August 15, 2026 • 40 mins
Featured within Hour Two of the broadcast of The Best Weekend Talk Show In America, 8/15/2026...
- Anastasia Boden talks to Joe about Birthright Citizenship...
- WNBA & Critical Theory...
- Dollars & Nonsense!...
- Climate Change on Sesame Street.
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 (00:11):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Armstrong and Getty and he Armstrong and Getty. This is
the best weekend talk show in America. Jack Armstrong and
Joe Getty here with a digest of some of the
(00:40):
twenty hours of live radio week done this week talking
about the Democratic Socialists of America. Wack of noodles and
on the other side of the coin, an absolutely wonderful
conversation with James Lindsay, who's one of the foremost writers
and thinkers, calling these crazy people out. That and all
starts a good stuff that happened in the crazy week
that's been. If you like what you hear, grab our
(01:01):
podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand now the best weekend
talk to you in America. This is always enlightening and
a pleasure to talk to. Onastasia Boden, the Senior Attorney
for Equality and Opportunity at the Pacific Legal Foundation. Onastasia
is also the host of the very popular in Descent
podcast on a Stagia. How are you doing? Great? Great
to be here, great, great to have you as always
(01:22):
so I know you have a couple of things you
want to talk about, then I've got I'm going to
alert you to the next frontier of First Amendment law
and privacy law. I'm not in case in case you're
not hipped to it, and I have a feeling you are.
But anyway, I and a number of folks read with
interest last week that the President put out a couple
(01:43):
of new orders restricting birthright citizenship, including quote unquote birth tourism,
after the Supreme Court struck down the first attempt. Seemed
a little narrower, maybe a little more carefully crafted. What's
your take on it? Will it work? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Well, we you know, it was just a few weeks
ago that the Supreme Court, you know, shut down Trump's
first birthright citizenship and saying that our constitution broadly grants
birthright citizenship with very narrow exceptions, no birthright citizenship for
enemy occupiers or diplomats.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
So now Trump kind of seized on.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
That language and issued two new executive orders. The first
one attacks birth tourism, as you say, it denies or
evokes visas to people who are coming here just for
birth tourism, and actually authorizes enforcement action against people who
facilitate birth tourism. The other one seizes on those narrow
exceptions and says, Okay, if enemy occupiers don't get birthright citizenship,
(02:43):
we're going to designate a whole host of countries as
terrorist organizations and say anybody, any member of those terrorist
organizations can no longer have birthright citizenship. And then it
says not only diplomats or foreign ministers, which has been
the historical.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
Exception, but also just basic employees of embassies.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Or you know, people who work at the World Bank
who are here for a temporary amount of time, they
don't get birthright citizenship either.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
I don't think.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
That's going to work, but we do know that, you know,
a couple of the justices who struck down the first
executive Order had some kind of hymning and hung language
in there. Justice Kavanaugh in particular, that left open, you know,
the door for Trump to kind of expand on the
historical exceptions.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
So we're gonna we're gonna have to see about that.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
I assume they went to some trouble at least to
define what birth tourism is exactly. It has to be
the length of stay or not.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Really, no people who come here you know, specifically for
the purpose of giving birth and then returning, So coming
here temporarily with no interest in actually being here for vacation.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
You know, that's the idea, that's what the language gets at.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
But yeah, as you say, that's kind of how do
you how are they even going to enforce that? How
do you know when somebody you know what, wasn't it
our World Cup soccer player? His you know, the Baligan
the one who got the famous red card and all
that at the World His mom was here. He was
only born United States because his mom was here for
vacation and she was so close to giving birth that
(04:16):
they wouldn't let her fly back, and so she ended
up giving birth in America, and that's how we got
a great World Cup player. But you know, who would
Who's to know whether that's an accident or birth tourism.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
I don't know, it might be a little bit.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yeah, of course, Wait a minute, you're a mom, right,
How many women do you know who are nine months
pregnant and engage in international travel.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Well, that's true, it's weird, but I think that truly
was an accident. She didn't come here for birth tourism.
I'm surprised they even let her on the plane to
begin with to get here. But yeah, I mean, we'll
see how it works out. There's also a lot of
questions about how big of an issue birth tourism really is.
The Trump administration says that it's you know, three and
a half million people a year coming here for birth tourism.
(04:55):
You know, other people I've heard figures as low as
twenty six thousand, So it's not clear, you know, how
sillient this issue really is or more of a political
talking point.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Well, yeah, yeah, I would advocate the thought that it's
more salient than it might seem based purely on the numbers.
If the communist Chinese are doing it intentionally to get
themselves lots of loyal little quote unquote US citizens that
they can command like they command all their subjects.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Yeah, it does seem like the balance has sort of changed,
Like historically people thought of it differently, and now we're
thinking of it more. As you know, there's like some
serious foreign foreign affairs issues going on in national security
concerns versus you know, historically people used pejorative terms like
anchor babies or something. I think there's two different things
(05:44):
now going on.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Yeah, yeah, so I know you're about the law. Just
a quick note on the politics. Chuck Schumer called the
president's orders illegal. Quote. Trump has just sent himself up
for yet another loss in the courts. Democrats will challenge
this order and we will win, coming out in favor
of birth tourism, which seems like an odd stance politically,
but they just knee your compose everything. So do you
(06:07):
think there's any chance that the administration's more narrowly drawn
measure will pass muster with the courts, even the Supreme
Court well.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
With the birth tourism order.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
That one has to do with immigration enforcement, So the
president has a lot of authority and discretion to sort
of deny or revoke visas and exclude people. You know,
I think he probably is on firmer ground and saying, hey,
if you're coming here for the specific purpose of giving
birth versus vacation, which is or whatever you say to
(06:42):
get your visa, that's a form of fraud and we
can deny you. I think that one's going to be
harder to challenge, just because the president has so much
authority over those kinds of decisions. But when it comes
to birthrights, citizenship, you know, the Supreme Court used pretty
clear language saying our constitution is different than you know,
(07:03):
European countries. The Framers deliberately granted broad birthright citizenship, and
you know, this attempt to sort of seize on the
very few exceptions and widen them.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
I think Trump's going to have a hard time again.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Ken Congress cut down on this or would it have
to be an amendment to the Constitution?
Speaker 4 (07:22):
True? And the amendment?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Yeah, okay, all right, fair enough. Anastasia Boden of the
Pacific Legal Foundation is online. All right, here's my exciting
new frontier and first Amendment law. And the case that
really got my attention was did you see this? It
was a high powered attorney in New York City who
was smooching with his much younger employee on a park
bench in I don't know if it's I don't think
(07:46):
it was Central Park is in a park in New
York City, and this online provocateur, dude, influencer guy whatever
he was, who does this sort of thing, videotape them
and then asked and then said, hey, what are you
doing their kids around? Quit making out, get a room,
blah blah blah, and they immediately reacted with embarrassment and
chagrin knowing they were being taped and try to get
(08:08):
his phone and blah blah blah. So I know there's
no presumption of privacy in public, but what about if
you have people who are exploiting that for profit knowing
that it will embarrass you, damage your reputation, et cetera.
That might not be their purpose. It's not like, you know,
slander libel, but that is the inevitable result. I mean,
(08:32):
is that does the law take that on at all
at this point or is that just a completely brand
new gray area. Yeah?
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Well, first, can I say I hate this cultural moment.
I did see that because it was it went viral
because apparently it's a you know what, some high powered
attorney and then he's having an affair with one of
the low powered attorneys or the new attorneys, and so
they're calling it like the cold Play moment of twenty
twenty six, right when when that was caught on camera,
And I just I hate this moment that that goes
(09:01):
viral and we're all so interested in everyone's life, like, oh,
it's it's horrible. But in terms of the law, I
think I think that's going to be a tough one.
I mean, we're balancing different privacy interests with First Amendment interests.
