August 12, 2026 • 35 mins
Hour Three of A&G features...
- Our guest, Lanhee Chen, reacts to the primary results and what's ahead...
- El-Sayed understands the scam...
- Some charming moments with Sec. Marco Rubio & his wife...
- Joe reflects on his harsh words for a dead eagle.
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and he.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Armstrong and Jetty.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Coming up later in the show, a couple of intriguing
in not two terrifying stories about AI plus some gender
bending madness. But it's always a pleasure to talk to
lonhe chenln He is the David and Diane Stephi Fellow
in American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution and
the Director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Lon he Welcome, How are you.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Joe, A very good morning to you.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Also, among your credentials, you are a big Dodgers fan
and executive producer Mike Hanson is convinced the Dodgers are
not to be sold and fall apart financially.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
He would be completely wrong in that assumption.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Ah, everybody roots against the big dog. You have to
put up with it.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
So you know, in the words of the great was
it whoever it was that called the last game of
the World Series, you know, to beat the champ you
got to knock them out, and nobody's knocking out the Dodgers.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
This year they win three in a row.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
The revolution is coming from Major League Baseball, though the
proletariat pregan to rise up in the streets.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
All right, So let's talk to little politics.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
And you know, us getting too far in depth into
a primary election where four hundred and thirty two people
showed up to vote, and trying to extrapolate that to
some giant movement I think is just silly. But in
the recent primaries there have been some kind of intriguing result.
What do you think is the most significant one?
Speaker 4 (01:53):
Well, I still think it has to do with the
nationalization of our politics, Joe. And the reason that we
care about the Wisconsin governor's race or the Minnesota Senate race,
or races that otherwise probably wouldn't have a whole lot
of impact for people who don't live in those states,
is because of what it means for our national politics.
And I think, particularly on the left, if you look
(02:15):
at the energy behind a lot of the progressive democratic
socialist candidates, and I get it, not all of them
self identifies democratic socialists, but in my book, if you're
in favor of the government takeover of healthcare, you know
you're pretty much a socialist. And I think that that's
what we've seen from people like Abdul Sayid in Michigan,
(02:36):
or Francesca Hang and Wisconsin or others around those various
Midwestern states. And again the reason we care is because
of what it says about where the energy is in
the progressive movement and what these races tell us about
national Democratic party politics. So right now it does appear
to be with the far progressive left, and I think
that's the lesson. Even though you know, Democrats I think
(02:57):
dodged a bullet with Francesca Hong apparently losing last night,
I do think that they that's where the energy is,
and if you look around, you know that's where the
success has been. And I think it'll be very interesting
to see how much of that remains as we get
past the twenty six midterm cycle and start talking about
twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Right, the Francesca Hong thing, and this is the sort
of every man analysis, So you get here as opposed
to in Lanhi's world, if she hadn't been a half wit,
she'd a one. I mean, she lost by a fingernails.
She was an embarrassing candidate in a lot of ways.
She was the left version of some of those MAGA
candidates that were so terrible a couple of cycles ago.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
Yeah, well, she it was interesting that she and Mike
Lindell of my Pillow fame were in the you know,
sort of running on the same day basically and had
elections on the same day.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
And they're both caricatures.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
I think of whether it's the MAGA right or in
Francesca Hogg's case, the far progressive left.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
But you're absolutely right about Hong. If she had, you know, basically.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Gone underground for the last two weeks of her campaign,
she might have won.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Actually she would have.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
She would have been better off going underground than giving
the interviews she gave, because what the interviews exposed was
that the far left caricature in her case wasn't actually
a caricature.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
It was actually the truth. Right.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
I mean, you have somebody who's talked about, you know,
getting rid of Thanksgiving and you know again government takeover
of health care, you know, being totally comfortable with all
of the you know, sort of politics of twenty twenty,
as I like to think about it, the woke politics
of twenty twenty, being totally comfortable with all of that,
and the interviews just showed that she gave some disastrous interviews,
(04:39):
and you're absolutely right. If she was even a tick
better of a candidate, you know, she probably wins.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
That wins that election.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
So let's look next door at Minnesota. I was surprised
that the lieutenant governor, Penny Peggy Flanagan beat a pretty
solid centrist Democratic candidate, Angie Craig, because Minnesota become a
laughingstock essentially for their horrific levels of fraud per capita.
(05:07):
California will make them look like amateurs when all the
accounting has done, And she was sitting at Tim Walz's
side as all this was going on. You know, my
analysis is if you're a progressive and you blame everything
on either white people or capitalism or whatever, you never
look in the mirror. But I was surprised that the
(05:29):
lieutenant governor of such a scandal plague, I mean, Tim
Wawls was gonna run himself, but he couldn't because he's
so scandal plagued.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
I couldn't believe she won.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Well, again, we have to think about the where the
energy is in the Democratic Party, and I think particularly
in Minnesota, that was the center of a lot of
I mean, not just the fraud stuff, but you.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Know, all of the the.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Police involved shootings and all the things that we've seen
over the last couple of years. Minnesota was the epicenter
for that, and I think in some ways what it
did was to galvanize the left to move even farther left,
rather than trying to come back to the middle and
trying to say, look, how can we address some of
the challenges that have been created by the failed Walls administration.
(06:11):
Instead of that, they went further left. And actually, I'm
not surprised that Flanagan was able to win there because
I do think again, it's where the energy is, and
the movement in Minnesota was particularly acute because they sort
of see themselves, you know, with all due respect to California,
they sort of see themselves as the center of the
anti Trump resistance. And I think that's why that electric
(06:35):
moved even further left.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
So I want to talk about the Republicans in a second.
But how seriously do you take the prospect of Abdul
al said winning in Michigan, winning a United States Senate state.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
You know, I wouldn't underestimate the guy.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
I mean, if you look at his ability to articulate
a message in a very you know, I don't happen
to agree with the message, but I think that he
can articulate a message in in a pretty compelling way
to people who you know otherwise don't follow politics as closely.
Let's say, you know, I think that Mike Rogers, who
is the Republican Senate nominee in Michigan, is probably very
(07:14):
excited to run against Abdul Sae because of his positions. Particularly,
I think he's particularly vulnerable on his positions with respect
to taking away healthcare by replacing it with this government
run system.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
I do think that is a particular vulnerability for ol Saeed.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Not to mention his association with people like Ilhan Omar
and AOC who might be appealing again to the progressive left,
I don't think they're appealing to the vast majority of michiganers.
So I think Mike Rogers is definitely in a much
better position because he's running against al said. But I
would not underestimate the Democrat in that race, just because
(07:50):
you know, he's good on TV, and he's compelling and
knows how to articulate a message.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Well, Donnie ask in a lot of ways. I want
to talk maybe next segment after we bid you goodbye
on he about the whole Medicare for All and how
that's really fraud, how it will eliminate private insurance fraud.
It be covered so it's utterly fraudulent. We'll explain why
in a second, but let's take a look to the right.
Does the Republican Party have any idea what it is?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (08:16):
I mean, for all the challenges that the Democratic Party has,
I think that one of the challenges on the Republican
side is that, you know, we have, for the last
I don't know, as a movement, probably at least for
the last decade, certainly been a party that's been very
closely associated with a single person, and that's Donald Trump.
