May 29, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- A question--are we wrong about Ukraine?
- More on Ukraine & Russia...
- Tim The Lawyer Sandefur talks about an AZ case about publishing personal info
- Panic Attacks!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe, Katty arms Strong
and Jattie and he Armstrong and Yetty. This is an
(00:22):
open question and we'll you know, you decide for yourself
after we play it. Did Trump drop an ultimatum on Putin?
Yesterday in his little mini press conference when he was
asked about the Russia Ukraine ceasefire? Et cetera? Here we go?
Do you believe the Russians are.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Being disrespectful when they say that your criticisms of Putin
are simply an emotional response.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
And do you still believe that Putin actually wants to
end up?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know
in about two weeks. Within two weeks, we're going to
find out very soon, we're going to find out whether
he's tapping us along or not. And if he is,
we'll respond a little bit differently. But it'll take about
a week and a half. Two weeks. We have mister
Whitcoff is here is doing a phenomenal job, is dealing
(01:13):
with them very strongly. Right now, they seem to want
to do something, but until the document is signed.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
I can't tell you. Nobody can. As usual, a little
difficult to figure out exactly what he's saying or not saying. There.
Is he saying there's a ceasefire agreement to sign in
two weeks and if they don't, then sanctions or continuing
to arm Ukraine? Is that what he's saying. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
The idea that in two weeks he'll know whether Putin
wants peace. That's insane, that's loopy. Putin doesn't want peace,
There's not a chance.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
I don't know. I really don't get his thinking. Just
to remind you in case you don't remember, he did tell,
for instance, if you don't this or that, like in
the next week, all hell fire is going to come
down on you. And they didn't do whatever he asked,
and all hell fires not come.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
Down on them.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Right.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
Yeah, there have been some uh as yet unfulfilled threats.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Oh how about Hamas Hamas all the hostages back by
Monday or the likes of which you've never seen, et cetera,
et cetera. Did not bothers me. Hell yeah, obviously if
you've ever parented a child, yeah, you do that threat
without any follow through, and you get a result, as in,
(02:37):
they don't listen to you next time.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Right, So we asked yesterday Jack and I are both
of the mind, with some subtle differences, but of the
mind that we the West need to back Ukraine to
halt Russian aggression lest they become emboldened and try to
gobble up even more territory. Also to send the message
(03:00):
to China and others that we are not a fair
weather friend.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
If we say we're going to back you, we're going
to back you, and you.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Can't just string us along for a year or two.
We get bored and move on. Then you get whatever
you want. No matter how evil you are and how
bent on the conquest of the world you are. There
are those who disagree somewhat or completely. Call them isolationists,
which I think is probably a little unfair.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Or what do they call them?
Speaker 4 (03:27):
Interventionists, non interventionists or restrainers less America being the world's
policeman type people. And we said, all right, what are
we getting wrong? What are we missing? Drop us an
email and so we're going to hit you with a
couple of those. We'll see how strong you think the
arguments are. Let's see justin truck drivers a semi regular correspondent, Right,
(03:49):
So I'm not going to go into a long detailed
argument because in the past you have straw manned my
arguments and taking them out of context. Well, there's the
victim card right up front. Typically a year sort anyway.
But then I read on Tucker and others use Christianity
as a euphemism for white Europeans. We're talking about how
(04:09):
absurd it is to look at Vladimir Putin as the
protector of or savior of Christianity, as he's posturing himself
to be having formed an alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church,
which is corrupt and evil.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
But I want to go ahead and give in Justin's argument.
And if the whatever they call the leader of the
Russian Orthodox christ Bishop or whatever he is, if he
didn't go along with Putin, he'd fall out of a
window until they got somebody who would go along with him.
All right, So anyway, here's Justin the truck driver's whole argument.
Tucker and others used Christianity as a euphemism for white Europeans.
(04:43):
They do this to win over boomers, who are snowflakes
when it comes to the idea of race realism. Your
analysis of what's happening with foreign policy and tariffs are
very surface level because all of your sources are mainstream media.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
That's not even close to true, Justin, but I will
read on the dissident right isn't happy with mo to
what Trump is doing, but the good he is doing
against the military industrial complex and globalism outweighs the bad.
The soft right is fine with Israel's ethno state and
their greater Israel expansion, but apoplectic at the idea of
strong men in Europe defending white European ethno states.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
How is Putin defending his country? He attacked Ukraine, Ukraine
didn't attack him. He would say NATO got too close
and they were warned over and over again not to
do that. I think, let's see, here's another point of view.