And generally, yeah, when you're out in public, you're you're
you know, you know that you're being watched. But that
(09:23):
the problem is that technology has evolved so much like
you can be out in public. It's like, can we
not leave our homes anymore? Because you have no expectation
of privacy. It's horrible.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
And you could be recorded at audio video for a
very long time before you had any awareness of it.
And then this intersects with you know, the flock cameras,
the license plate cameras that are now all over America,
and so you've got and I was told years and
years ago that a surveilled society is an obedient society.
(09:56):
It just changes behavior in a thousand ways you don't
even think of, in a way that's very Unamerican. And
I'm just really really concerned and I don't know what
to do about it that the society of that assumes
every single moment when they leave their house and because
of certain laws, literally into their fenced off backyard, even
(10:17):
they could be observed by a drone. Because that's not illegal,
it's just gonna really twist the way Americans behave in
a way that's not healthy.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Yeah, I think that's that's absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
And if the government is using that footage, there's going
to be a lot more protections on you know, what
they can collect and what they can do with it.
But when it's just private people out in public, you know, unfortunately,
I don't know that there's gonna that there's any constitutional
at least claims against people like that. I guess Congress
could or the state legislators could pass some laws saying
you can't use it, but it's gonna that would be
(10:51):
subject with some First Amendment challenges.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
So I don't know. With private people.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
The problem is in this day and age, and this
gets to like the recent debates over other things, is
you know, we've always had this line between the private
sector and then the government. The government is set to
the constitution and you know the public is not. But
you know, corporations, individuals wield so much power that sometimes
the line becomes blurry. And that's why a lot of people,
(11:15):
you know, when Facebook and Twitter were deplatforming certain political views,
people are really upset about that, and they thought that
there should be restrictions on it. But you know, unfortunately
only the government usually is subject to those restrictions, not
there's a first moment right to do what you want
with everything else for the public right.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
But you know the problem with that from the example
you gave is that a lot of what the private
companies did was at the behest of government officials who
have regulatory power over them, taxation power over them, and
all sorts of other things. So at what point, you know,
if I have a cattle prod and I tell poor
Michael to rob a bank, you can't pretend that Michael
(11:58):
robbed the bank he was compelled to.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
So man, yeah, that's right, that's right. So that's the
tricky thing to disentangle. But certainly when the governments get involved,
then you know, call me up if they're if they're
surveilling you and using your footage or their footage of you,
or you know, let me know.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
We'll sue them.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Meanwhile, I'll just roam around in parks trying to find
people I can embarrass for profit. Great Scott, oh boy,
oh boy, you which your careers? Oh yeah, I know
you and your pals at the Pacific Legal Foundation are
going to be busy for the rest of your lives,
your children's lives, and your grandchildren's lives. But the price
of liberty, in my opinion Anastasia is eternal vigilance.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
So that's right.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
I always I'd love to sue myself out of a job, though,
you know, I love it.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
I wish I wish I wasn't so busy, but here
we are.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Yeah, yeah, what are you gonna do? Reality? It's so impressive? Yeah,
no kidding. Do you have a bumper stickers that says that?
Speaker 1 (12:57):
I do?
Speaker 3 (12:58):
I have a sweatshirt that says a constitution says no?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Oh I love that? Or those? Really? I'll google it?
On a stage Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation, Hey,
it's always great to talk. Keep up the good work
and let's stay in touch.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
Thanks for having me on all right.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Of course, Yeah, our pleasure more to come, stay with us.
I'm shrunk, Getty show armshron with me.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
I will always lead with love, I will always lead
with grace, I will always lead with humility, and I
will always lead with integrity. I'm also human.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
That is w NBA coach Stephanie White of the Indiana team, right,
and he's in the middle now of the transgender argument
and being asked about it, And as usual with folks
of her ilk, all she's got is slogans. Always lead
with love, grace, humility, integrity. How about people with testicles
(13:57):
playing in your league? Well, here's a response. More or less.
Speaker 5 (14:01):
The hate, the fear mongering, the divisiveness, the stuff that's
trying to hijack our league will not win.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
It won't win. What about the penises?
Speaker 5 (14:11):
We are united, we are connected, right, he will not
be divided.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Every day these women put their on the line, so
will to do every day. Right when they go low,
we go high. Love will win, Okay, Grace will win,
Humility will win. Why is the dude and kindness will win? Yes?
I stand by them.
Speaker 5 (14:33):
I will always stand by them. Everybody else can go
to hell, go to hell. What about kindness and the love?
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Yes? And grace? Yeah, but what about the much larger
skeletal frames and the muscles though, of the dudes who
are cause playing as women, I will lead with grace
and humility. We will not be divided. Love will win.
About the penises? Uh? We mentioned several days ago that
because cause, a couple of former NBA guys Royce White
(15:03):
and Enis kant Her Freedom are taking the ridiculousness of
men and women's sports to the logical and extreme conclusion.
It's forcing the WNBA to face up to its cognitive
dissonance with saying we embrace trans genderism. But they know,
(15:26):
they know if they let any dudes cause playing as
women into the league, they will dominate. They will render
the entire league a belly laughing joke almost immediately, But
they can't admit that. And if you didn't listen to
yesterday's show, the reason this matters is not because the
(15:47):
WNBA matters. It doesn't matter unless you're a big fan.
If your fan enjoy the games, what the heck you do?
You it matters because this is at the core of
critical theory and what we were talking to James Lindsay about.
If you can call them on the ridiculousness of what
they're doing and the whole two plus two equals five,
(16:08):
because saying two plus two equals four is racism, and
it's Western civilization insisting on its way and its oppression
and down with the man and all. It all rests
on this sort of thing. So if we can point
out to people the absurdity of their philosophy. I mean,
you know even aoc is saying Woke one was crazy.
(16:32):
You ended people's careers, buddha them off social media, ostracized them,
made them miserable, committed acts of violence against people who
tried to say Woke one was crazy. And it's interesting,
and I will get to the WNBA statement. I was
listening to some of my favorite thinkers and writers on
(16:55):
a podcast talking about laughing off Woke one and will
there be a woke two or three? And what will
it look like? And what really really bothered me about
it is they acted like it existed in a vacuum.
That maybe not because everybody realized, no, this is crazy.
They don't know about critical theory and neo Marxism and
(17:17):
the rest of it. Of Course there will be a
woke too and three and four because they Marxists always
adapt their strategies, so of course there will be. It's
going on right now, it's forming right now, abdul Lsid.
Is it the hangwoman who lost? Was it? But the
(17:37):
lefty chick in Minneapolis who won? Is it? Of course
there'll be a Woke two point zero. That was just
a set of strategies. It wasn't a philosophy anyway. So
the WNBA had to get together to have a hasty
anti what they called an anti hate task Force meeting
to address the cognitive dissonance of we embrace, we love everybody,
(18:00):
including transgender people, and they're welcome in our legue, except
they would turn our league into a joke. The league
said afterward, there was no immediate eligibility matters affecting the
w part of the WNBA. On top of that, the
league slammed bad faith efforts to marginalize others. Raise your hand, friends,
if at any point in the next several sentences you
(18:22):
hear them come close to addressing what they'll do if
dudes cause playing as women say they want to play
in the WNBA. Here's what they said. Today's meeting covered
a wide range of topics, including ongoing discussions on transgender
athletes and the continued hate and vitriol directed at players online. Oh,
(18:42):
because that's what it's. They always go to the hate thing. No,
what about the dudes playing in your league? Maybe they
address it here. We will continue to engage all league
stakeholders in the coming weeks and months. We will approach
these important conversations thoughtfully and in alignment with the value
use of our league. There are no immediate eligibility matters
(19:03):
affecting the WNBA, and we strongly denounce the bad faith
efforts to use these topics to demean or marginalize others.