And I think the question becomes what does the party
(08:36):
and the movement look like as we start to think
ahead to twenty twenty eight and you know, when they'll
be a new set of candidates. And I think that's
a question that we've got to grapple with now. I've
always maintained that the movement, the Republican conservative movement, what
do you want to call it, is that its strongest
when we're thinking about a series of ideas about how
(08:57):
to improve people's lives. And what I worry about a
little bit is that we've fallen too much into the
politics of personality versus the politics of ideas. And I
would hope that whoever the next nominee is, whoever wants
to compete for that nomination. And I don't I don't
have a particular view on, you know, where that's headed,
but I'll just say that whoever does it, I really
hope that they focus on, you know, one of the
(09:18):
ideas that are going to make this movement durable for
the years to come. I mean that that's where I
think that the party needs to go.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Yeah, I'm a big Marco guy, which we'll be talking
about next half hour, I think.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
But you know, it's funny.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
I was just going to say, I heard recently that
the difference between a hack and a writer is a
hack writes what he thinks his audience wants to read,
and a writer writes what he actually feels and thinks.
And I was just going to ask you, and you
parsonally answered this. But and I have talk show host privilege.
I can spout high minded ideas and principles and quote
(09:52):
Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
But I never have to win an election.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Okay, you know, I'm not tasked with with winning election,
and if we don't, I lose my job.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
So it's easy to be high minded.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
But having said that, is the roadback for the Republican
Party to coherence and relevance and persuading people to come over.
Is it less about being a hack and more about
a set of ideas.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
I think hackery always ends badly.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Pandering always ends badly, although it'll always be a part
of politics.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Yeah, I mean, I think the best combination is ideally
you have great ideas and a great way of talking
about them. And you know, I mean, for all of
the the sort of discussion about Newt Gingrich in the nineties,
I mean this is like well before the time of
maybe some of your listeners. But if you go back
to the Contract with America, and you know, Newt had
(10:51):
a way of really talking about those ideas, and all
of those ideas were you know, sort of solid conservative
ideas if you will, but he would you know, he
managed to package them up and talk about them in
a way that I think a lot of people found compelling.
And when you combine good ideas with a good message.
That's sort of the holy grail of politics and policy.
(11:12):
And so that's really where we've got to go. It's
not just about having good ideas, because I think good
ideas are great, But to your point, good ideas alone
are not enough to win an election. They just they're
just not in this day and age. You have to
be able to communicate. And that's why if you look
at the left, for all of the bad ideas that
the far far progressive left is talking about, medicare for all,
(11:32):
free grocery stores, you know, getting rid of basically elements
of private enterprise. The reason why you know those are ideas,
and the reason why people have really given the far
progressive left another look is because they've been able to
communicate those ideas. And so whatever it is that Republicans
and Conservatives decide to do next, the one thing I
(11:53):
hope they'll do is I hope they'll marry strong ideas
with in some ways what President Trump has been able
to do, which is to communicate effectively, and now he's
communicated his own agenda. But I guess I would say
the lesson learned from that is you can communicate about
these ideas in a way that is very compelling and
powerful to people. So you've got to figure out how
to combine all these different forces. And whether it's Marco
(12:15):
Rubio or JD. Vance or whoever it might be next,
that's they're going to be their challenge. That's going to
be the fundamental challenge of the next couple of years.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Lani jen of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University a lot.
He it's always enlightening. Thanks a million for the time.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Good to talk to you, sure, Joe, good to talk
to you.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
More to come stay with us.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
You know, we don't get into a lot of policy
wonkiness around here because it's a little dullish and would
put us out of business. But I did want to
touch on this really quickly because I found it enlightening.
For what it's worth, my wife and I are just
short of medicare age.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
We'll be there soon, god willing.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
I'm only dimly aware of how it works, and a
lot of the folks falling for his socialist cheek, whether
they're Abdul l si aid and as followers or whomever,
are running around talking about medicare for all, among other
things like free childcare and an eight percent wealth tax
on billionaires and stuff like that, and some of the
(13:17):
goals that they speak of, good housing, good healthcare, affordable food,
basic dignity of life.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Okay, nobody disagrees with any of that stuff.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
But it's worth mentioning that this guy who earned a
doctorate in public health from Oxford, for God's sake, and
his wife is a practicing psychiatrist, which means she has
a medical degree and refuses to take Medicare, which is hilarious.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
He knows all this stuff, he says.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
He actually authored a book Medicare for All, a Citizen's Guide,
and it said it would eliminate private insurance. But the
catchphrase Medicare for all is misleading what he poses. This
isn't universal Medicare, but a single payer system with no premiums, deductibles,
are cost sharing, and no alternatives, and Medicare has all
of those things. All seniors who don't also qualify for
(14:09):
Medicaid have to pay a monthly Medicare Part B premium,
starting it a couple one hundred dollars in tied upward income.
Seniors who enroll in traditional Medicare fee for service also
have a about a seventeen hundred dollars deductible for inpatient
hospital care, steep cost sharing requirements, and no limit on
out of pocket spending. They also have to purchase separate
(14:30):
prescription drug plans, whose monthly premiums range from nothing to
about two hundred and forty bucks depending on income.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
That's per month.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
Another forty percent of seniors in traditional medicare by supplemental
insurance policies to cover benefits like dental and vision care
that are not provided by the government, and for protection
against catastrophic costs because again there's no out of pocket limit.
There's all sorts of private insurance involved in medicare to
make it worth an s. It's a it's a good
(15:00):
thing for seniors, no doubt, But the idea that hey,
we're gonna have Medicare for all, which means you don't
have to have private insurance just a lie. We would
end up with British style universal healthcare where you have
to wait, you know, six months to get your cancer
treatment started. And that's as nightmarish as it sounds. Not
that our current healthcare system isn't screwed up.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It is. It's so screwed up.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
We're gonna talk to Craig, the healthcare guru, about that,
I think tomorrow. But Medicare for All is it's a canard.
It's a sham. It's a scam, like virtually everything they do.
I mentioned casually to lanhe Chen that I'm a Marco
Rubio guy, until talked out of it. He did an
interview the other day. It was really something. We're gonna
(15:44):
play you a couple of bits of that and then
squeeze and whatever else we can. As always, if you
can't stick around, grab it via podcast Armstrong and Getty
on demand.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
Top did rfkiet diet of red meat.
Speaker 5 (15:59):
This is a diet that consists of eating.
Speaker 6 (16:03):
Sauer kraut and meat.
Speaker 5 (16:05):
Now you understand, like this is not a sustainable thing,
Like you can't just walk.
Speaker 6 (16:09):
Into it because he imagine he has to travel with
coolers of So I'm not going to travel the world
with a cooler full of sauerkraut. It's ridiculous. I can't
do it. It's not sustainable.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
That is Marco Rubio commenting on RFK Junior's Wackydoodle diet,
and the interviewer followed up with the next clip, Michael,
are you Maha.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
I'm in favor of Maha, like I think people should be,
but I think ultimately he.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Is completely not pop tarts.
Speaker 6 (16:38):
No, I don't need pop tarts every day. Okay, you
eat sweets.
Speaker 5 (16:41):
Pop tart is one of the great American innovations in history.