Good morning, gentlemen.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
Regarding Putin's advances in your premise that he's not going
to stop invading Ukraine, a very simple question, yes, and
what do you propose we do about it? Seriously, what
is the alternative scenario other than a full blown kinetic
war with Russia? Are you proposing that we should deploy
men and material to stop him? If not what else
can we do? Listeners since day one, you guys should
be household names across our great land. Well, I certainly
(05:58):
agree with you with that last point, Chris, A very
very short answer to your question is deterrence.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Yeah, I would say men definitely not, but material support
of Ukraine absolutely. And again my thinking is it makes
it more likely that we end up in a full
kinetic war against Russia if we let him take Ukraine,
not less likely.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
Well, although he's asking about advances into NATO countries, are
you saying no men for that? If well, that is
the starts in marching on warsaw that that's where we
end up in a real tough situation. That's why you
gotta push him out of Ukraine or make it clear
that you don't get to take all of Ukraine. Because
if he does take Ukraine, I think if he if
(06:46):
he gets to keep what he's got. Now, even he's
gonna make that minor incursion like we as Joe Biden
called it, that we talked about yesterday, into a stony
or one of those NATO countries, and that is going
to be the big decision point for NATO.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Is Article five for real or not? Is an attack
on one, an attack on all, and we all come
to their support. And if that's the case, then yeah,
we would have to send troops because that's our obligation.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
Which would prevent a full on kinetic war with Russia.
In my opinion, you let him take a bite after
bite after bite. As the old saying goes, his hunger
grows with the eating moving along. In the Ukraine War,
Chris writes, all we need to do is give Ukraine
their nukes back.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Under the Clinton administration, we per is persuaded Ukraine in
the name of non nuclear proliferation to give up their
nukes without giving them any real specific security guarantees. And
they have suffered suffered for trusting the United States of America,
which makes me sick.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
You know, I'm constantly referencing monocham Began because I've read
way too much about him and the peace process. I
just finished the Lawrence Rte book Thirteen Days. If you
have any interest in the Middle East or any peace process,
I think I learned a lot from that book about
what they're going to try to do here with Russian
and Ukraine. These peace processed talks are can be crazy,
(08:15):
and you got wild human emotions involved. It's not all
high level college PhD foreign policy this and that. It's
just like people being butt hurt or feeling wounded, or
it's like a fight between a husband and a wife,
as much as anything else. But anyway, my point being,
(08:36):
monockme began why he did a lot of crazy s
over the years as a prime minister, was the world says,
never again, bulls, They'll let it happen again if it
be inconvenient for him. Only we can protect ourselves, and
we got to do whatever we have to do to
protect ourselves. And when I was reading that, I mean
that was his ultimate philosophy. He didn't say that specifically,
(08:57):
that was his ultimate philosophy. When I was reading that,
I was thinking Ukraine. Ukraine's said giving up their nukes
because the world will protect us never again. Yeah, not
so much?
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Right right, Let's see, Pollo writes, this really isn't an
answer to your why is it wrong to back you
and Crane question, just the thoughts about a few things
I need. I think we need to keep in mind
we aren't the dominant military power we were post WW two.
We no longer have the ability to police the world
and impose our will to whatever extent we deem necessary. True, Yeah,
that's true. There are nuances there. I tell you this,
(09:31):
and maybe we'll get to it on another day. Just
read some unbelievable stuff about the state of our manufacturing
capabilities and our stockpiles of weapons, which is something we've
talked about before and others have too. But we in
some of our key weapons systems, our stockpiles would run
out in days and to replenish them would take years.
(09:56):
How the hell are you going to fight a war
with that situation? You spend all of your artillery shells
in say, ten days, and then say, can y'all hang
on till twenty twenty eight because we got to work
on getting some more shells.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
We're in a terrible state. But more on that another time.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
How we might deal with that crazy interesting I'll give
you the five second version. We figure out every manufacturer
in the United States and what they're good at, and
code them and understand how they could be tweaked and
then scaled up to manufacture weaponry, and then we can
immediately say, all two c's, we're gonna call them and
(10:35):
give them incentives to stop manufacturing, you know, bicycle spokes
and start manufacturing bullets or whatever.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Anyway, we have a huge, huge challenge with that. It's
a good point.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
Anything we do to support Ukraine in a way that
would truly threaten Russia will be viewed by Russia as
an attack on Russia.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Well, that's like his problem, sounds like a hymn problem. Yeah,
how are you gonna You're gonna fight NATO in the
United States.