I don't need to demean or marginalize anybody. I just
don't want men playing in women's sports, boys playing in
girls sports. That's it. That is it, Go to hell,
thank you. Let's see. Debate has raged over trans athletes
(19:25):
and their participation in the wake of Fever Guards so
Iphie Cunningham's recent comments to ESPN, in which she said,
I just think girls should be Oh what she says,
I get a lot of negative feedback about me hating
trans and I'm like, I never once said that. I
think that I am here to extend love. But I
also think that love is truth, being honest, and I
want to protect young girls in a locker room or
(19:46):
young girls in sports who shouldn't have to go against
biological men. But see, that's the problem, Sophie, and that's
what I'm trying to bring home. Radical gender theory says
there's no such different thing as the difference between a
man and a woman. It's entirely a social construct. Everything
(20:10):
is a social construct. And if you prove to them that,
even people screaming that when it comes down to their
basketball league being turned into a joke, they have to admit, Okay,
it's not a social construct, it's real, then all of
critical theory falls apart. I hope I'm doing at least
a decent job of explaining this. So the WNBA just
(20:32):
whistled their way past the well muscled graveyard and essentially
issued a non statement statement. So I wish them luck,
and Enis Kanter and mister White's name, I keep forgetting
his name, Royce White, that's right, who is absolutely hilarious
(20:52):
and a genius and understands what he's doing. They're going
to keep going. And if they're not drafted, they say
they're going to sue based on because people have said
all the WNBA has to do is not draft them,
and no, they have the legal teams lined up to
sue on behalf of discrimination against transgender people. This is brilliant. Oh,
(21:13):
I know, it is absolutely brilliant. And so that's it.
It has nothing to do with like hating transgender people.
Although I do think it's an awful, awful social contagion
and an abuse and experiment on mentally ill people, and
it really bothers me on that level. But it's not
(21:34):
about the WNBA.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
We've decided to call this the best weekend talk show
in America and if you like it, download Armstrong and
Getty arm Demand. Welcome to a brand new feature. I'm
calling it Dollars and Nonsense. Oh that was a nice
touch at the end there. Yeah, that's good, holding inside
(22:00):
the JIV name. I thought this was also interesting. A
handful of stories about money. I can't believe this. This
is an exclusive investigation by the Wall Street Journal. They
looked like they were getting rich on poly market, but
none of it was real. And I've seen a couple
of these videos they were The prediction market is flooded
(22:26):
social media with deceptive video, deceptive videos by paid creators.
Here's how it works. Here's this guy, George, George Makehara.
In case you're into this and you've seen these videos,
he appears to have a lucrative side hustle making bets
on polymarket. In January, this guy's at college student he
posted a video that showed him winning one hundred grand
(22:47):
on poly Market on a bet that President Trump would
publicly say the word McDonald's that month. The bet was
one of one hundred and forty five that Makihara appeared
to place on Polymarket's website between January and mid May,
based on his videos, bets adding up to almost four
hundred and ten thousand dollars. But according to the Wall
Street Journal investigation, none of those bets were real, and
(23:09):
he's one of dozens of mostly college aged creators poll
Market paid to film themselves making fake trades and sometimes
scoring fake wins. According to an analysis of more than
eleven hundred videos that the journal took in, along with
instructional materials and interviews with creators who've worked with the
company on the actual site. For what it's worth, more
(23:32):
than fifty accounts made that McDonald's bet in January, and
all of them lost, So they didn't even go real
far down the line of covering their tracks to make
sure these were bets that actually paid off in that
month or what have you. And I watched I departed
from the text of this article to watch one of
the videos, and I'm like wait a minute, this dude's like,
(23:54):
there's poly Market on his screen, there's the thing happening,
there's the amount. I mean, he's videoing his using of
the website. So I go back to the text and
it explains and it's push to draw users to its
unregulated platform, Polymarket is flooded social media with videos like Machiharas,
(24:14):
which appear genuine at first glance. In reality, Polymarket built
near perfect copies of its own website, then instructed creators
to make simulated trades on those dummy sites and hide
that they were being paid by Polymarket. Then to get
the videos to go viral, Polymarket is recruited a social
media army to copy and repost those creators footage so
(24:38):
they would go viral for sure. Though the New York
based company has been banned from offering its crypto its
primary crypto platform in the US since twenty twenty two,
the social media creators are paid to specifically target US
users who can still access the site with a virtual
Private network of VPN, which is a decent idea if
(24:58):
you don't like to be tracked on. He and that,
of course, the Polymarket spokeshole said in a statement that
it was committed to maintaining any accurate, fear and transparent markets.
We are part of a rapidly growing industry and are
constantly evaluing ways, evaluating ways to improve how we're engaging
in earning the trust of our audience. So anyway, holy cow,
(25:20):
that is uh well, just to understand how serious and
sophisticated these people are about misleading you. I mean, I
got to admit, if I'm watching a commercial for some
sort of I don't know, counter cleaner spray that makes
your counter shiny and clean and smell like lemons, I
(25:41):
know that chick in the ad is not actually a
woman cleaning your own counters at home. Okay, I get that.
But to have those videos be that detailed and that
deliberately fraudulent and not disclose any of it, well, you
know what's going on. I don't need to explain it
to you. Story number two, how the bond market inflated
(26:06):
Powerball and we had somebody tried to explain this to
us once, and I remember being mystified a bit. Tonight
there's a billion dollar powerball drawing. RMDPA plays the powerball.
We all want it, Michael. We're all hoping he's looking
(26:26):
for okay anyway, But if you win the power ball
and take the cash payout, it's only four hundred and
thirty three million dollars. It's less than half of the
billion dollars now. Five and a half years ago, there
was a super big prize in January twenty one. The
(26:47):
jackpot was seven hundred and thirty one million, so about
a quarter smaller. Yet the lump sum payment if you
chose that, was five hundred and forty seven million dollars.
So how the hell do you have a the jackpot
be you know, a third bigger, up to a billion dollars,
But the payout is what is that one hundred and
(27:10):
fifteen thousand dollars less? It has to do with what's
the correct term the bond yield, And this is what's
in the small print. Powerball and Mega Millions both offer
the option for winner to take thirty checks that grow
by five percent annually. The lotteries take no financial risk
(27:34):
offering that annuity, since they buy zero coupon Treasury bonds
maturing on those dates, much the way a corporate pension
fund might. Because inflation and the lure of risk, your
assets like stocks are higher than in twenty twenty one.
If you follow the market at all, you know it's
been sky high. So are the yields. Because to get
(27:55):
you to buy bonds, they've got to give you better rates,
better returns. Otherwise you just go to stocks. So anyway,
the upshot is a bigger difference between the lump sum
versus the annuity. The cash value is seventy five percent
of the advertised prize in twenty twenty one. Now it's
forty three percent. So it has to do with bond yields.
And the small print is, yeah, if you if you
(28:19):
don't take the cash thing, you get an annuity that's
based on bond yields, and so that the cash payout
the lump sum, I should say, is all based on
that math, which I had no idea of moving along
an dollars. That's right. The Powerball son gives me your
romote after you watch the power Ball, that's right. Interesting
(28:44):
article here StubHub customers who battled for tickets and battle
harder for a refund. Article starts with the story of
it's three hours before the US played Paraguay in the
World Cup in June, and this dude is standing out
side Sofi Stadium in Englewood, California, LA, essentially with his
(29:05):
dad and no tickets. Now this is June. Right in March,
he'd gone on StubHub and paid twenty two hundred dollars
for a pair of seats as a birthday gift for
his dad. Four days earlier, he'd called stub Hub to
say his tickets were still not on the FIFA app.
Where are they? Company said, yeah, we'll have replacements by
noon tomorrow. Never showed up. He spoke with StubHub at
(29:28):
least ten times in calls that spend nearly three hours
in the days leading up to the game. Each time
he was told not to worry. Had kickoff, he was
still without tickets. He approached the stadium's guest services window.