Speaker 6 (16:45):
Do you think about it comes to.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
Beautiful for all the things you should not be eating,
every single thing.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
That is his wife, Jeanette sitting in on the interview
with Marco Rubio calling him out. That is hilarious.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Jack is fond of repeating the absolutely undeniable wisdom that,
with few exceptions, in an election, the person who is
more comfortable in their skin wins. They beat the person
who seems to be trying to be something because that's
(17:19):
so hard to pull off. Hillary was the ultimate example
of that. I mean, look, no matter what you think
of her, crazy, smart, tough, mean as a snake, yes, yes, yes,
Secretary of State, I mean credentials, but she always acted
(17:42):
like she was. She always seemed like she was putting
us on or trying to be something she wasn't. So anyway,
a little more with Marco Rubio, and hey, I'll admit
it's true, I would like him to be president.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
I wanted him to be president for a while.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Maybe you'd disagree, but he is a very like chap
Let's see what.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
I don't want to do too many of these. Let's
do thirty two.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
You said to Lard Trump if you had a day off,
that you would watch football all day.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
I answer the question completely wrong.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Why.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
Well, first of all, the right answer is I would
spend it with my wife going on.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Oh yeah, okay, beautiful answer.
Speaker 5 (18:19):
But the true answer is, and here's why I messed
up that answer. Okay, because here's the thing. The day
would actually start much earlier. The greatest show on television
today in America is College Game Day. Great show starts
around ten or eleven, and that leads you to noon
and then the noon game, and then there's a three
thirty game, and then there's a So I messed and
then the idea like this is a crazy weekend.
Speaker 6 (18:39):
It would never happen. So I'm just putting this out there.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
But you could start at ten am on Saturday, you know,
run the whole college football day, sleep for a few hours,
then you wake up, and then you're in the NFL
game day. Then you got the one o'clock game, the
four o'clock game, the NBC game that night. That is
an incredible weekend in my opinion. In my view, obviously,
I don't believe that ever I will everage this, certainly
(19:01):
not in the next two and a half years or
what have you. But and your audience probably doesn't care
anything about what I just said. But I'm just telling
you that that would be a crazy day. But that's
never going to happen, right, well, yeah, right, you never know.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
I should say.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
He's on the Katie Miller podcast though, and I'm enjoying it.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
It's a good.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Interview, solid interview, and Katie does a nice job. One more,
I like the looks of this thirty three Michael.
Speaker 6 (19:27):
So, I have a dog.
Speaker 5 (19:28):
We have two dogs, and then we have one that's
really smart. You know, these are golden doodles, but this
one's more poodle than doodles, so than golden.
Speaker 6 (19:35):
Very smart. Knows how to open the door.
Speaker 5 (19:37):
So one day I think Pete and his family were
just sitting around watching television and they keep their front
door open because they have cats, which I never took
Pete for a cat guy.
Speaker 6 (19:46):
But okay, oh my god, and.
Speaker 5 (19:49):
So and anyway, and my dog just walked into their
living room and looked around, realized I'm in the wrong house,
and turned around and walked out.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
But yes, so our dog does open the door.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Many Georgans pete hegzeth cat guy, I would not have
guessed that. Huh okay, well that's you're right handsome. That
was that was nice. It was endearing. Does he want
the job? I know political professional political pundits, I would say, well,
(20:20):
he pledged if JD.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Van s runs, he will.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
Support him, as Barack Obama had the guts to say,
and this is one of the few things I credit
him with. After having said he wouldn't do something, he said, yeah,
it changed my mind.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
There you go. That was hard.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
Which is why I laugh at so many professional political pundits.
They are so locked into their habits and they're just
repeating what the rest of the herd says.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
It's just absolutely silly.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
A couple of other political notes for you, Abdul al said,
the newly minted Democratic nominee for the Senate in Michigan
has promoted over and over again a book entitled Let
This Radicalize You. He's plugged it at least ten times
(21:09):
on his podcast, and they stopped counting after ten. So
he thinks of this book like I think of James
Lindsay's clinical theories, for instance, were Tim Sanderfer's proclaiming liberty
just so good.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
I want everybody to know about it.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Not getting paid, I'm not making any money. It's not
because anybody's my friend. It's I think it's super great
that you read these books. So al said feels that
way about a book called Let This Radicalize You. His
podcast is called America Dissected. By the way, it's an
(21:49):
interesting title. So the full title of the book is
Let This Radicalize You. Organizing in the Revolution of Reciprocal Care,
authored by Kelly Hayes and Marguerite Casey Foundation scholar Meriam Kabba.
It's an unabashedly anti American book, published in May of
(22:10):
twenty three, promises leaders quote readers rather a practical and
imaginative resource for activists and organizers building power in an
era of destabilization and catastrophe. Chapter six, Violence in Social Movements.
The authors dismiss peaceful protests as submissive to the state
and argue that violent protesters should not necessarily be considered
(22:32):
bad and I quote fetishizing distinctions between violence and nonviolence
can lead to the indulgence of rhetoric about good and
bad protesters, where peaceful protesters are celebrated and violent protesters,
for example, those who engage in properties destruction that disrupts
profit are viewed as disposable and disreputable, and when they
(22:55):
refer to peaceful protests, they're talking about cooperative protests that
obediently stay within the lines drawn by the state, they're
against that quote. This licenses people to care about the
cause being protested without caring about what happens to the
bad protesters. For example, even as significant numbers of people
supporting the uprisings following the racist murder of George Floyd,
it wasn't many fewer people vocally defended the rights of
(23:18):
protesters who were arrested for acts of property destruction and
funneled into the racist carceral system, Meaning people did not
defend protesters who burned cities to the ground and ended
up jailed. They rationalize all this by saying there's no
greater purveyor of violence in the world than the US government,
(23:39):
from war to policing to incarceration to border violence to
the slashing of the national safety, social safety net. The
US government kills untold millions. The violence of rebellion is
infinitesimal by comparison, meaning it's justified. The maintenance of global
capitalism necessitates mass death. Good lord, there are times I'm
(24:04):
disturbed by these people.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Not their.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Philosophy, although that's plenty disturbing, but the fact that they
could believe it. Speaking of great books, read Stephen Pinker's
Enlightenment Now, which is absolutely fantastic, particularly the first section,
which outlines how many billions of people, billions, the free
market has lifted out of poverty, misery, and disease and
(24:31):
death into some pretty good standards of living since the Enlightenment, especially,
and how liberty political and economic have saved billions and
billions of lives, and how centrally planned systems inevitably end
in mass death and jailing, in political dissonance and torture,
(24:55):
and the rest of it. And so to hear somebody
say with a straight face, the maintenance of global ca
capitalism necessitates mass death, you know.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
You're dealing with a crazy person. Anyway, I'm gonna read on.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
I'm going to tell you a little bit more of
what they're advocating in Hassan or Abdul al Sayid's favorite book,
The Islamiunist. But first, a word from our friends at
blue Collar Dollar. You're a working woman, a working man.
You bust your ass, you get it done, you save,
(25:30):
you're practical. Well, we'd like to introduce you to Blue
Collar Dollar because they get what you get. They're building
a place where hardworking people can share values and financial
dreams with advisors who talk with you, never at you.