Speaker 4 (11:03):
Yeah, you don't want to be reckless or an idiot,
but the whole well, we don't want them to escalate,
make them afraid we're going to escalate. That kept the
world at peace for your generation and five others, and
we've forgotten. Let's see, there's more on that topic. It's
good stuff, but I want to hit a couple more
very briefly. Let's see Jeff says Putin's a terrible scum
(11:28):
of a human who's hell bent on being bullied of
the world. My issue, as an American who was born
in the early eighties and seen and heard firsthand about
the issues and mostly unsuccessful large scale military interventions we've
been in the last sixty five years, I don't think
it's worth one single American soldier's life to be involved
in this conflict war tragedy. I'm not even happy with
hundreds of billions of dollars tax being money taxpayer money
(11:51):
being used either.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Ah.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
The unwillingness to engage in large scale military action is
what brings on large scale military actions.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Right, and an oversimplification, Absolutely true. I understand how having
lived through the wars you've lived through, but you'd have
that point of view. But us getting involved in Iraq
has nothing to do with whether or not you get
You can let Russia start gobbling up countries nearby and
sending the message message to China that you can take
(12:23):
Taiwan unopposed.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
Yeah, the problem with Iraq, and the problem with all mistakes,
is the danger of over learning lessons. You can do
the right thing in the wrong way. You can do
the right thing in the right way. You can do
the wrong thing in the right way. You can do
the wrong thing in the wrong way. And you got
to figure out which of all of those are and
then or each one of those might be, and then
drill down on the particulars and learn the correct lessons.
(12:48):
But if thanks for the thoughts, keep them coming. Mail
Bag at Armstrong and Getty dot com. We are absolutely
not about having one viewpoint here and it's the only one,
and we're occultists in one way or another. No, this
stuff is hard. We like none on the problems. Thanks
for your assistance.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
We'll leave it alone from now. But man, as I
kept saying yesterday, the ball is in Trump's court. What
is he going to do. Is he going to throw
up his hands and say that's it. You guys don't
want peace figured out yourselves, which is a win for Putin?
Or is he going to back the sanctions that Europe
has already come with and we continue to arm Ukraine.
And next segment one very short email, extremely controversial but powerful.
(13:30):
Okay and Tim the lawyer this hour which everybody loves,
say here.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Macy's now warning shoppers the prices will be going up,
the CEO announcing the hikes will offset tariffs in competition.
Macy's not yet revealing which items will cost more. The
retailers saying the tariffs are dampening their earnings forecast as well.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
So remember Walmart a couple of weeks ago said they're
going to raise prices on a whole bunch of different stuff. Obviously.
That's was before the Court came out yesterday and said
Trump doesn't have the power to do that. One guy
can't do that, and so most of the tariffs are off.
So where does that leave us on raising prices? I
wonder who knows?
Speaker 4 (14:13):
This is the Court of International Trade. A few people
understood it existed. We talked about it a couple of
weeks ago, warning you that this might happen. It now
goes to the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court.
But yeah, they've said no, the President doesn't have unilateral
emergency powers to do what he's doing.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
But will Walmart still raise prices? And Macy's and everybody else? Sir,
don't know.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
It's all up in the air now, Well, it's still
up in the air. I should say one more email
on the Russia Ukraine thing. Different perspectives, Kevin writes on
a couple of different topics, but he says, finally, and
this is where I put my tinfoil hat on. I'm
not sure that's true, Kevin, He says, is Europe so
far gone that doesn't make sense for us to sink
blood and treasure into helping them?
Speaker 1 (14:53):
If I play out the demographic reality of the UK.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
For instance, in fifty to seventy five years, there'll be
a nuclear armed disigy power.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Oh maybe that's tomorrow's problem.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
But I don't know that we can bank on our
European allies being around in the coming generations unless they
course correct.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Good good point.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Uh, Cabinet's uncomfortably close to the truth. I yeah, I
told his story. I think there is course correction going
on immigration wise, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
So I told this story many years ago. I actually
met a tinfoil hat guy. If you're familiar with that phrase,
how did he even get started to become kind of
a common term people who.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Used like aluminum foil to reflect various government rays they
thought were being trained upon them.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Or space aliens. In the case of this dude, I
know he was a PhD at the university, super smart guy,
but he would wear a tinfoil on his head and
on the tops of his shoes. He would ride his
bike to my house with tinfoil and tops of his
shoes on top of his head to reflect I think
it was extraterrestrial stuff. And he also had it on
(15:59):
the seat of his and he talked about it endlessly
in very serious tones.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
Wouldn't the foil on the seat of his bike reflect
the rays back up into his grundle area.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
And tain't that a problem? I don't know.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Ain't that a shame coming up? Tim Sander for the
Goldwater Foundation? By the way, just in the side, on
a lighter note, my wife and I are having a
bit of a remodel done. Expanding our back patio, pushing
out a wall, redoing the kitchen, that sort of thing
really outdated.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
For a minute, you guys do I don't know whatever
we did yet.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
But although it's funny when they were just building things
like expanding the patio. Oh look they're pouring the footing,
they're building up, the cinder blocks, the bricks they're building.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
That's nice, it was. It was all find and good.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
But now that they're dismantling my house and tearing it apart,
it's getting real in here. I feel like, you know,
like a bride who was saving yourself for the wedding.