Stadium employee said you're here because of stub Hub, right,
and he's like, wow, yeah, she gestured at a crowd
of forty people standing to the side. You're not the
(29:49):
only one. All of these people are here because of
stub Hub. So there's been a huge a number of
folks who've faced this sort of thing, not just for
the World Cup, but a bunch of other stuff, and
apparently and a Knicks game Hamilton Performance, George Strait Concert,
you name it, and bunches. Stub Hub customers are getting
(30:12):
stiff like this, and then sometimes they get nothing. Sometimes
they're sent replacements that were worse than what they paid for,
Like you're in the waybacks instead of upfront that's paid for,
and you have to spend months fighting stub Hub for refunds,
including refunds that said yep, you're right, you got screwed.
(30:33):
We'll get your refund and you got to spend months
fighting for Many resolutions came only after they hired lawyers
or complained in the press, and that ain't cool. Complaints
about StubHub to the Better Business Bureau rose forty seven
percent forty seven percent from twenty twenty four to twenty
twenty five, and climbed sixty three percent in the eight
months leading up to the company September twenty twenty five
(30:55):
initial public offering. Hmmm, I'm not saying the vast majority
folks don't get what they paid for, but buyer beware
final story, dollars and nonsense. This is as political as
it is anything else. Who here has bought a house?
Show of hands, A lot of us. Okay, what do
(31:17):
you do when you're looking for a house. Maybe you
go on your favorite real estate site. You look at
the house itself, you get the pictures, you look at
the map, Oh, that's real close to the main road
or whatever. And then if you're a savvy buyer, you
look at the school's ratings, right, and maybe you even
look at crime rates and that sort of thing. Do
(31:37):
you check out Meghan's list for blue dots for child
molesters in the neighborhood. Whatever. If you're a savvy home buyer,
you do all those things. Six days after Joe Biden
was sworn into office, he issued a directive establishing enforcement
priorities for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD
(31:58):
aimed at scaring real estate, state companies and real estate
agents into not disclosing crime and school information in real
estate listings because it might hurt diversity. Diversity and inclusive
communities strengthen our democracy. The executive memorandum began, But you
(32:24):
know who wants their community to be inclusive of failing schools?
And who wants diversity to mean armed criminals along with
innocent people. And what's crazy about this is, you know,
black families don't want to live in dangerous neighborhoods with
bad schools. Either nobody does, but many progressives believe racial
(32:46):
equalities best achieved by demolishing standards for everyone. So the
effect of Biden's memo, which made clear that racial politics
and the doctrine of disparate impact would guide Hudd's enforcement
effect federal housing laws, and the major online real estate
companies immediately understood what was being demanded of them. Realtor,
dot Com and Zillow immediately stopped providing crime data, while Redfinn,
(33:11):
going out of its way to embrace the party line,
posted a blog proclaiming neighborhood crime data doesn't belong on
real estate sites. National Association of Realtors put up a
web page in early twenty three titled how to Handle
Client Questions about schools and neighborhood Neighborhoods, which told realtors
to point home buyers to other sources of information, don't
(33:32):
give them the facts yourself. And the page is absolutely
stuffed with dei jargon, but it also testifies. It makes
clear that the real Estate Association worried the fair housing
laws would be interpreted aggressively in realtors who did tell
(33:53):
their clients about schools and crime would run the risk
of punishment by the federal government. Okay, how many ways
is this horrible? I mean number one, there's a huge
free speech issue here. Huge. Secondly, the idea that the
Dei cult would deny you this information because they thought
(34:18):
it might disproportionately leads you to not buy a house
in a black Hispanic neighborhood or something. Man, these people
are sick. New York Times with the story extreme weather
(34:40):
brings fierce winds and gentle hugs to Sesame Straight. That's right.
An episode that aired I think it was this week
or maybe last week, focused on the dangerous effects of
climate change without mentioning climate change for the little ones.
No place is safe from climate change these days, not
even Sesame Street or sunny days used to sweep the
(35:01):
clouds away. This is in the New York Times and
puts this as an just an unambiguous, wonderful thing, writes
about this is a great thing. On Monday, a fierce
storm tore through the set of the fifty seven year
old children's show, knocking over lampposts, blowing out windows, and
scattering debris around Oscar the Grouch's trash can. The fictional
(35:23):
cloudburst was part of a special episode Storm on Sesame Street,
created to help children make sense of the extreme weather
that's become increasingly common across the world as the planet warms.
I hate this so much. Number One, the kids can't
freak and read. Teach them the ab season one two
threes not progressive politics. Number two, you see the stats
(35:46):
of little kids who are indoctrinated into the climate change
things as young as kindergarten and then have this terrible
climate anxiety because Gretaitunberg convinced them, with help from you know,
her ilk, that we're all going to die and these
kids are terrified. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Kids,
(36:11):
take off your sweater and put on shorts. It's going
to be okay. And yeah, the world is warming. It's
warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled,
and mankind might have something to do with it this time,
but it has. Committing economic suicide to make a meaningless
gesture is absolutely idiotic. But here's the thing, and I
(36:31):
know I sound obsessive, but it's because it's true. You
remember James Lindsay yesterday, talking about on the last page
of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx said communism will aid
every uprising around the world, if it's an uprising against
the status quo and the powers that be, all of them,
(36:52):
no matter if it's transgenders in the WNBA or you know,
or whatever, you know, gay rights, or fighting back against
the British government in you know, in some foreign land
or whatever. Just we will aid in every single fight.
And climate change is absolutely one of those, because it's
(37:14):
bent on tearing down the status quo and bringing in
a new future, which will be a Marxist future. But anyway,
so yeah, you got to got to get the kids easy,
got to indoctrinate them young. So great Sesame Street terrifying
the kids about climate change, And I thought this is
very very interesting. As smoke from Canadian wildfires poured into
(37:36):
American cities last month, the headlines poured out equally fast.
Most blamed climate change. Canada's public broadcaster informed readers that
the smoky Skies had quote only one true fix, stop
burning fossil fuels. But the headlines seem to have missed
the most remarkable fact about the wildfires Canada is having
a below average fire here. In fact, the entire world
(37:58):
is on track to a record an area burned, which
is how they always measure this stuff. Ottawa's own tally,
released on July ninth, that's the Canadian capitol, showed one
point four million hectars burned use acres, less than a
third of the four point six million hectars burned by
the same date last year. Tucked into the quick facts
(38:19):
of the government's press release, beneath the ministerial quotes about
climate change driving ever more severe disasters was the quiet
admission that wildfire activity remains below the five year average.
That's understating it. Satellite data weekly updated by the European
Union confirmed that Canada's total area burned by just the
other day it was below the twenty twelve to twenty
(38:40):
twenty five average the EU uses as a baseline, and
the statistical good news keeps coming. The US, this year's
remained below its twenty twelve to twenty twenty five half
the average, with its most recent measurement twenty percent below average.
As of August d fifth, North America and South America
are at record low burns since twenty twelve. Every continent
(39:01):
around the globe. This year is burning less, some much
less than usual, and they go through Oceania, the Europe, Asia, Africa,
which is not to say next year might not be worse.
