. Anyway,
I was reading this thing about the woman a sphere,
you know, the manosphere that they claim exists and is powerful.
Maybe it is, I don't know, with your Joe Rogan's
(17:42):
and your Theovon's and your the Tate Brothers and all
these different things that they claim to the manister somebody,
they're trying to get this thing going at that there's
a woman o sphere out there that is catching hold.
Maybe there is, Maybe there is, no, I don't know.
Maybe we can talk about that later.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
I don't know. New York debate last night for Mayor.
Speaker 5 (18:01):
I can summarize it for you, and we got a
pretty good clip from it. Momdanni is good. Cuomo sucks
and is a criminal. Uh, that's why they're going to
end up with a communist mayor in that town. But
we'll play that for you.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
Coming up, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (18:20):
Blacko down a satellite cut and sign to stop at
the six's. Higgins brilliant, just brilliant. Could have got in,
but this way he stops the clock. One thirty seven
courses Pittsburgh to use its timeouts and sets. It could
be a game winning field goal.
Speaker 5 (18:39):
A couple of forty year old quarterbacks looking like they
were in their Super Bowl winning heydays last night in
a shootout that they called an instant classic. I wish
I had seen the game because it looked very exciting.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Those guys get hurt, what do you go? It's like
fifty year old guys just moving up the ladder. Is
in the NFL, just too many injuries, right they did?
Speaker 5 (18:59):
I think this the just start happening more often as
the NFL has become a the last three minutes lots
happens league where you can't score too early. The Chiefs
did this a week or so ago. You scored your
touchdown your big fourth quarter drive which used to work.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
But now the other team's always gonna.
Speaker 5 (19:20):
Score if they got like a minute left, so you
need to drag your heels. And they did that last night.
The Bengals guy was gonna run in for a touchdown.
He laid down to eat up time so that you
couldn't let the other team march down the field. It's
I think the strategy's gonna have to change, partially because
of what you said, because guys can kick fifty five
yard field goals.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
You don't have to get that far down the field.
Oh and more. Yeah, fifty five's like you ought to
make this.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're expected to anyway. That's fun. I'm
glad I did not watch the New York mayoral debate
last night. I don't live in New York. I hate
the emphasis mainstream media puts on everything New York. I
do think it's a big deal that a guy it's
practically a communist and anti semidi the sycologic.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Extremist or supremacist. I should say the anti Semite parts
completely true.
Speaker 5 (20:11):
The communist is like, you know, you could quit, but
he's close enough it's probably going to be the next mayor.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
So they had their debate last night.
Speaker 5 (20:18):
It was him up there against Andrew Cuomo, which just
a quick reminder in case you don't remember, he was
the governor of New York during the pandemic. He forced
old people into old folks homes, killed a whole bunch
of people, lied about it, destroyed evidence to try to
cover it up, and groped female staff.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
He's all kinds of an awful human being. He's on
the stage as a communist, he's on stagon, Donnie.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
And then he got this other guy, Curtis Leeva, who
you're not going to hear his voice. I just took
in the post game coverage. It was a Mark Alprin
with the New York Post combined YouTube video last night.
I watched like a half hour of it, and they
said this was the most boring debate I've ever seen.
It was two hours along with three candidates, which is
way too long with only three people on stage, and
(21:04):
they all talked about how they were scrolling their phones
and shopping on Amazon halfway through, and they get paid
to pay attention, so they didn't think anybody else was
paying attention.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Nothing was learned, nothing was changed, so so you know,
it's great.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
So you didn't miss anything, and so we're not going
to waste oart time on a whole bunch of highlights.
But I've heard people regularly talk about how good Mamdanni
is just a good speaker, charismatic and is good in
that Trump sort of way or Barack Obama sort of way,
like getting the things quickly. And I think this is
a fairly good example here where Andrew Cuomo is going
(21:40):
to try to do the whole he's inexperienced. Fang In
Mandani's reply was pretty clever.
Speaker 8 (21:47):
In other words, what the assemblyman said is he has
no experience, and this is not a job for someone
who has no management experience to run three hundred thousand people,
no financial experience to run one hundred and fifteen billion
dollar budget.