And the courtship was wonderful and the wedding ceremony was
beautiful and their reception was so much fun.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
But now we're in the marital bed and it's like, oh,
that's right, Yeah, this is real, This is actually happening.
Hello plastic walls. Oh man. Uh. Tim the Lawyer, which
if you haven't heard of, you're gonna love it, fan favorite,
coming up to talk about a whole bunch of different things.
Law Wise, Armstrong and Getty Tox six fifty KSDV. Too
(17:26):
much news. We've been saying that for a while the
government needs to step in. There's too much news every
day and too many good books. I was thinking that too.
If you're abode one, one or two a week.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
Yeah, all the government should permit to discuss a number
of important constitutional issues before various courts these days. Please
welcome Tim the Lawyer Sandover. Tim's the vice president for
legal affairs with the Goldwater Institute, also an adjunct scholar
with the Cato Institute.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Always a pleasure, Tim, How are you?
Speaker 5 (17:54):
I'm just great. You know you joke about the limiting
the number of books to be published every years? Actually
does do that?
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Really? What's the theory behind that?
Speaker 5 (18:05):
The way it forces people to read better books?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Well, if you know, it's it's classic censorship. If I
could trust who was making the list, that would be fine.
But you can't. It's totally freaking French. Am I wrong?
I'm not wrong. Wow, I don't tell that they actually
have a limit on how many books can be published.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
That's insane, My god, I hate collectivism so much. So, Tim,
before we get into some really interesting stuff that the
Goldwater Institute and you are involved in personally, is there
anything in the Supreme Court docket, because they make all
sorts of big announcements in June, anything particularly exciting that
you're looking forward to.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
None of the big cases have been decided yet they
are going to except for there was the case about
a religious discrimination in schools. It was a charter school
that wanted to operate in Oklahoma as an officially church
oriented school. But in Oklahoma the law deems charter schools
(19:05):
to be public schools. And the question therefore was can
the government officially charter explicitly religious school or does that
violate the First Amendment? And the Supreme Court said, yes,
that's not allowed. But they did so on an even split.
Four justices went way when one way and four justices
(19:25):
went the other way, and Justice Barrett was recused from
the case. So that means it sets no legal precedent,
and that means it's still up in the air about
the constitutionality of government basically allowing private religious schools to
operate under the government's aegis.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
It was one of the.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
Things we'd all been watching for very closely, and it
kind of ended with a fizzle, which means that next
year we're going to have to be arguing this issue
all over again.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
So one quick question on this before we get to
what I know you want to talk about. And there's
not an Obamacare or a gay marriage every year, obviously,
but there's usually a big case we're waiting for. Or
is it just like an anomaly that there's not a
big case, or did this court decide to issue their
big ones rather than wait till the last day in
a way that most courts don't.
Speaker 5 (20:11):
Well, the justices can release an opinion at any time,
they usually hold the controversial one to the last day,
primarily because the dissenting justices want to write their disagreement
as thoroughly as possible, and so out as a courtesy,
they hold off until everybody's comfortable. We like to joke
that the reason they hold off is so that they
can get out of town the July fourth holiday, when
(20:32):
they make everybody angry, but have been. There has been
a number of kind of controversial decisions that have already
come out, and I think the reason why is because
there are there We now have a more conservative court,
there are fewer liberal justices, so there's fewer reasons to
hold off and wait, you know, and so we're starting
to see the cases get front loaded more into the summer.
(20:53):
I mean, it's kind of inside baseball as to why
they do that, But I think the court is also
more interested to nowadays in culture issues. You see these
issues about you know, sex education in schools and whether
parents have a constitutional right to withdraw their children from
the schools that sort of issue, and less of the
property rights oriented issues that we saw on previous terms.
(21:15):
But it's really hard to say, because then they can
take whatever path they want in deciding what cases to
hear and how they decide.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
I find it curious that you, as a non sports
fan who does not use many sports metaphors, use use
the sports metaphor that refers to getting far too into
sports metaphors.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Well, inside baseball.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
Baseball is my one exception, Joe, I enjoy a baseball game.