If you saved five hundred thousand dollars or more. We
invite you to call Blue Collar Dollar for no cost consultation.
There's no obligation. If you don't like what's here, there's
(25:51):
no harm done. You're not signing up. They're very honest,
straightforward people. From your mobile phone dow pound two to fifteen.
When you're prompted, say the keywords blue Collar Dollar and
they will connect you. That's pound two fifty and say
blue Collar Dollar.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Ask your questions.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Advisory service is offered through Talent LLC and SEC registered
investment advisor. Rocketing is conducted by its affiliate company a
Blue Dollar Dollar LLC. Or registration as an investment advisor
does not imply a certain level of scale or training.
For more important disclosures, visit Triple dub, Bluecollar Dollar dot com.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
So where was I? Oh? That's what these what else?
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Ieed's favorite book advocates, So the maintenance global capitalism necessitates
mass death. And of course if you're causing mass death,
I am willing to kill you for it, and they
are willing to kill us for it too. And disobedience
to Sharia law the other side of his act. But anyway,
I'm going to quote the book down directly. If you
choose to disrupt these capitalist systems passively, destructively or by
(26:53):
way of extending mutual aid, the concept of violence may
be stretched, manipulated by the powerful to encompass your work.
That is why we must not allow the frameworks of
the powerful to define the balands of our morality in
our politics and our action. In other words, commit violence,
it's justified. And they talk about defunding the police and
(27:20):
all sorts of related quote unquote woke stuff. But yeah, interesting, yeah,
l Said has also raised eyebrows for his consistent refusal
to denounce the nine to eleven terrorist attacks or his
top Sergate Hassan Piker, who said America deserved nine to eleven.
Now they are kind of disavowing it just because they
(27:41):
know they have to. But on the eve of the
primary vote else I joined Piker, an influencer pool rally
in Pool Party in Detroit. Shortly after his election win.
Piker dismissed Haley voters his opponent as Islamophobic pieces of s. Okay,
that's how they try to get you to sit down
and shut up.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Sorry, guys, not gonna do it not around here more
to come, Army, Strong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Very beginning of the show, I was wrong about Jackie
the Eagle. I was right that eagles don't have names.
But Katie, I believe you have the transcript of what
I said yesterday.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
And for which I need to apologize. Yes, how long
is it?
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Uh?
Speaker 6 (28:28):
Maybe like a minute?
Speaker 3 (28:29):
All right, Jackie has passed.
Speaker 7 (28:32):
I believe in balance and that sort of thing. But look,
there is no crueler bitch on earth than Mother Nature.
Pardon my frank terminology. Well, there aren't that many bald eagles.
I'm just back from Alaska, where I can report that
they're like crows. There are a lot of them, a
hell of a lot of them. So if eagles did
what eagles do, and Jackie's dead. That's just the way
(28:55):
that it goes. The eagle is dead. I'm sure I'll
get angry email about how insensitive I am. No, I
just like nature, and I understand human beings. You don't
get to tell nature how to be nature. That wasn't terrible.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
So we did get a couple of emails from people
who were hurt at my lack of sensitivity to the
dead eagle.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
And I will tell you this.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
I reflected upon my words and realize two things. Number One,
I have been an enthusiastic consumer of a raptor cam
that focuses on some nests by my house. And I
have rooted for the eagles for their eggs to hatch
and for them to have babies, and the babies to
be healthy and successful and that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
And so I thought, well, wait a minute, then why.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Was I a little bit cynical about the reaction? And
there are two reasons. This is not an excuse, it's
an explanation. Two reasons. Number one, some of the crazy
people who play the veterinarians and like went in and
were trying to insist that they save Jackie. And the
people are like, we're trying to do would you get
out of here? There were crazy people in them. But secondly,
(30:10):
and this is the key point, I realized what queered
me to the whole thing, what poisoned my attitude, is
how much I hate David Muir, the anchor of ABC News,
the bent nosed jackass.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Who will report that.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Well, first of all, he reports that there's severe weather
every single day, but he uses the same self serious,
low voice tone whether he's reporting two baby ducks flew
away from the nest or an earthquake killed one hundred
thousand people in Detroit. I mean, it's just And he's
such a lefty and he's so happy with himself.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
I hate him.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
And he's really been hammering the Jackie the Eagle story
in like a syrupy, dopey way, and it it prejudiced me,
and it made me cynical about not David Muir, bent
knows jackass, but about the people who are into the eagles.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
And I apologize for that. I love nature.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
I love watching raptors and shore birds and that sort
of thing. I spend more time than his normal doing it. Yeah,
I hate David.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Muir, you know, I think that's it.
Speaker 7 (31:25):
I had just kind of a bad taste in my
mouth for David Muir for a while. And now I
think I'm on your level. And it started with the
La fires when he had the fire jacket on and
they turned and he had a fashion clip clap clasp, oh,
right back of the jacket to make him look more fit.
(31:46):
And he's standing in front of Holmes burning to the ground. Yeah,
he's so full of himself.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Oh that reminds me among the other many things that
we're probably not gonna be able to squeeze in. Maybe
we'll try tomorrow. But the the trial or the legal
proceedings against that confused, dopey leftist piece of crap who
actually set some of the disastrous fires in southern California,
it's it's underway, and it is utterly clear he did
(32:13):
it in the name of socialism and leftist politics. There
have been reams written about how those fires are the
product of climate change, yeah right, and fossil fuels and
the evil, evil conservatives and how climate change threatens us all. Oh,
they're about to air a big climate change episode of
Sesame straight.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Oh good, that's paragosatic. Yeah, that's what they get.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
You terrify the little kids, terrify the little kids who
can't understand any of this monsters anyway, So you got
reams written about climate change, and you will you will
be unsuccessful if you go to La Times or any
of the major publications to try to find information about
(32:58):
leftist inspired arson and the disaster, the utter devastation caused
by that leftist violence, because setting a massive wildfire is
an act of violence. I mean, my god, it is
perhaps the greatest mass destruction an individual ken unleash, and
(33:20):
it was leftist violence.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
But you will not get a word on that.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
So anyway, enough said, I'm appreciate the choir here.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
You all know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
Jackie's going to check in from the vacation road to
kick off next hour. I believe he is still in Canada.
America's hat soon to be our fifty first state, but
looking forward to that also, well, I haven't decided one
hundred percent if I'm going to do this, but I
want to talk about that fake academic Jason R. Day
(33:53):
at Cambridge who's now been exposed as a plagiarist and
a liar and a fabulous and just half a dozen
kinds of crackpot and it was easily easily seen for
a long time, but because academia is so desperate, so
feverishly needing to show how enlightened they are and how
(34:14):
woke they are, they let this guy scam continue for years,
and it's a real head scratcher. Like I said before,
it makes you think these people are so nuts there
might not be any reaching them. And I'll bring the receipts,
as they say these days, in the particulars for you.
Next hour, we'll talk to Jack and I think we'll
(34:39):
we'll have for you our conversation with James Lindsay from earlier,
which I will explain. If you're listening via podcast and
you're like I already heard that, i'll explain why we're
probably gonna do that again. But hope you can stay tuned.