I mean it might be. I don't know. But in
the never ending drum beat that this is caused by
climate change, Gavin Newsom is still saying that about the
(39:22):
Palisades fire in California that was set by a leftist
it's leftist political violence. It's not climate change. And yes,
the climate is changing, but these people are so obsessed
with convincing you that that means we have to overthrow
everything in change society. They can't even admit when yeah,
it's super smoky in some parts of the country temporarily,
(39:43):
but it's actually a really down year for wildfires. These
people they either gosh, they don't know, or they don't
mind lying, or once again, their ideology has just completely
blinded their ability to perceive the truth. Booh, thank you,
al Core. Yeah, I tell you who's bullless.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
You Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
We are Armstrong and Getty and this is the best
we can talk show in America. Grab our podcast. It's
called Armstrong and Getty on demand,
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Armstrong and Getty and he Armstrong and Getty. This is
the best weekend talk show in America. Jack Armstrong and
Joe Getty here with a digest of some of the
(00:40):
twenty hours of live radio week done this week talking
about the Democratic Socialists of America. Wack of noodles and
on the other side of the coin, an absolutely wonderful
conversation with James Lindsay, who's one of the foremost writers
and thinkers, calling these crazy people out. That and all
starts a good stuff that happened in the crazy week
that's been. If you like what you hear, grab our
(01:01):
podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand now the best weekend
talk to you in America. This is always enlightening and
a pleasure to talk to. Onastasia Boden, the Senior Attorney
for Equality and Opportunity at the Pacific Legal Foundation. Onastasia
is also the host of the very popular in Descent
podcast on a Stagia. How are you doing? Great? Great
to be here, great, great to have you as always
(01:22):
so I know you have a couple of things you
want to talk about, then I've got I'm going to
alert you to the next frontier of First Amendment law
and privacy law. I'm not in case in case you're
not hipped to it, and I have a feeling you are.
But anyway, I and a number of folks read with
interest last week that the President put out a couple
(01:43):
of new orders restricting birthright citizenship, including quote unquote birth tourism,
after the Supreme Court struck down the first attempt. Seemed
a little narrower, maybe a little more carefully crafted. What's
your take on it? Will it work? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Well, we you know, it was just a few weeks
ago that the Supreme Court, you know, shut down Trump's
first birthright citizenship and saying that our constitution broadly grants
birthright citizenship with very narrow exceptions, no birthright citizenship for
enemy occupiers or diplomats.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
So now Trump kind of seized on.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
That language and issued two new executive orders. The first
one attacks birth tourism, as you say, it denies or
evokes visas to people who are coming here just for
birth tourism, and actually authorizes enforcement action against people who
facilitate birth tourism. The other one seizes on those narrow
exceptions and says, Okay, if enemy occupiers don't get birthright citizenship,
(02:43):
we're going to designate a whole host of countries as
terrorist organizations and say anybody, any member of those terrorist
organizations can no longer have birthright citizenship. And then it
says not only diplomats or foreign ministers, which has been
the historical.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
Exception, but also just basic employees of embassies.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Or you know, people who work at the World Bank
who are here for a temporary amount of time, they
don't get birthright citizenship either.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
I don't think.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
That's going to work, but we do know that, you know,
a couple of the justices who struck down the first
executive Order had some kind of hymning and hung language
in there. Justice Kavanaugh in particular, that left open, you know,
the door for Trump to kind of expand on the
historical exceptions.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
So we're gonna we're gonna have to see about that.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
I assume they went to some trouble at least to
define what birth tourism is exactly. It has to be
the length of stay or not.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Really, no people who come here you know, specifically for
the purpose of giving birth and then returning, So coming
here temporarily with no interest in actually being here for vacation.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
You know, that's the idea, that's what the language gets at.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
But yeah, as you say, that's kind of how do
you how are they even going to enforce that? How
do you know when somebody you know what, wasn't it
our World Cup soccer player? His you know, the Baligan
the one who got the famous red card and all
that at the World His mom was here. He was
only born United States because his mom was here for
vacation and she was so close to giving birth that
(04:16):
they wouldn't let her fly back, and so she ended
up giving birth in America, and that's how we got
a great World Cup player. But you know, who would
Who's to know whether that's an accident or birth tourism.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
I don't know, it might be a little bit.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yeah, of course, Wait a minute, you're a mom, right,
How many women do you know who are nine months
pregnant and engage in international travel.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Well, that's true, it's weird, but I think that truly
was an accident. She didn't come here for birth tourism.
I'm surprised they even let her on the plane to
begin with to get here. But yeah, I mean, we'll
see how it works out. There's also a lot of
questions about how big of an issue birth tourism really is.
The Trump administration says that it's you know, three and
a half million people a year coming here for birth tourism.
(04:55):
You know, other people I've heard figures as low as
twenty six thousand, So it's not clear, you know, how
sillient this issue really is or more of a political
talking point.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Well, yeah, yeah, I would advocate the thought that it's
more salient than it might seem based purely on the numbers.
If the communist Chinese are doing it intentionally to get
themselves lots of loyal little quote unquote US citizens that
they can command like they command all their subjects.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Yeah, it does seem like the balance has sort of changed,
Like historically people thought of it differently, and now we're
thinking of it more. As you know, there's like some
serious foreign foreign affairs issues going on in national security
concerns versus you know, historically people used pejorative terms like
anchor babies or something. I think there's two different things
(05:44):
now going on.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Yeah, yeah, so I know you're about the law. Just
a quick note on the politics. Chuck Schumer called the
president's orders illegal. Quote. Trump has just sent himself up
for yet another loss in the courts. Democrats will challenge
this order and we will win, coming out in favor
of birth tourism, which seems like an odd stance politically,
but they just knee your compose everything. So do you
(06:07):
think there's any chance that the administration's more narrowly drawn
measure will pass muster with the courts, even the Supreme
Court well.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
With the birth tourism order.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
That one has to do with immigration enforcement, So the
president has a lot of authority and discretion to sort
of deny or revoke visas and exclude people. You know,
I think he probably is on firmer ground and saying, hey,
if you're coming here for the specific purpose of giving
birth versus vacation, which is or whatever you say to
(06:42):
get your visa, that's a form of fraud and we
can deny you. I think that one's going to be
harder to challenge, just because the president has so much
authority over those kinds of decisions. But when it comes
to birthrights, citizenship, you know, the Supreme Court used pretty
clear language saying our constitution is different than you know,
(07:03):
European countries. The Framers deliberately granted broad birthright citizenship, and
you know, this attempt to sort of seize on the
very few exceptions and widen them.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
I think Trump's going to have a hard time again.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Ken Congress cut down on this or would it have
to be an amendment to the Constitution?
Speaker 4 (07:22):
True? And the amendment?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Yeah, okay, all right, fair enough. Anastasia Boden of the
Pacific Legal Foundation is online. All right, here's my exciting
new frontier and first Amendment law. And the case that
really got my attention was did you see this? It
was a high powered attorney in New York City who
was smooching with his much younger employee on a park
bench in I don't know if it's I don't think
(07:46):
it was Central Park is in a park in New
York City, and this online provocateur, dude, influencer guy whatever
he was, who does this sort of thing, videotape them
and then asked and then said, hey, what are you
doing their kids around? Quit making out, get a room,
blah blah blah, and they immediately reacted with embarrassment and
chagrin knowing they were being taped and try to get
(08:08):
his phone and blah blah blah. So I know there's
no presumption of privacy in public, but what about if
you have people who are exploiting that for profit knowing
that it will embarrass you, damage your reputation, et cetera.
That might not be their purpose. It's not like, you know,
slander libel, but that is the inevitable result. I mean,
(08:32):
is that does the law take that on at all
at this point or is that just a completely brand
new gray area. Yeah?
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Well, first, can I say I hate this cultural moment.
I did see that because it was it went viral
because apparently it's a you know what, some high powered
attorney and then he's having an affair with one of
the low powered attorneys or the new attorneys, and so
they're calling it like the cold Play moment of twenty
twenty six, right when when that was caught on camera,
And I just I hate this moment that that goes
(09:01):
viral and we're all so interested in everyone's life, like, oh,
it's it's horrible. But in terms of the law, I
think I think that's going to be a tough one.
I mean, we're balancing different privacy interests with First Amendment interests.