The reason I'm okay with baseball is because when you
go to a baseball game, nobody expects you to pay
attention and so much time. You know.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
I was funny, I was at a baseball game Friday
night and I was thinking about I can see why
it doesn't work for young people. It is kind of
a you kind of sit around and talk and you
don't have to pay close attention. It's like listening to
all long jazz solo. You almost kind of have to
tune out to get into it or what.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
You and I being jazz fans, that's cool with it.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Yeah, I pay attention to every pitch and assess it
on a number of different metrics. So you're not holding
your breath for any particular Supreme Court decision in the
next few weeks.
Speaker 5 (22:16):
Well, no, not for the next few weeks, but there
are a lot of interesting cases coming up. This tariff
decision yesterday is really it's a fantastic win for freedom.
Got to give congratulations to my friends at the Liberty
Justice Center in Illinois who brought this case and struck
down these illegal, unconstitutional tariffs. It's a big win. But
that case is going to be appealed to the Court
(22:38):
of Appeals next and then of course to the US
Supreme Court, so excited about.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
As you know, we're big around here, whether quote unquote
our guy is an office or the other side's guy
or somebody nobody likes.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Just limiting executive power is good anyway.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Goldwater Institute doing some good stuff with protecting privacy, specifically
of donors.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
Do you want to tell us about that?
Speaker 5 (23:00):
So you know, there's these efforts that the progressives especially
are pursuing to force people to list their names, addresses,
and telephone numbers and their employment information on a publicly
accessible government list whenever they donate to a nonprofit organization
like the gold Daughter Institute, for example, that's out there
making statements about politics or endorsing or opposing ballid initiatives.
(23:25):
And the progresses want to expose people's private information in
this way because they say, well, this will keep the
money out of politics, which is nonsense. I mean, as
long as the government can redistribute wealth, there's going to
be money in politics, because that's why people invest money
in positives. They want to get a profit from it.
The only way to get money out of politics is
to get the government out of the business of picking
(23:46):
winners and losers in the marketplace and taking money from
some people and giving it to other people. But the
progresses don't want to do that, so instead what they
want to do is name and shame anybody who supports
a cause that progresses don't like. And the result, of
course is harassment and intimidation and violence against people who
donate to nonprofits that are conservative and orientation primarily. And
(24:10):
there have been cases, the big one a few years
ago in the US Supreme Court called AFP versus Bonta,
where California forced these nonprofits to turn over their private
IRS documents not redacted, and then posted them on their
Internet and distributed them. And once you put people's names
and addresses out there, they are targeted for harassment and
intimidation and violence.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I was going to say that back in the day
this would have been bad, but not nearly as in
the Internet age, where wow, they can they can figure
out what caused Jenny and accounting uh donated money to
and and and and get that out there and people
can start you know, attacking or online or go and
buy our house or whatever. That's horrifying.
Speaker 5 (24:51):
Oh yeah, and you know Prop eight in California, the
single the same sex anti same sex marriage initiative. The
people who donated to that campaign had their names and
addresses posted on the Internet, and they were subjected to
a campaign of intimidation and harassment, vandalism of their houses,
the damage to their churches. People who track down these
churches and knock their signs and statues over, and graffiti
(25:14):
on all these sorts of things. And that was years afterwards.
I mean, care information is out there, It's always out there.
So a cause that is today considered perfectly normal. Remember
President Obama himself right post the same second.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
He and Hillary both ran on a marriage is between
a man and a woman. That wasn't that long aga.
Speaker 5 (25:31):
So then twenty years later that becomes a politically anathema,
politically incorrect, as bad as segregation, et cetera, et cetera. Right,
And so now people can track down who donated to
that campaign and harass them and threaten them. This is
all intended to silence conservative voices, to stop them from
donating to causes they believe in. And then the progressives
(25:52):
can go out there and say, see, we got money
out of politics because we get our way.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Just as a quick aside, you mentioned Rob Bonta the
Attorney General of California. If I were to state that
I think he's a rotten human being who would willingly
urinate on an original.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Copy of the Constitution. What would your response be.
Speaker 5 (26:08):
Tim, it's your First Amendment right to say that, Joe,
and and to donate to a cause that supports that position. Well,
what we're doing in Arizona. So Arizona passed on these
laws that says you have to put your name on
a government list if you donate to a nonprofit. We
sued over this, and this case is now going to
the Arizona Supreme Court, which is going to hear the
(26:30):
case argued in September, arguing that this law violates the
state constitutions protection protections for free speech and privacy. And
this is a new wrinkle because most of these cases
have been argued under the federal First Amendment. People tend
to forget that the state constitutions protect your freedom more
broadly than the federal Constitution does. So we're going to
(26:52):
the Arizona Supreme Court to argue that ignore the federal law,
this violates the state Constitution's free speech and privacy rights guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
That's interesting that as a statement that you just made.