And if you can't, as always, maybe you don't get
our four on your beloved local radio station, just grab
it via podcast later whenever it's convenient via Armstrong Addy
(35:00):
on demand if you subscribe to auto downloads, it's super easy.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Thanks for being here, Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 6 (35:10):
M
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and he.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Armstrong and Jetty.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Coming up later in the show, a couple of intriguing
in not two terrifying stories about AI plus some gender
bending madness. But it's always a pleasure to talk to
lonhe chenln He is the David and Diane Stephi Fellow
in American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution and
the Director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Lon he Welcome, How are you.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Joe, A very good morning to you.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Also, among your credentials, you are a big Dodgers fan
and executive producer Mike Hanson is convinced the Dodgers are
not to be sold and fall apart financially.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
He would be completely wrong in that assumption.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Ah, everybody roots against the big dog. You have to
put up with it.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
So you know, in the words of the great was
it whoever it was that called the last game of
the World Series, you know, to beat the champ you
got to knock them out, and nobody's knocking out the Dodgers.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
This year they win three in a row.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
The revolution is coming from Major League Baseball, though the
proletariat pregan to rise up in the streets.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
All right, So let's talk to little politics.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
And you know, us getting too far in depth into
a primary election where four hundred and thirty two people
showed up to vote, and trying to extrapolate that to
some giant movement I think is just silly. But in
the recent primaries there have been some kind of intriguing result.
What do you think is the most significant one?
Speaker 4 (01:53):
Well, I still think it has to do with the
nationalization of our politics, Joe. And the reason that we
care about the Wisconsin governor's race or the Minnesota Senate race,
or races that otherwise probably wouldn't have a whole lot
of impact for people who don't live in those states,
is because of what it means for our national politics.
And I think, particularly on the left, if you look
(02:15):
at the energy behind a lot of the progressive democratic
socialist candidates, and I get it, not all of them
self identifies democratic socialists, but in my book, if you're
in favor of the government takeover of healthcare, you know
you're pretty much a socialist. And I think that that's
what we've seen from people like Abdul Sayid in Michigan,
(02:36):
or Francesca Hang and Wisconsin or others around those various
Midwestern states. And again the reason we care is because
of what it says about where the energy is in
the progressive movement and what these races tell us about
national Democratic party politics. So right now it does appear
to be with the far progressive left, and I think
that's the lesson. Even though you know, Democrats I think
(02:57):
dodged a bullet with Francesca Hong apparently losing last night,
I do think that they that's where the energy is,
and if you look around, you know that's where the
success has been. And I think it'll be very interesting
to see how much of that remains as we get
past the twenty six midterm cycle and start talking about
twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Right, the Francesca Hong thing, and this is the sort
of every man analysis, So you get here as opposed
to in Lanhi's world, if she hadn't been a half wit,
she'd a one. I mean, she lost by a fingernails.
She was an embarrassing candidate in a lot of ways.
She was the left version of some of those MAGA
candidates that were so terrible a couple of cycles ago.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
Yeah, well, she it was interesting that she and Mike
Lindell of my Pillow fame were in the you know,
sort of running on the same day basically and had
elections on the same day.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
And they're both caricatures.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
I think of whether it's the MAGA right or in
Francesca Hogg's case, the far progressive left.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
But you're absolutely right about Hong. If she had, you know, basically.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Gone underground for the last two weeks of her campaign,
she might have won.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Actually she would have.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
She would have been better off going underground than giving
the interviews she gave, because what the interviews exposed was
that the far left caricature in her case wasn't actually
a caricature.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
It was actually the truth. Right.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
I mean, you have somebody who's talked about, you know,
getting rid of Thanksgiving and you know again government takeover
of health care, you know, being totally comfortable with all
of the you know, sort of politics of twenty twenty,
as I like to think about it, the woke politics
of twenty twenty, being totally comfortable with all of that,
and the interviews just showed that she gave some disastrous interviews,
(04:39):
and you're absolutely right. If she was even a tick
better of a candidate, you know, she probably wins.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
That wins that election.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
So let's look next door at Minnesota. I was surprised
that the lieutenant governor, Penny Peggy Flanagan beat a pretty
solid centrist Democratic candidate, Angie Craig, because Minnesota become a
laughingstock essentially for their horrific levels of fraud per capita.
(05:07):
California will make them look like amateurs when all the
accounting has done, And she was sitting at Tim Walz's
side as all this was going on. You know, my
analysis is if you're a progressive and you blame everything
on either white people or capitalism or whatever, you never
look in the mirror. But I was surprised that the
(05:29):
lieutenant governor of such a scandal plague, I mean, Tim
Wawls was gonna run himself, but he couldn't because he's
so scandal plagued.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
I couldn't believe she won.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Well, again, we have to think about the where the
energy is in the Democratic Party, and I think particularly
in Minnesota, that was the center of a lot of
I mean, not just the fraud stuff, but you.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Know, all of the the.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Police involved shootings and all the things that we've seen
over the last couple of years. Minnesota was the epicenter
for that, and I think in some ways what it
did was to galvanize the left to move even farther left,
rather than trying to come back to the middle and
trying to say, look, how can we address some of
the challenges that have been created by the failed Walls administration.
(06:11):
Instead of that, they went further left. And actually, I'm
not surprised that Flanagan was able to win there because
I do think again, it's where the energy is, and
the movement in Minnesota was particularly acute because they sort
of see themselves, you know, with all due respect to California,
they sort of see themselves as the center of the
anti Trump resistance. And I think that's why that electric
(06:35):
moved even further left.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
So I want to talk about the Republicans in a second.
But how seriously do you take the prospect of Abdul
al said winning in Michigan, winning a United States Senate state.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
You know, I wouldn't underestimate the guy.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
I mean, if you look at his ability to articulate
a message in a very you know, I don't happen
to agree with the message, but I think that he
can articulate a message in in a pretty compelling way
to people who you know otherwise don't follow politics as closely.
Let's say, you know, I think that Mike Rogers, who
is the Republican Senate nominee in Michigan, is probably very
(07:14):
excited to run against Abdul Sae because of his positions. Particularly,
I think he's particularly vulnerable on his positions with respect
to taking away healthcare by replacing it with this government
run system.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
I do think that is a particular vulnerability for ol Saeed.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Not to mention his association with people like Ilhan Omar
and AOC who might be appealing again to the progressive left,
I don't think they're appealing to the vast majority of michiganers.
So I think Mike Rogers is definitely in a much
better position because he's running against al said. But I
would not underestimate the Democrat in that race, just because
(07:50):
you know, he's good on TV, and he's compelling and
knows how to articulate a message.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Well, Donnie ask in a lot of ways. I want
to talk maybe next segment after we bid you goodbye
on he about the whole Medicare for All and how
that's really fraud, how it will eliminate private insurance fraud.
It be covered so it's utterly fraudulent. We'll explain why
in a second, but let's take a look to the right.
Does the Republican Party have any idea what it is?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (08:16):
I mean, for all the challenges that the Democratic Party has,
I think that one of the challenges on the Republican
side is that, you know, we have, for the last
I don't know, as a movement, probably at least for
the last decade, certainly been a party that's been very
closely associated with a single person, and that's Donald Trump.