Speaker 9 (21:59):
He literally never had a job. On his resume it
says he interned for his mother. Uh, this is not
a job for a first timer. Any day. You gotta
have a hurricane and you God forbid a nine to eleven,
a health pandemic.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
If you don't know what.
Speaker 7 (22:15):
Are you doing?
Speaker 10 (22:16):
People have to do so, Mom, Donnel, I want to respond.
And if we have a health pandemic, then why would
New Yorkers turn back to the governor who sent seniors
to their death and nursing homes. That's the kind of
experience that's on offer here today. What I don't have
an experience, I make up for an integrity, And what
you don't have an integrity, you could never make up
for an experience.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
I thought that was pretty good. Yeah, it's not really
a satisfactory answer, but it's clever as hell. Yeah.
Speaker 11 (22:39):
Well, and if i'm Coel moost people, I'm like, you, idiot,
how many times have we told you don't bring up
the affing pandemic? No kidding, no kidding, shame honey.
Speaker 5 (22:54):
Not only did you make an incredibly unwise decision that
killed people, but some people could give you a pass
for that.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
You know, you get it.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Makes quick decisions and you're doing your best with the
information you had at the time something. But then you
destroyed evidence to try to hide any investigation.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
You're a crook.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
So don't bring up the pandemic, you moron. It's like
Joe Biden running for re election bringing up and then
we had urk withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Yeah that was great. I read a quote from some
prominent New Yorker who said Andrew Cuomo would be a
terrible mayor, but next to ma'm donnie would be Winston Churchill.
There are a lot of New Yorkers who just hate
the idea of Mamdannie running the city. And well, I
(23:46):
still say it will lead to the sort of things
that thoroughly discredit progressives. I hope you're right. I hope
you're right.
Speaker 5 (23:54):
The only other thing always there was Douglas Murray, who
we like, was making the argument the other day that
that might not be true, that it just discredits socialism
because you got a young left leaning crowd there that
might just continue to double down on the Well, it
hasn't been implemented enough, you know, for a for cycle
(24:14):
after cycle and do a real lot of damage.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
We just taxed the rich two percent. It ought to
be ten more, you know, we ought to take seventy
five percent of what they may Yeah, sure that you
can keep doubling down. The only other thought I had,
in reading various recaps of the debate was that Mundani
Mamdani or run Mandani. Yeah, that's actually that's actually wrong. Letitia,
(24:41):
you jackass. And the uh that he disavowed his long
held defund the police stuff. Two days after refusing to
answer Martha McCallum's question about whether Hamas should lay down
their arms, he finally said, of course, that's what a
ceasefire is. Ever anyone needs to lay down their arms.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
And I'm reminded once again of you know what I've
harped on a couple of times today, Marxists just lie.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
They lie overtly and blatantly.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
A conversation, a debate is not a way of getting
to the truth. It's a forum for manipulation. They lie routinely.
One of Mark Alprin's questions was pretty funny last night.
So they went to a viewer calls and there was
a young guy in there saying that I he leaned
Mundami whatever his name is for uh, just because he
(25:38):
was hitting on some of the issues. He cared about
prices and all that sort of stuff. And Alprin's reply was,
how do you feel about having a mayor who just
nine years ago wasn't old enough to rent a car?
Which is pretty funny. Well, the guy's never had a
real job. Yeah, that should be a pointed out more often.
(25:59):
Your resid your only job, as you work for your
mom once.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Wow. Yeah, that's so weak.
Speaker 12 (26:07):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (26:07):
And New York's gonna experiment with that. And he's got
like a twenty point lead, so I mean it's not
even close.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
That's wild.
Speaker 5 (26:14):
And the Republicans are going to do their best to
hang the Democratic Party nationally around this guy's neck, the
same way they tried to do that fairly successfully with
Nancy Pelosi for many years.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Well, Nancy Pelosi is is dead and gone relevance wise.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
Do we have that?
Speaker 2 (26:32):
Do we have a Nancy Pelosi clip today? I hear
the visual way. The visual is the key to my mind. Yeah,
but she just turns around and screeches, shut up at us.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
She should have I wish, I wish every time I
see Nancy Pelosi. I don't think she drives me crazy.