The state constitution protects you more than the federal constitution.
Speaker 5 (27:07):
That's the whole reason for federalism is to ensure that
the government can't deprive you of your federal Bill of
Rights protections. Of course, it can't go below that floor,
but it can provide a higher level of protection. And
most state constitutions do. They have protections like the privacy.
We have a clause in the Arizona Constitution that protects
your private affairs against the government intruding on it. The
(27:30):
California Constitution has a privacy right in its Bill of Rights.
So the state constitutions protect your rights more than the
federal constitution does. And yet we always sit around talking
about the federal First Amendment, and lawyers often forget even
to make these arguments in court. And that's one of
our missions at the incident the Goaldwarnter Institute is to
try emphasize that the importance of state constitutional protections that
(27:51):
can often secure you against the federal government.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Someday, I hope you and I can sit on the
bullet train from Palmdale to Gilroy and discuss these things.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
You know, it's so sad, It's so said California history
is if you read California, it's nothing but the taxpayer
being screwed by the railroads in eighteen fifty, In the
eighteen ninety and nineteen ten, it's the same story. And
here we are in the twenty twenties and California taxpayers
are being screwed by the railroads all over again, and
(28:24):
this time it's the progressives who think it's a great idea.
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Tim Sanderfers, the vice president for legal affairs at the
Goldwater Institute. Tim, as long as we're on the topic,
and you passed on my colorful rob Banta query, Jack
and I have called the continuation of the horrific, mountainous
squandering of taxpayer dollars on the It'll never be a
(28:48):
bullet train train the most egregious failure of democracy we
have ever seen. How is it, briefly, from what you've observed,
that the people of californ you have been unable to
stop this.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
Vampire.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
Well, the complicated answer is what a phenomenon economists called
rent seeking, which is that when the government can take
a bunch of money from a large number of people
and then give it to a small number of people,
the people who receive it. The small number of people
who get that money, they have a huge incentive to
lobby the government for more. Whereas the average taxpayer they
(29:25):
only lose a dollar or two per year, it's not
worth them to spend a lot of time rallying against
what the government is doing. They call that concentrated benefits
and dispersed costs. And it creates this one way road
sort of where the government is always going in the
direction of more and more wealthy distribution because there's all
this lobbying in favor of it from the few people
(29:46):
who benefit from it, and there's not a lot of
lobbying against it by the people who suffer from it.
And that explains not just the bullet trained fiasco, but
all sorts of different regulatory welfare state system. You know,
my friend that my friend Josh Thompson at the Pacific
Legal Foundation. A few years ago, he calculated that it
would actually be cheaper to take every person in California,
(30:08):
buy them a plane ticket to Japan, fly them to Japan,
let them buy them a ticket on their bullet train,
and then fly them back. Then it would to complete
the California bullet Train. And that was ten years ago.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
It's gotten worth oh by a lot.
Speaker 5 (30:23):
Is pathetic. It's just so sad.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
Right, you could.
Speaker 4 (30:26):
Probably get them a nice plate of sushi in a
sex spot while they're over there in Tokyo, Tim said
to her from the Goldwater Institute.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Tim always great, stay in touch.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
Anytime you got something that's that's hot, call us, So
don't wait for us to call you.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
Absolutely, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Guys, always pleasure. I can just picture Tim and I
whisked along at high speed on the bullet train from
Gilroy to Palmdale, discussing the Constitution.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
It's a beautiful dream because we have and that's exactly
what it is, a dream.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
Because we have an important appointment in Palmdale, but we
need to get back to Gilroy the same day. You
laugh to keep from crying. Huh, we've got more on
the waist to hear.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
Thanks for taking the money.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
Armstrong and.
Speaker 6 (31:20):
Harvard professor was fired for making up data in research
on dishonesty. Doctor Francesca Gino says she's never been dishonest, adding.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
She's only being.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
Targeted because she's a black male.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Oh, she must have had a picture of her there.
She is a white female yes, yes, that's true. And
as we mentioned earlier, it is revealed that she made
a million dollars a year, fifth highest paid person in Harvard. Wow.