And I think the question becomes what does the party
(08:36):
and the movement look like as we start to think
ahead to twenty twenty eight and you know, when they'll
be a new set of candidates. And I think that's
a question that we've got to grapple with now. I've
always maintained that the movement, the Republican conservative movement, what
do you want to call it, is that its strongest
when we're thinking about a series of ideas about how
(08:57):
to improve people's lives. And what I worry about a
little bit is that we've fallen too much into the
politics of personality versus the politics of ideas. And I
would hope that whoever the next nominee is, whoever wants
to compete for that nomination. And I don't I don't
have a particular view on, you know, where that's headed,
but I'll just say that whoever does it, I really
hope that they focus on, you know, one of the
(09:18):
ideas that are going to make this movement durable for
the years to come. I mean that that's where I
think that the party needs to go.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Yeah, I'm a big Marco guy, which we'll be talking
about next half hour, I think.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
But you know, it's funny.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
I was just going to say, I heard recently that
the difference between a hack and a writer is a
hack writes what he thinks his audience wants to read,
and a writer writes what he actually feels and thinks.
And I was just going to ask you, and you
parsonally answered this. But and I have talk show host privilege.
I can spout high minded ideas and principles and quote
(09:52):
Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
But I never have to win an election.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Okay, you know, I'm not tasked with with winning election,
and if we don't, I lose my job.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
So it's easy to be high minded.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
But having said that, is the roadback for the Republican
Party to coherence and relevance and persuading people to come over.
Is it less about being a hack and more about
a set of ideas.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
I think hackery always ends badly.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Pandering always ends badly, although it'll always be a part
of politics.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Yeah, I mean, I think the best combination is ideally
you have great ideas and a great way of talking
about them. And you know, I mean, for all of
the the sort of discussion about Newt Gingrich in the nineties,
I mean this is like well before the time of
maybe some of your listeners. But if you go back
to the Contract with America, and you know, Newt had
(10:51):
a way of really talking about those ideas, and all
of those ideas were you know, sort of solid conservative
ideas if you will, but he would you know, he
managed to package them up and talk about them in
a way that I think a lot of people found compelling.
And when you combine good ideas with a good message.
That's sort of the holy grail of politics and policy.
(11:12):
And so that's really where we've got to go. It's
not just about having good ideas, because I think good
ideas are great, But to your point, good ideas alone
are not enough to win an election. They just they're
just not in this day and age. You have to
be able to communicate. And that's why if you look
at the left, for all of the bad ideas that
the far far progressive left is talking about, medicare for all,
(11:32):
free grocery stores, you know, getting rid of basically elements
of private enterprise. The reason why you know those are ideas,
and the reason why people have really given the far
progressive left another look is because they've been able to
communicate those ideas. And so whatever it is that Republicans
and Conservatives decide to do next, the one thing I
(11:53):
hope they'll do is I hope they'll marry strong ideas
with in some ways what President Trump has been able
to do, which is to communicate effectively, and now he's
communicated his own agenda. But I guess I would say
the lesson learned from that is you can communicate about
these ideas in a way that is very compelling and
powerful to people. So you've got to figure out how
to combine all these different forces. And whether it's Marco
(12:15):
Rubio or JD. Vance or whoever it might be next,
that's they're going to be their challenge. That's going to
be the fundamental challenge of the next couple of years.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Lani jen of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University a lot.
He it's always enlightening. Thanks a million for the time.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Good to talk to you, sure, Joe, good to talk
to you.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
More to come stay with us.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
You know, we don't get into a lot of policy
wonkiness around here because it's a little dullish and would
put us out of business. But I did want to
touch on this really quickly because I found it enlightening.
For what it's worth, my wife and I are just
short of medicare age.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
We'll be there soon, god willing.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
I'm only dimly aware of how it works, and a
lot of the folks falling for his socialist cheek, whether
they're Abdul l si aid and as followers or whomever,
are running around talking about medicare for all, among other
things like free childcare and an eight percent wealth tax
on billionaires and stuff like that, and some of the
(13:17):
goals that they speak of, good housing, good healthcare, affordable food,
basic dignity of life.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Okay, nobody disagrees with any of that stuff.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
But it's worth mentioning that this guy who earned a
doctorate in public health from Oxford, for God's sake, and
his wife is a practicing psychiatrist, which means she has
a medical degree and refuses to take Medicare, which is hilarious.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
He knows all this stuff, he says.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
He actually authored a book Medicare for All, a Citizen's Guide,
and it said it would eliminate private insurance. But the
catchphrase Medicare for all is misleading what he poses. This
isn't universal Medicare, but a single payer system with no premiums, deductibles,
are cost sharing, and no alternatives, and Medicare has all
of those things. All seniors who don't also qualify for
(14:09):
Medicaid have to pay a monthly Medicare Part B premium,
starting it a couple one hundred dollars in tied upward income.
Seniors who enroll in traditional Medicare fee for service also
have a about a seventeen hundred dollars deductible for inpatient
hospital care, steep cost sharing requirements, and no limit on
out of pocket spending. They also have to purchase separate
(14:30):
prescription drug plans, whose monthly premiums range from nothing to
about two hundred and forty bucks depending on income.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
That's per month.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
Another forty percent of seniors in traditional medicare by supplemental
insurance policies to cover benefits like dental and vision care
that are not provided by the government, and for protection
against catastrophic costs because again there's no out of pocket limit.
There's all sorts of private insurance involved in medicare to
make it worth an s. It's a it's a good
(15:00):
thing for seniors, no doubt, But the idea that hey,
we're gonna have Medicare for all, which means you don't
have to have private insurance just a lie. We would
end up with British style universal healthcare where you have
to wait, you know, six months to get your cancer
treatment started. And that's as nightmarish as it sounds. Not
that our current healthcare system isn't screwed up.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It is. It's so screwed up.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
We're gonna talk to Craig, the healthcare guru, about that,
I think tomorrow. But Medicare for All is it's a canard.
It's a sham. It's a scam, like virtually everything they do.
I mentioned casually to lanhe Chen that I'm a Marco
Rubio guy, until talked out of it. He did an
interview the other day. It was really something. We're gonna
(15:44):
play you a couple of bits of that and then
squeeze and whatever else we can. As always, if you
can't stick around, grab it via podcast Armstrong and Getty
on demand.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
Top did rfkiet diet of red meat.
Speaker 5 (15:59):
This is a diet that consists of eating.
Speaker 6 (16:03):
Sauer kraut and meat.
Speaker 5 (16:05):
Now you understand, like this is not a sustainable thing,
Like you can't just walk.
Speaker 6 (16:09):
Into it because he imagine he has to travel with
coolers of So I'm not going to travel the world
with a cooler full of sauerkraut. It's ridiculous. I can't
do it. It's not sustainable.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
That is Marco Rubio commenting on RFK Junior's Wackydoodle diet,
and the interviewer followed up with the next clip, Michael,
are you Maha.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
I'm in favor of Maha, like I think people should be,
but I think ultimately he.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Is completely not pop tarts.
Speaker 6 (16:38):
No, I don't need pop tarts every day. Okay, you
eat sweets.
Speaker 5 (16:41):
Pop tart is one of the great American innovations in history.