And generally, yeah, when you're out in public, you're you're
you know, you know that you're being watched. But that
(09:23):
the problem is that technology has evolved so much like
you can be out in public. It's like, can we
not leave our homes anymore? Because you have no expectation
of privacy. It's horrible.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
And you could be recorded at audio video for a
very long time before you had any awareness of it.
And then this intersects with you know, the flock cameras,
the license plate cameras that are now all over America,
and so you've got and I was told years and
years ago that a surveilled society is an obedient society.
(09:56):
It just changes behavior in a thousand ways you don't
even think of, in a way that's very Unamerican. And
I'm just really really concerned and I don't know what
to do about it that the society of that assumes
every single moment when they leave their house and because
of certain laws, literally into their fenced off backyard, even
(10:17):
they could be observed by a drone. Because that's not illegal,
it's just gonna really twist the way Americans behave in
a way that's not healthy.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Yeah, I think that's that's absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
And if the government is using that footage, there's going
to be a lot more protections on you know, what
they can collect and what they can do with it.
But when it's just private people out in public, you know, unfortunately,
I don't know that there's gonna that there's any constitutional
at least claims against people like that. I guess Congress
could or the state legislators could pass some laws saying
you can't use it, but it's gonna that would be
(10:51):
subject with some First Amendment challenges.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
So I don't know. With private people.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
The problem is in this day and age, and this
gets to like the recent debates over other things, is
you know, we've always had this line between the private
sector and then the government. The government is set to
the constitution and you know the public is not. But
you know, corporations, individuals wield so much power that sometimes
the line becomes blurry. And that's why a lot of people,
(11:15):
you know, when Facebook and Twitter were deplatforming certain political views,
people are really upset about that, and they thought that
there should be restrictions on it. But you know, unfortunately
only the government usually is subject to those restrictions, not
there's a first moment right to do what you want
with everything else for the public right.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
But you know the problem with that from the example
you gave is that a lot of what the private
companies did was at the behest of government officials who
have regulatory power over them, taxation power over them, and
all sorts of other things. So at what point, you know,
if I have a cattle prod and I tell poor
Michael to rob a bank, you can't pretend that Michael
(11:58):
robbed the bank he was compelled to.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
So man, yeah, that's right, that's right. So that's the
tricky thing to disentangle. But certainly when the governments get involved,
then you know, call me up if they're if they're
surveilling you and using your footage or their footage of you,
or you know, let me know.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
We'll sue them.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Meanwhile, I'll just roam around in parks trying to find
people I can embarrass for profit. Great Scott, oh boy,
oh boy, you which your careers? Oh yeah, I know
you and your pals at the Pacific Legal Foundation are
going to be busy for the rest of your lives,
your children's lives, and your grandchildren's lives. But the price
of liberty, in my opinion Anastasia is eternal vigilance.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
So that's right.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
I always I'd love to sue myself out of a job, though,
you know, I love it.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
I wish I wish I wasn't so busy, but here
we are.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Yeah, yeah, what are you gonna do? Reality? It's so impressive? Yeah,
no kidding. Do you have a bumper stickers that says that?
Speaker 1 (12:57):
I do?
Speaker 3 (12:58):
I have a sweatshirt that says a constitution says no?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Oh I love that? Or those? Really? I'll google it?
On a stage Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation, Hey,
it's always great to talk. Keep up the good work
and let's stay in touch.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
Thanks for having me on all right.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Of course, Yeah, our pleasure more to come, stay with us.
I'm shrunk, Getty show armshron with me.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
I will always lead with love, I will always lead
with grace, I will always lead with humility, and I
will always lead with integrity. I'm also human.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
That is w NBA coach Stephanie White of the Indiana team, right,
and he's in the middle now of the transgender argument
and being asked about it, And as usual with folks
of her ilk, all she's got is slogans. Always lead
with love, grace, humility, integrity. How about people with testicles
(13:57):
playing in your league? Well, here's a response. More or less.
Speaker 5 (14:01):
The hate, the fear mongering, the divisiveness, the stuff that's
trying to hijack our league will not win.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
It won't win. What about the penises?
Speaker 5 (14:11):
We are united, we are connected, right, he will not
be divided.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Every day these women put their on the line, so
will to do every day. Right when they go low,
we go high. Love will win, Okay, Grace will win,
Humility will win. Why is the dude and kindness will win? Yes?
I stand by them.
Speaker 5 (14:33):
I will always stand by them. Everybody else can go
to hell, go to hell. What about kindness and the love?
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Yes? And grace? Yeah, but what about the much larger
skeletal frames and the muscles though, of the dudes who
are cause playing as women, I will lead with grace
and humility. We will not be divided. Love will win.
About the penises? Uh? We mentioned several days ago that
because cause, a couple of former NBA guys Royce White
(15:03):
and Enis kant Her Freedom are taking the ridiculousness of
men and women's sports to the logical and extreme conclusion.
It's forcing the WNBA to face up to its cognitive
dissonance with saying we embrace trans genderism. But they know,
(15:26):
they know if they let any dudes cause playing as
women into the league, they will dominate. They will render
the entire league a belly laughing joke almost immediately, But
they can't admit that. And if you didn't listen to
yesterday's show, the reason this matters is not because the
(15:47):
WNBA matters. It doesn't matter unless you're a big fan.
If your fan enjoy the games, what the heck you do?
You it matters because this is at the core of
critical theory and what we were talking to James Lindsay about.
If you can call them on the ridiculousness of what
they're doing and the whole two plus two equals five,
(16:08):
because saying two plus two equals four is racism, and
it's Western civilization insisting on its way and its oppression
and down with the man and all. It all rests
on this sort of thing. So if we can point
out to people the absurdity of their philosophy. I mean,
you know even aoc is saying Woke one was crazy.
(16:32):
You ended people's careers, buddha them off social media, ostracized them,
made them miserable, committed acts of violence against people who
tried to say Woke one was crazy. And it's interesting,
and I will get to the WNBA statement. I was
listening to some of my favorite thinkers and writers on
(16:55):
a podcast talking about laughing off Woke one and will
there be a woke two or three? And what will
it look like? And what really really bothered me about
it is they acted like it existed in a vacuum.
That maybe not because everybody realized, no, this is crazy.
They don't know about critical theory and neo Marxism and
(17:17):
the rest of it. Of Course there will be a
woke too and three and four because they Marxists always
adapt their strategies, so of course there will be. It's
going on right now, it's forming right now, abdul Lsid.
Is it the hangwoman who lost? Was it? But the
(17:37):
lefty chick in Minneapolis who won? Is it? Of course
there'll be a Woke two point zero. That was just
a set of strategies. It wasn't a philosophy anyway. So
the WNBA had to get together to have a hasty
anti what they called an anti hate task Force meeting
to address the cognitive dissonance of we embrace, we love everybody,
(18:00):
including transgender people, and they're welcome in our legue, except
they would turn our league into a joke. The league
said afterward, there was no immediate eligibility matters affecting the
w part of the WNBA. On top of that, the
league slammed bad faith efforts to marginalize others. Raise your hand, friends,
if at any point in the next several sentences you
(18:22):
hear them come close to addressing what they'll do if
dudes cause playing as women say they want to play
in the WNBA. Here's what they said. Today's meeting covered
a wide range of topics, including ongoing discussions on transgender
athletes and the continued hate and vitriol directed at players online. Oh,
(18:42):
because that's what it's. They always go to the hate thing. No,
what about the dudes playing in your league? Maybe they
address it here. We will continue to engage all league
stakeholders in the coming weeks and months. We will approach
these important conversations thoughtfully and in alignment with the value
use of our league. There are no immediate eligibility matters
(19:03):
affecting the WNBA, and we strongly denounce the bad faith
efforts to use these topics to demean or marginalize others.