And in her dishonesty studies she was cheating. Well, she's
(31:57):
an expert in the field. That's true, that's true, exactly
what expect. So I wish I didn't have to be
I don't have to be vague about this, but it'd
be kind to be vague because it would be better
for the story and easier to understand. But and you
can probably guess if you've been listening for a long time,
(32:17):
but two people in my orbit, very close orbit, have
had panic attacks in the last couple of weeks. And
did you know much about panic have you? Is anybody
like close to you ever had a panic attack? Yeah?
I've only known a few people in my life. It's
(32:38):
very helpful to me though, that the first person I
ever knew that had a panic attack, that dealt with
panic attacks was a really big, really tough guy, because
otherwise I would have a certain view of panic attacks.
I know I would, because I know my personality that
it is for, you know, a certain type of personality,
and he was he was not that guy at all.
(32:58):
I mean he was a college football player, tough guy,
bar fight guy. I mean, he was absolutely not the
kind of guy. And he just started having him in
his twenties and had no idea why and had to
do a bunch of research on it and everything like that,
and how horrible they were. So but man, I've never
(33:19):
had one. I've never come close to having one. I
don't think I'm capable of one. I think there must
be something in your brain, chemistry, your body chemistry, or
something that allows it to happen for some people and
not others. It doesn't seem to be even according to
the people I know who've had panic attacks, it doesn't
seem to be situational. It happens. It can happen out
(33:41):
of nowhere. It's not like you just got the news
that your car's being repossessed or you know something that
sets it off. It's more, at least in the cases
that I know, maybe you have a different story. It
just can come out of nowhere. Yeah, my experience with
it by proxy, he's a little different. But really, yeah,
(34:04):
if you know anything, but like, what what what have
you done that has worked for you? Text Line four
one five two nine five KFTC. Well four one five
two nine five KFTC. One person I know went to
the hospital because they thought they were dying, which is
what it feels like when you have a panic attack,
is uh. They give you lots of better drill. That's
about all they do, and you wait for it to pass.
And there's not a particular at least in the cases
(34:28):
that I know of, personally, not a particular like remedy
for how to not have it again. So you get
to live for the rest of your life kind of
like a heart attack. You get to live for the
rest of your life wondering if one's going to come
out of nowhere again, which sounds awful.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
Yeah, I know there are coping mechanisms that you can
uh and awareness.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Awareness helps a lot.
Speaker 4 (34:46):
If you can name precisely what's going on and understand
it on a more scientific level, it makes it harder
to get overwhelmed by it.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
So I'm told, well, if you feel like you can't breathe,
that's got to be bad for minutes. Thinking you're going
to suffocate to death and die for minutes sounds really horrible.
I'm glad I don't have them and have never had one. Yeah, Yeah,
I agreed, And I don't know if one out of
a thousand people have panic attacks or one out of ten.
(35:16):
I don't really have any idea on that. Maybe now
at this point I should start looking into it, since
I've had no clue. Two people in my tight circle
have one recently.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
Next Hour a gender bending Madness update The Madness. It's
still on the March. If you can't stick around or
you don't get Next Hour, grab it via a podcast.
Subscribe Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe, Katty arms Strong
and Jattie and he Armstrong and Yetty. This is an
(00:22):
open question and we'll you know, you decide for yourself
after we play it. Did Trump drop an ultimatum on Putin?
Yesterday in his little mini press conference when he was
asked about the Russia Ukraine ceasefire? Et cetera? Here we go?
Do you believe the Russians are.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Being disrespectful when they say that your criticisms of Putin
are simply an emotional response.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
And do you still believe that Putin actually wants to
end up?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know
in about two weeks. Within two weeks, we're going to
find out very soon, we're going to find out whether
he's tapping us along or not. And if he is,
we'll respond a little bit differently. But it'll take about
a week and a half. Two weeks. We have mister
Whitcoff is here is doing a phenomenal job, is dealing
(01:13):
with them very strongly. Right now, they seem to want
to do something, but until the document is signed.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
I can't tell you. Nobody can. As usual, a little
difficult to figure out exactly what he's saying or not saying. There.
Is he saying there's a ceasefire agreement to sign in
two weeks and if they don't, then sanctions or continuing
to arm Ukraine? Is that what he's saying. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
The idea that in two weeks he'll know whether Putin
wants peace. That's insane, that's loopy. Putin doesn't want peace,
There's not a chance.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
I don't know. I really don't get his thinking. Just
to remind you in case you don't remember, he did tell,
for instance, if you don't this or that, like in
the next week, all hell fire is going to come
down on you. And they didn't do whatever he asked,
and all hell fires not come.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
Down on them.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Right.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
Yeah, there have been some uh as yet unfulfilled threats.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Oh how about Hamas Hamas all the hostages back by
Monday or the likes of which you've never seen, et cetera,
et cetera. Did not bothers me. Hell yeah, obviously if
you've ever parented a child, yeah, you do that threat
without any follow through, and you get a result, as in,
(02:37):
they don't listen to you next time.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Right, So we asked yesterday Jack and I are both
of the mind, with some subtle differences, but of the
mind that we the West need to back Ukraine to
halt Russian aggression lest they become emboldened and try to
gobble up even more territory. Also to send the message
(03:00):
to China and others that we are not a fair
weather friend.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
If we say we're going to back you, we're going
to back you, and you.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Can't just string us along for a year or two.