I think, why don't we have her Republican as good
as her? That's what I think every time, especially.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
In her prime. Yeah. But anyway, Nancy Pelosi is dead
and gone in terms of like visible leadership of the party,
and it's now AOC and Bernie. You hear Republicans saying
that all the time. And if they could add the
curly that is Mum Donnie to the MOE and Larry,
that is AOC and Bernie and I think that that
(27:16):
will work very well.
Speaker 5 (27:17):
But the interim is going to be really interesting. I'll
move off inside California politics after this. But did you
hear who's going to run for Nancy Beluci's seat? Scott
Wiener And so people, those of you nationally, you don't
know who Scott Wiener is. He is a crack pot, adberant,
(27:38):
sexual guy, like so far out there on.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
Every issue you can't even imagine so.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
And boy loves fine drag, queen kindergarten, just you know,
legalizing teenage prostitution, and so I kind of hope he
ends up in Congress to discredit those views and make
them more well known.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Oh that reminds me. I know you said we're going
to move on from state politics, whether New York or
I guess that was city politics.
Speaker 5 (28:04):
But uh, how about next hour? You remember Katie Porter
get out of my thing shot. That's that's angry bitter
ball of hatred. Anyway, one of the gals who intends
to step up and grab the baton from her and
(28:27):
become become the governor has decided to raise her profile.
She was on Piers Morgan the other day went poorly,
very poorly. Well, feature that for you in hour four. Okay,
saw a story yesterday. Maybe we can get to that
coming up. Counting homeless in Los Angeles, they weren't even
close in counting, according to one activist group because of
(28:51):
this wild criteria they used, you know, to fudge the numbers.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Pretty interesting, among other things. On the way stay.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Here asleep, and the doorbell.
Speaker 12 (29:03):
Rang I answered the door and opened the door, and
there was a guy standing here and he was stark
thinking through a pot of plant through my truck window
and tore the lights off the front of the house.
Speaker 13 (29:13):
He pulled this screen out, laid it down, attempted to
get the window open, we guess, and couldn't. So then
he goes back here, grabbed an axe, and came back
onto the back porch.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
We don't know why he didn't use it.
Speaker 13 (29:28):
We see him open up the fridge, grab a bottle
of beer and a can of soda.
Speaker 5 (29:33):
You know, the fact that the guy is naked and
terrorizing the neighborhood is really kind of just a interesting
side note. I mean, if his sartorial excellence was, you know,
in the top one percent, you still come on my
back porch with an axe and start breaking out my door.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
I still don't like it. So a couple of the
neighbors pointed out, we're all Second Amendment here in Penelas Park.
We will shoot you. Lucky we didn't wake up. Wow,
a guy looks exactly like you'd think scabby, drug addict, loser. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:07):
Yeah, it's which we got to figure out a thing
to deal with, which brings me to this. This is
from the La Times yesterday. The LA homeless count misses
people who aren't intense or cars. According to a new
Rand study, it's well known that eighty six percent of
statistics are worthless. And the older I get, the more
(30:29):
I believe that, just because everybody's always got an agenda
and a reason to come up with a way to
count things that benefit them. And then this, in a
lot of cases, there's an advantage to counting coming up
with a higher number of homeless people because you're trying
to get funding. But sometimes politically you're trying to come
up with the lower numbers so that there's not so
(30:50):
much pressure to do something about your problem. And in
this case, for whatever reason, they were counting homeless people
in LA but they didn't count people who are what
they call living rough. According to the rand, people living
rough means you're not in a car or a tent,
you're just on the street. Well, that's a lot of people.
And so nearly a third of the homeless people that
(31:11):
haven't been getting counted any of the numbers that they
throw out. So whenever you hear a number in LA
or lots of cities probably and you think, man, it
sure seems like there's a lot more people than that.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
There are a lot more people than that. Anything that
undercounts anything by a third is not a thing worth doing. Correct.
Speaker 5 (31:28):
And also, you don't count the people living rough. Those
are the people that are affecting my quality of life
the most. The guy who's got a car park somewhere
and living in it technically homeless.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
We got to figure out whether we should do something
about that or not.