I don't need to demean or marginalize anybody. I just
don't want men playing in women's sports, boys playing in
girls sports. That's it. That is it, Go to hell,
thank you. Let's see. Debate has raged over trans athletes
(19:25):
and their participation in the wake of Fever Guards so
Iphie Cunningham's recent comments to ESPN, in which she said,
I just think girls should be Oh what she says,
I get a lot of negative feedback about me hating
trans and I'm like, I never once said that. I
think that I am here to extend love. But I
also think that love is truth, being honest, and I
want to protect young girls in a locker room or
(19:46):
young girls in sports who shouldn't have to go against
biological men. But see, that's the problem, Sophie, and that's
what I'm trying to bring home. Radical gender theory says
there's no such different thing as the difference between a
man and a woman. It's entirely a social construct. Everything
(20:10):
is a social construct. And if you prove to them that,
even people screaming that when it comes down to their
basketball league being turned into a joke, they have to admit, Okay,
it's not a social construct, it's real, then all of
critical theory falls apart. I hope I'm doing at least
a decent job of explaining this. So the WNBA just
(20:32):
whistled their way past the well muscled graveyard and essentially
issued a non statement statement. So I wish them luck,
and Enis Kanter and mister White's name, I keep forgetting
his name, Royce White, that's right, who is absolutely hilarious
(20:52):
and a genius and understands what he's doing. They're going
to keep going. And if they're not drafted, they say
they're going to sue based on because people have said
all the WNBA has to do is not draft them,
and no, they have the legal teams lined up to
sue on behalf of discrimination against transgender people. This is brilliant. Oh,
(21:13):
I know, it is absolutely brilliant. And so that's it.
It has nothing to do with like hating transgender people.
Although I do think it's an awful, awful social contagion
and an abuse and experiment on mentally ill people, and
it really bothers me on that level. But it's not
(21:34):
about the WNBA.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
We've decided to call this the best weekend talk show
in America and if you like it, download Armstrong and
Getty arm Demand. Welcome to a brand new feature. I'm
calling it Dollars and Nonsense. Oh that was a nice
touch at the end there. Yeah, that's good, holding inside
(22:00):
the JIV name. I thought this was also interesting. A
handful of stories about money. I can't believe this. This
is an exclusive investigation by the Wall Street Journal. They
looked like they were getting rich on poly market, but
none of it was real. And I've seen a couple
of these videos they were The prediction market is flooded
(22:26):
social media with deceptive video, deceptive videos by paid creators.
Here's how it works. Here's this guy, George, George Makehara.
In case you're into this and you've seen these videos,
he appears to have a lucrative side hustle making bets
on polymarket. In January, this guy's at college student he
posted a video that showed him winning one hundred grand
(22:47):
on poly Market on a bet that President Trump would
publicly say the word McDonald's that month. The bet was
one of one hundred and forty five that Makihara appeared
to place on Polymarket's website between January and mid May,
based on his videos, bets adding up to almost four
hundred and ten thousand dollars. But according to the Wall
Street Journal investigation, none of those bets were real, and
(23:09):
he's one of dozens of mostly college aged creators poll
Market paid to film themselves making fake trades and sometimes
scoring fake wins. According to an analysis of more than
eleven hundred videos that the journal took in, along with
instructional materials and interviews with creators who've worked with the
company on the actual site. For what it's worth, more
(23:32):
than fifty accounts made that McDonald's bet in January, and
all of them lost, So they didn't even go real
far down the line of covering their tracks to make
sure these were bets that actually paid off in that
month or what have you. And I watched I departed
from the text of this article to watch one of
the videos, and I'm like wait a minute, this dude's like,
(23:54):
there's poly Market on his screen, there's the thing happening,
there's the amount. I mean, he's videoing his using of
the website. So I go back to the text and
it explains and it's push to draw users to its
unregulated platform, Polymarket is flooded social media with videos like Machiharas,
(24:14):
which appear genuine at first glance. In reality, Polymarket built
near perfect copies of its own website, then instructed creators
to make simulated trades on those dummy sites and hide
that they were being paid by Polymarket. Then to get
the videos to go viral, Polymarket is recruited a social
media army to copy and repost those creators footage so
(24:38):
they would go viral for sure. Though the New York
based company has been banned from offering its crypto its
primary crypto platform in the US since twenty twenty two,
the social media creators are paid to specifically target US
users who can still access the site with a virtual
Private network of VPN, which is a decent idea if
(24:58):
you don't like to be tracked on. He and that,
of course, the Polymarket spokeshole said in a statement that
it was committed to maintaining any accurate, fear and transparent markets.
We are part of a rapidly growing industry and are
constantly evaluing ways, evaluating ways to improve how we're engaging
in earning the trust of our audience. So anyway, holy cow,
(25:20):
that is uh well, just to understand how serious and
sophisticated these people are about misleading you. I mean, I
got to admit, if I'm watching a commercial for some
sort of I don't know, counter cleaner spray that makes
your counter shiny and clean and smell like lemons, I
(25:41):
know that chick in the ad is not actually a
woman cleaning your own counters at home. Okay, I get that.
But to have those videos be that detailed and that
deliberately fraudulent and not disclose any of it, well, you
know what's going on. I don't need to explain it
to you. Story number two, how the bond market inflated
(26:06):
Powerball and we had somebody tried to explain this to
us once, and I remember being mystified a bit. Tonight
there's a billion dollar powerball drawing. RMDPA plays the powerball.
We all want it, Michael. We're all hoping he's looking
(26:26):
for okay anyway, But if you win the power ball
and take the cash payout, it's only four hundred and
thirty three million dollars. It's less than half of the
billion dollars now. Five and a half years ago, there
was a super big prize in January twenty one. The
(26:47):
jackpot was seven hundred and thirty one million, so about
a quarter smaller. Yet the lump sum payment if you
chose that, was five hundred and forty seven million dollars.
So how the hell do you have a the jackpot
be you know, a third bigger, up to a billion dollars,
But the payout is what is that one hundred and
(27:10):
fifteen thousand dollars less? It has to do with what's
the correct term the bond yield, And this is what's
in the small print. Powerball and Mega Millions both offer
the option for winner to take thirty checks that grow
by five percent annually. The lotteries take no financial risk
(27:34):
offering that annuity, since they buy zero coupon Treasury bonds
maturing on those dates, much the way a corporate pension
fund might. Because inflation and the lure of risk, your
assets like stocks are higher than in twenty twenty one.
If you follow the market at all, you know it's
been sky high. So are the yields. Because to get
(27:55):
you to buy bonds, they've got to give you better rates,
better returns. Otherwise you just go to stocks. So anyway,
the upshot is a bigger difference between the lump sum
versus the annuity. The cash value is seventy five percent
of the advertised prize in twenty twenty one. Now it's
forty three percent. So it has to do with bond yields.
And the small print is, yeah, if you if you
(28:19):
don't take the cash thing, you get an annuity that's
based on bond yields, and so that the cash payout
the lump sum, I should say, is all based on
that math, which I had no idea of moving along
an dollars. That's right. The Powerball son gives me your
romote after you watch the power Ball, that's right. Interesting
(28:44):
article here StubHub customers who battled for tickets and battle
harder for a refund. Article starts with the story of
it's three hours before the US played Paraguay in the
World Cup in June, and this dude is standing out
side Sofi Stadium in Englewood, California, LA, essentially with his
(29:05):
dad and no tickets. Now this is June. Right in March,
he'd gone on StubHub and paid twenty two hundred dollars
for a pair of seats as a birthday gift for
his dad. Four days earlier, he'd called stub Hub to
say his tickets were still not on the FIFA app.
Where are they? Company said, yeah, we'll have replacements by
noon tomorrow. Never showed up. He spoke with StubHub at
(29:28):
least ten times in calls that spend nearly three hours
in the days leading up to the game. Each time
he was told not to worry. Had kickoff, he was
still without tickets. He approached the stadium's guest services window.