Speaker 6 (16:45):
Do you think about it comes to.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
Beautiful for all the things you should not be eating,
every single thing.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
That is his wife, Jeanette sitting in on the interview
with Marco Rubio calling him out. That is hilarious.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Jack is fond of repeating the absolutely undeniable wisdom that,
with few exceptions, in an election, the person who is
more comfortable in their skin wins. They beat the person
who seems to be trying to be something because that's
(17:19):
so hard to pull off. Hillary was the ultimate example
of that. I mean, look, no matter what you think
of her, crazy, smart, tough, mean as a snake, yes, yes, yes,
Secretary of State, I mean credentials, but she always acted
(17:42):
like she was. She always seemed like she was putting
us on or trying to be something she wasn't. So anyway,
a little more with Marco Rubio, and hey, I'll admit
it's true, I would like him to be president.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
I wanted him to be president for a while.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Maybe you'd disagree, but he is a very like chap
Let's see what.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
I don't want to do too many of these. Let's
do thirty two.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
You said to Lard Trump if you had a day off,
that you would watch football all day.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
I answer the question completely wrong.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Why.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
Well, first of all, the right answer is I would
spend it with my wife going on.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Oh yeah, okay, beautiful answer.
Speaker 5 (18:19):
But the true answer is, and here's why I messed
up that answer. Okay, because here's the thing. The day
would actually start much earlier. The greatest show on television
today in America is College Game Day. Great show starts
around ten or eleven, and that leads you to noon
and then the noon game, and then there's a three
thirty game, and then there's a So I messed and
then the idea like this is a crazy weekend.
Speaker 6 (18:39):
It would never happen. So I'm just putting this out there.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
But you could start at ten am on Saturday, you know,
run the whole college football day, sleep for a few hours,
then you wake up, and then you're in the NFL
game day. Then you got the one o'clock game, the
four o'clock game, the NBC game that night. That is
an incredible weekend in my opinion. In my view, obviously,
I don't believe that ever I will everage this, certainly
(19:01):
not in the next two and a half years or
what have you. But and your audience probably doesn't care
anything about what I just said. But I'm just telling
you that that would be a crazy day. But that's
never going to happen, right, well, yeah, right, you never know.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
I should say.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
He's on the Katie Miller podcast though, and I'm enjoying it.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
It's a good.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Interview, solid interview, and Katie does a nice job. One more,
I like the looks of this thirty three Michael.
Speaker 6 (19:27):
So, I have a dog.
Speaker 5 (19:28):
We have two dogs, and then we have one that's
really smart. You know, these are golden doodles, but this
one's more poodle than doodles, so than golden.
Speaker 6 (19:35):
Very smart. Knows how to open the door.
Speaker 5 (19:37):
So one day I think Pete and his family were
just sitting around watching television and they keep their front
door open because they have cats, which I never took
Pete for a cat guy.
Speaker 6 (19:46):
But okay, oh my god, and.
Speaker 5 (19:49):
So and anyway, and my dog just walked into their
living room and looked around, realized I'm in the wrong house,
and turned around and walked out.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
But yes, so our dog does open the door.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Many Georgans pete hegzeth cat guy, I would not have
guessed that. Huh okay, well that's you're right handsome. That
was that was nice. It was endearing. Does he want
the job? I know political professional political pundits, I would say, well,
(20:20):
he pledged if JD.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Van s runs, he will.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
Support him, as Barack Obama had the guts to say,
and this is one of the few things I credit
him with. After having said he wouldn't do something, he said, yeah,
it changed my mind.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
There you go. That was hard.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
Which is why I laugh at so many professional political pundits.
They are so locked into their habits and they're just
repeating what the rest of the herd says.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
It's just absolutely silly.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
A couple of other political notes for you, Abdul al said,
the newly minted Democratic nominee for the Senate in Michigan
has promoted over and over again a book entitled Let
This Radicalize You. He's plugged it at least ten times
(21:09):
on his podcast, and they stopped counting after ten. So
he thinks of this book like I think of James
Lindsay's clinical theories, for instance, were Tim Sanderfer's proclaiming liberty
just so good.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
I want everybody to know about it.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Not getting paid, I'm not making any money. It's not
because anybody's my friend. It's I think it's super great
that you read these books. So al said feels that
way about a book called Let This Radicalize You. His
podcast is called America Dissected. By the way, it's an
(21:49):
interesting title. So the full title of the book is
Let This Radicalize You. Organizing in the Revolution of Reciprocal Care,
authored by Kelly Hayes and Marguerite Casey Foundation scholar Meriam Kabba.
It's an unabashedly anti American book, published in May of
(22:10):
twenty three, promises leaders quote readers rather a practical and
imaginative resource for activists and organizers building power in an
era of destabilization and catastrophe. Chapter six, Violence in Social Movements.
The authors dismiss peaceful protests as submissive to the state
and argue that violent protesters should not necessarily be considered
(22:32):
bad and I quote fetishizing distinctions between violence and nonviolence
can lead to the indulgence of rhetoric about good and
bad protesters, where peaceful protesters are celebrated and violent protesters,
for example, those who engage in properties destruction that disrupts
profit are viewed as disposable and disreputable, and when they
(22:55):
refer to peaceful protests, they're talking about cooperative protests that
obediently stay within the lines drawn by the state, they're
against that quote. This licenses people to care about the
cause being protested without caring about what happens to the
bad protesters. For example, even as significant numbers of people
supporting the uprisings following the racist murder of George Floyd,
it wasn't many fewer people vocally defended the rights of
(23:18):
protesters who were arrested for acts of property destruction and
funneled into the racist carceral system, Meaning people did not
defend protesters who burned cities to the ground and ended
up jailed. They rationalize all this by saying there's no
greater purveyor of violence in the world than the US government,
(23:39):
from war to policing to incarceration to border violence to
the slashing of the national safety, social safety net. The
US government kills untold millions. The violence of rebellion is
infinitesimal by comparison, meaning it's justified. The maintenance of global
capitalism necessitates mass death. Good lord, there are times I'm
(24:04):
disturbed by these people.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Not their.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Philosophy, although that's plenty disturbing, but the fact that they
could believe it. Speaking of great books, read Stephen Pinker's
Enlightenment Now, which is absolutely fantastic, particularly the first section,
which outlines how many billions of people, billions, the free
market has lifted out of poverty, misery, and disease and
(24:31):
death into some pretty good standards of living since the Enlightenment, especially,
and how liberty political and economic have saved billions and
billions of lives, and how centrally planned systems inevitably end
in mass death and jailing, in political dissonance and torture,
(24:55):
and the rest of it. And so to hear somebody
say with a straight face, the maintenance of global ca
capitalism necessitates mass death, you know.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
You're dealing with a crazy person. Anyway, I'm gonna read on.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
I'm going to tell you a little bit more of
what they're advocating in Hassan or Abdul al Sayid's favorite book,
The Islamiunist. But first, a word from our friends at
blue Collar Dollar. You're a working woman, a working man.
You bust your ass, you get it done, you save,
(25:30):
you're practical. Well, we'd like to introduce you to Blue
Collar Dollar because they get what you get. They're building
a place where hardworking people can share values and financial
dreams with advisors who talk with you, never at you.
If you saved five hundred thousand dollars or more. We
invite you to call Blue Collar Dollar for no cost consultation.