Speaker 5 (31:40):
But he's not scaring my kids or getting in my
way going to the ATM or whatever. So you're not
counting the people we care most about odd living rough.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
And again in the state of cal Unicornia, not only
do they not have any idea how effective the billions
of dollars they've thrown out the problem are do you
even have a means for finding out?
Speaker 5 (32:02):
Haw I hope Gavin Newsom is already practicing his answer
to that one, because somebody's gonna hit him with half
of the homeless people in America live in your state.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
What's the deal? He needs to come up with an
answer for that. He needs to have Abraham Lincoln and
Shakespeare co write his answer, because it's going to have
to be really, really good. So, speaking of the left,
the clowning itself, this is one of my favorite examples
of this sort of thing I've come up with in
recent days. Christian Schneider in the National Review.
Speaker 5 (32:32):
You know the whole A non deaf person shouldn't portray
a deaf person in a movie, right, Or a person
who's hispanic must portray your hispanic character. And it's even
gone so far as you can't have a straight person
play a gay person.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
I mean that's exactly yeah, absolutely true. Oh, for God's sake,
hang on a second, is this it? Oh my god, sorry,
stupid website that doesn't keep me signed in? Okay, there
it is, there we go. Okay.
Speaker 5 (33:09):
So, in twenty twenty three, San Diego County Libraries was
gonna had invited author and actress and Ed Hubbell to
perform a few selections from her book Woman Warriors, which
tells the story of female heroes throughout history.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
Okay, that's good stuff.
Speaker 5 (33:27):
It's it's also you know, sympathetic to the left stuff.
But weeks before her performance, she was informed she needed
to remove two black historical figures, Harriet Tubman and Mary
mclaud Bethune from the show. What because Hubble is white?
So you can't tell the stories including quotes from those
(33:49):
women as a white woman, because it would be weird
to have a white woman doing a black woman's words.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Quote. The branch manager said, our administration was uncomfortable with
you performing a black character as the white woman, and
asked her to replace these women with white historical figures.
This is the wall cleft insisting on that, Miss Hubble.
Miss Hubble, to her credit, said I'm not going to
just pay tribute to white women. So the library canceled
(34:17):
the performance altogether.
Speaker 5 (34:18):
Oh my god, you people are so crazy.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
I know. Hubble filed lawsuit against the library, arguing its
decision to kill the show solely because of her race.
Violet in the fourteenth Amendment of the Civil Rights act
yet time.
Speaker 5 (34:32):
I don't know what the particular law involved in here is,
but can't there be some sort of blanket you're nuts statute?
Speaker 2 (34:38):
You're nuts.
Speaker 5 (34:39):
You're not going to honor Harriet Tubman, who people have
you talked about how to be on the twenty dollars bill?
Speaker 2 (34:44):
Right?
Speaker 5 (34:45):
And only have white people because she's white? You don't
You don't understand how you're doing your your side more
harm than good?
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Here? Are you very insane? They're cultists? Yeah, such barriers
are still erected movies and plays across America. Paul Thomas
Anderson's recent film One Battle after Another features a full
sleigh to black women in challenging, complicated roles, the types
of characters Hollywood has lacked for nearly its entire history.
Yet Anderson, who wrote the film, is being criticized for
his quote hyper sexualization of the women and his fetishized
(35:12):
depiction of interracial relationships. By the way, Anderson, who is white,
is famously in a long term relationship with biracial actress
and comedian Maya Rudolph, with whom he has four children.
I didn't know Maya Rudolph was his wife his forever anyway.
In Island so and in the original novel, the women
(35:34):
are white, but he thought, I'm going to put black
women in the movie. I think it would be more
interesting and give black women roles. And he's being now
condemned for that. So, according to the Racial Bean Counters,
America could be better off had an influential white filmmaker
like Paul Thomas Anderson refused to fight for more black
representation in his films. Get It, I get it. Oh
(35:54):
my gosh, there's that is best. Why we don't have
time easy?
Speaker 5 (35:57):
Well, you got to bring it back up an hour
four because that what interesting. Them eating themselves nutjob story,
this year's Tony Award winner for Best Musical a perfect
example of what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (36:11):
These people are insane. Their cultists don't listen to them.
Speaker 5 (36:14):
If you don't get this our four, subscribe to our
podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand
Speaker 2 (36:24):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
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.