Stadium employee said you're here because of stub Hub, right,
and he's like, wow, yeah, she gestured at a crowd
of forty people standing to the side. You're not the
(29:49):
only one. All of these people are here because of
stub Hub. So there's been a huge a number of
folks who've faced this sort of thing, not just for
the World Cup, but a bunch of other stuff, and
apparently and a Knicks game Hamilton Performance, George Strait Concert,
you name it, and bunches. Stub Hub customers are getting
(30:12):
stiff like this, and then sometimes they get nothing. Sometimes
they're sent replacements that were worse than what they paid for,
Like you're in the waybacks instead of upfront that's paid for,
and you have to spend months fighting stub Hub for refunds,
including refunds that said yep, you're right, you got screwed.
(30:33):
We'll get your refund and you got to spend months
fighting for Many resolutions came only after they hired lawyers
or complained in the press, and that ain't cool. Complaints
about StubHub to the Better Business Bureau rose forty seven
percent forty seven percent from twenty twenty four to twenty
twenty five, and climbed sixty three percent in the eight
months leading up to the company September twenty twenty five
(30:55):
initial public offering. Hmmm, I'm not saying the vast majority
folks don't get what they paid for, but buyer beware
final story, dollars and nonsense. This is as political as
it is anything else. Who here has bought a house?
Show of hands, A lot of us. Okay, what do
(31:17):
you do when you're looking for a house. Maybe you
go on your favorite real estate site. You look at
the house itself, you get the pictures, you look at
the map, Oh, that's real close to the main road
or whatever. And then if you're a savvy buyer, you
look at the school's ratings, right, and maybe you even
look at crime rates and that sort of thing. Do
(31:37):
you check out Meghan's list for blue dots for child
molesters in the neighborhood. Whatever. If you're a savvy home buyer,
you do all those things. Six days after Joe Biden
was sworn into office, he issued a directive establishing enforcement
priorities for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD
(31:58):
aimed at scaring real estate, state companies and real estate
agents into not disclosing crime and school information in real
estate listings because it might hurt diversity. Diversity and inclusive
communities strengthen our democracy. The executive memorandum began, But you
(32:24):
know who wants their community to be inclusive of failing schools?
And who wants diversity to mean armed criminals along with
innocent people. And what's crazy about this is, you know,
black families don't want to live in dangerous neighborhoods with
bad schools. Either nobody does, but many progressives believe racial
(32:46):
equalities best achieved by demolishing standards for everyone. So the
effect of Biden's memo, which made clear that racial politics
and the doctrine of disparate impact would guide Hudd's enforcement
effect federal housing laws, and the major online real estate
companies immediately understood what was being demanded of them. Realtor,
dot Com and Zillow immediately stopped providing crime data, while Redfinn,
(33:11):
going out of its way to embrace the party line,
posted a blog proclaiming neighborhood crime data doesn't belong on
real estate sites. National Association of Realtors put up a
web page in early twenty three titled how to Handle
Client Questions about schools and neighborhood Neighborhoods, which told realtors
to point home buyers to other sources of information, don't
(33:32):
give them the facts yourself. And the page is absolutely
stuffed with dei jargon, but it also testifies. It makes
clear that the real Estate Association worried the fair housing
laws would be interpreted aggressively in realtors who did tell
(33:53):
their clients about schools and crime would run the risk
of punishment by the federal government. Okay, how many ways
is this horrible? I mean number one, there's a huge
free speech issue here. Huge. Secondly, the idea that the
Dei cult would deny you this information because they thought
(34:18):
it might disproportionately leads you to not buy a house
in a black Hispanic neighborhood or something. Man, these people
are sick. New York Times with the story extreme weather
(34:40):
brings fierce winds and gentle hugs to Sesame Straight. That's right.
An episode that aired I think it was this week
or maybe last week, focused on the dangerous effects of
climate change without mentioning climate change for the little ones.
No place is safe from climate change these days, not
even Sesame Street or sunny days used to sweep the
(35:01):
clouds away. This is in the New York Times and
puts this as an just an unambiguous, wonderful thing, writes
about this is a great thing. On Monday, a fierce
storm tore through the set of the fifty seven year
old children's show, knocking over lampposts, blowing out windows, and
scattering debris around Oscar the Grouch's trash can. The fictional
(35:23):
cloudburst was part of a special episode Storm on Sesame Street,
created to help children make sense of the extreme weather
that's become increasingly common across the world as the planet warms.
I hate this so much. Number One, the kids can't
freak and read. Teach them the ab season one two
threes not progressive politics. Number two, you see the stats
(35:46):
of little kids who are indoctrinated into the climate change
things as young as kindergarten and then have this terrible
climate anxiety because Gretaitunberg convinced them, with help from you know,
her ilk, that we're all going to die and these
kids are terrified. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Kids,
(36:11):
take off your sweater and put on shorts. It's going
to be okay. And yeah, the world is warming. It's
warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled,
and mankind might have something to do with it this time,
but it has. Committing economic suicide to make a meaningless
gesture is absolutely idiotic. But here's the thing, and I
(36:31):
know I sound obsessive, but it's because it's true. You
remember James Lindsay yesterday, talking about on the last page
of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx said communism will aid
every uprising around the world, if it's an uprising against
the status quo and the powers that be, all of them,
(36:52):
no matter if it's transgenders in the WNBA or you know,
or whatever, you know, gay rights, or fighting back against
the British government in you know, in some foreign land
or whatever. Just we will aid in every single fight.
And climate change is absolutely one of those, because it's
(37:14):
bent on tearing down the status quo and bringing in
a new future, which will be a Marxist future. But anyway,
so yeah, you got to got to get the kids easy,
got to indoctrinate them young. So great Sesame Street terrifying
the kids about climate change, And I thought this is
very very interesting. As smoke from Canadian wildfires poured into
(37:36):
American cities last month, the headlines poured out equally fast.
Most blamed climate change. Canada's public broadcaster informed readers that
the smoky Skies had quote only one true fix, stop
burning fossil fuels. But the headlines seem to have missed
the most remarkable fact about the wildfires Canada is having
a below average fire here. In fact, the entire world
(37:58):
is on track to a record an area burned, which
is how they always measure this stuff. Ottawa's own tally,
released on July ninth, that's the Canadian capitol, showed one
point four million hectars burned use acres, less than a
third of the four point six million hectars burned by
the same date last year. Tucked into the quick facts
(38:19):
of the government's press release, beneath the ministerial quotes about
climate change driving ever more severe disasters was the quiet
admission that wildfire activity remains below the five year average.
That's understating it. Satellite data weekly updated by the European
Union confirmed that Canada's total area burned by just the
other day it was below the twenty twelve to twenty
(38:40):
twenty five average the EU uses as a baseline, and
the statistical good news keeps coming. The US, this year's
remained below its twenty twelve to twenty twenty five half
the average, with its most recent measurement twenty percent below average.
As of August d fifth, North America and South America
are at record low burns since twenty twelve. Every continent
(39:01):
around the globe. This year is burning less, some much
less than usual, and they go through Oceania, the Europe, Asia, Africa,
which is not to say next year might not be worse.
I mean it might be. I don't know. But in
the never ending drum beat that this is caused by
climate change, Gavin Newsom is still saying that about the
(39:22):
Palisades fire in California that was set by a leftist
it's leftist political violence. It's not climate change. And yes,
the climate is changing, but these people are so obsessed
with convincing you that that means we have to overthrow
everything in change society. They can't even admit when yeah,
it's super smoky in some parts of the country temporarily,
(39:43):
but it's actually a really down year for wildfires. These
people they either gosh, they don't know, or they don't
mind lying, or once again, their ideology has just completely
blinded their ability to perceive the truth. Booh, thank you,
al Core. Yeah, I tell you who's bullless.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
You Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
We are Armstrong and Getty and this is the best
we can talk show in America. Grab our podcast. It's
called Armstrong and Getty on demand,
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