There's no obligation. If you don't like what's here, there's
(25:51):
no harm done. You're not signing up. They're very honest,
straightforward people. From your mobile phone dow pound two to fifteen.
When you're prompted, say the keywords blue Collar Dollar and
they will connect you. That's pound two fifty and say
blue Collar Dollar.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Ask your questions.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Advisory service is offered through Talent LLC and SEC registered
investment advisor. Rocketing is conducted by its affiliate company a
Blue Dollar Dollar LLC. Or registration as an investment advisor
does not imply a certain level of scale or training.
For more important disclosures, visit Triple dub, Bluecollar Dollar dot com.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
So where was I? Oh? That's what these what else?
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Ieed's favorite book advocates, So the maintenance global capitalism necessitates
mass death. And of course if you're causing mass death,
I am willing to kill you for it, and they
are willing to kill us for it too. And disobedience
to Sharia law the other side of his act. But anyway,
I'm going to quote the book down directly. If you
choose to disrupt these capitalist systems passively, destructively or by
(26:53):
way of extending mutual aid, the concept of violence may
be stretched, manipulated by the powerful to encompass your work.
That is why we must not allow the frameworks of
the powerful to define the balands of our morality in
our politics and our action. In other words, commit violence,
it's justified. And they talk about defunding the police and
(27:20):
all sorts of related quote unquote woke stuff. But yeah, interesting, yeah,
l Said has also raised eyebrows for his consistent refusal
to denounce the nine to eleven terrorist attacks or his
top Sergate Hassan Piker, who said America deserved nine to eleven.
Now they are kind of disavowing it just because they
(27:41):
know they have to. But on the eve of the
primary vote else I joined Piker, an influencer pool rally
in Pool Party in Detroit. Shortly after his election win.
Piker dismissed Haley voters his opponent as Islamophobic pieces of s. Okay,
that's how they try to get you to sit down
and shut up.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Sorry, guys, not gonna do it not around here more
to come, Army, Strong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Very beginning of the show, I was wrong about Jackie
the Eagle. I was right that eagles don't have names.
But Katie, I believe you have the transcript of what
I said yesterday.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
And for which I need to apologize. Yes, how long
is it?
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Uh?
Speaker 6 (28:28):
Maybe like a minute?
Speaker 3 (28:29):
All right, Jackie has passed.
Speaker 7 (28:32):
I believe in balance and that sort of thing. But look,
there is no crueler bitch on earth than Mother Nature.
Pardon my frank terminology. Well, there aren't that many bald eagles.
I'm just back from Alaska, where I can report that
they're like crows. There are a lot of them, a
hell of a lot of them. So if eagles did
what eagles do, and Jackie's dead. That's just the way
(28:55):
that it goes. The eagle is dead. I'm sure I'll
get angry email about how insensitive I am. No, I
just like nature, and I understand human beings. You don't
get to tell nature how to be nature. That wasn't terrible.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
So we did get a couple of emails from people
who were hurt at my lack of sensitivity to the
dead eagle.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
And I will tell you this.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
I reflected upon my words and realize two things. Number One,
I have been an enthusiastic consumer of a raptor cam
that focuses on some nests by my house. And I
have rooted for the eagles for their eggs to hatch
and for them to have babies, and the babies to
be healthy and successful and that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
And so I thought, well, wait a minute, then why.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Was I a little bit cynical about the reaction? And
there are two reasons. This is not an excuse, it's
an explanation. Two reasons. Number one, some of the crazy
people who play the veterinarians and like went in and
were trying to insist that they save Jackie. And the
people are like, we're trying to do would you get
out of here? There were crazy people in them. But secondly,
(30:10):
and this is the key point, I realized what queered
me to the whole thing, what poisoned my attitude, is
how much I hate David Muir, the anchor of ABC News,
the bent nosed jackass.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Who will report that.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Well, first of all, he reports that there's severe weather
every single day, but he uses the same self serious,
low voice tone whether he's reporting two baby ducks flew
away from the nest or an earthquake killed one hundred
thousand people in Detroit. I mean, it's just And he's
such a lefty and he's so happy with himself.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
I hate him.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
And he's really been hammering the Jackie the Eagle story
in like a syrupy, dopey way, and it it prejudiced me,
and it made me cynical about not David Muir, bent
knows jackass, but about the people who are into the eagles.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
And I apologize for that. I love nature.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
I love watching raptors and shore birds and that sort
of thing. I spend more time than his normal doing it. Yeah,
I hate David.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Muir, you know, I think that's it.
Speaker 7 (31:25):
I had just kind of a bad taste in my
mouth for David Muir for a while. And now I
think I'm on your level. And it started with the
La fires when he had the fire jacket on and
they turned and he had a fashion clip clap clasp, oh,
right back of the jacket to make him look more fit.
(31:46):
And he's standing in front of Holmes burning to the ground. Yeah,
he's so full of himself.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Oh that reminds me among the other many things that
we're probably not gonna be able to squeeze in. Maybe
we'll try tomorrow. But the the trial or the legal
proceedings against that confused, dopey leftist piece of crap who
actually set some of the disastrous fires in southern California,
it's it's underway, and it is utterly clear he did
(32:13):
it in the name of socialism and leftist politics. There
have been reams written about how those fires are the
product of climate change, yeah right, and fossil fuels and
the evil, evil conservatives and how climate change threatens us all. Oh,
they're about to air a big climate change episode of
Sesame straight.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Oh good, that's paragosatic. Yeah, that's what they get.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
You terrify the little kids, terrify the little kids who
can't understand any of this monsters anyway, So you got
reams written about climate change, and you will you will
be unsuccessful if you go to La Times or any
of the major publications to try to find information about
(32:58):
leftist inspired arson and the disaster, the utter devastation caused
by that leftist violence, because setting a massive wildfire is
an act of violence. I mean, my god, it is
perhaps the greatest mass destruction an individual ken unleash, and
(33:20):
it was leftist violence.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
But you will not get a word on that.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
So anyway, enough said, I'm appreciate the choir here.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
You all know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
Jackie's going to check in from the vacation road to
kick off next hour. I believe he is still in Canada.
America's hat soon to be our fifty first state, but
looking forward to that also, well, I haven't decided one
hundred percent if I'm going to do this, but I
want to talk about that fake academic Jason R. Day
(33:53):
at Cambridge who's now been exposed as a plagiarist and
a liar and a fabulous and just half a dozen
kinds of crackpot and it was easily easily seen for
a long time, but because academia is so desperate, so
feverishly needing to show how enlightened they are and how
(34:14):
woke they are, they let this guy scam continue for years,
and it's a real head scratcher. Like I said before,
it makes you think these people are so nuts there
might not be any reaching them. And I'll bring the receipts,
as they say these days, in the particulars for you.
Next hour, we'll talk to Jack and I think we'll
(34:39):
we'll have for you our conversation with James Lindsay from earlier,
which I will explain. If you're listening via podcast and
you're like I already heard that, i'll explain why we're
probably gonna do that again. But hope you can stay tuned.
And if you can't, as always, maybe you don't get
our four on your beloved local radio station, just grab
it via podcast later whenever it's convenient via Armstrong Addy
(35:00):
on demand if you subscribe to auto downloads, it's super easy.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Thanks for being here, Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 6 (35:10):
M
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.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com