We get bored and move on. Then you get whatever
you want. No matter how evil you are and how
bent on the conquest of the world you are. There
are those who disagree somewhat or completely. Call them isolationists,
which I think is probably a little unfair.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Or what do they call them?
Speaker 4 (03:27):
Interventionists, non interventionists or restrainers less America being the world's
policeman type people. And we said, all right, what are
we getting wrong? What are we missing? Drop us an
email and so we're going to hit you with a
couple of those. We'll see how strong you think the
arguments are. Let's see justin truck drivers a semi regular correspondent, Right,
(03:49):
So I'm not going to go into a long detailed
argument because in the past you have straw manned my
arguments and taking them out of context. Well, there's the
victim card right up front. Typically a year sort anyway.
But then I read on Tucker and others use Christianity
as a euphemism for white Europeans. We're talking about how
(04:09):
absurd it is to look at Vladimir Putin as the
protector of or savior of Christianity, as he's posturing himself
to be having formed an alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church,
which is corrupt and evil.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
But I want to go ahead and give in Justin's argument.
And if the whatever they call the leader of the
Russian Orthodox christ Bishop or whatever he is, if he
didn't go along with Putin, he'd fall out of a
window until they got somebody who would go along with him.
All right, So anyway, here's Justin the truck driver's whole argument.
Tucker and others used Christianity as a euphemism for white Europeans.
(04:43):
They do this to win over boomers, who are snowflakes
when it comes to the idea of race realism. Your
analysis of what's happening with foreign policy and tariffs are
very surface level because all of your sources are mainstream media.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
That's not even close to true, Justin, but I will
read on the dissident right isn't happy with mo to
what Trump is doing, but the good he is doing
against the military industrial complex and globalism outweighs the bad.
The soft right is fine with Israel's ethno state and
their greater Israel expansion, but apoplectic at the idea of
strong men in Europe defending white European ethno states.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
How is Putin defending his country? He attacked Ukraine, Ukraine
didn't attack him. He would say NATO got too close
and they were warned over and over again not to
do that. I think, let's see, here's another point of view.
Good morning, gentlemen.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
Regarding Putin's advances in your premise that he's not going
to stop invading Ukraine, a very simple question, yes, and
what do you propose we do about it? Seriously, what
is the alternative scenario other than a full blown kinetic
war with Russia? Are you proposing that we should deploy
men and material to stop him? If not what else
can we do? Listeners since day one, you guys should
be household names across our great land. Well, I certainly
(05:58):
agree with you with that last point, Chris, A very
very short answer to your question is deterrence.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Yeah, I would say men definitely not, but material support
of Ukraine absolutely. And again my thinking is it makes
it more likely that we end up in a full
kinetic war against Russia if we let him take Ukraine,
not less likely.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
Well, although he's asking about advances into NATO countries, are
you saying no men for that? If well, that is
the starts in marching on warsaw that that's where we
end up in a real tough situation. That's why you
gotta push him out of Ukraine or make it clear
that you don't get to take all of Ukraine. Because
if he does take Ukraine, I think if he if
(06:46):
he gets to keep what he's got. Now, even he's
gonna make that minor incursion like we as Joe Biden
called it, that we talked about yesterday, into a stony
or one of those NATO countries, and that is going
to be the big decision point for NATO.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Is Article five for real or not? Is an attack
on one, an attack on all, and we all come
to their support. And if that's the case, then yeah,
we would have to send troops because that's our obligation.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
Which would prevent a full on kinetic war with Russia.
In my opinion, you let him take a bite after
bite after bite. As the old saying goes, his hunger
grows with the eating moving along. In the Ukraine War,
Chris writes, all we need to do is give Ukraine
their nukes back.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Under the Clinton administration, we per is persuaded Ukraine in
the name of non nuclear proliferation to give up their
nukes without giving them any real specific security guarantees. And
they have suffered suffered for trusting the United States of America,
which makes me sick.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
You know, I'm constantly referencing monocham Began because I've read
way too much about him and the peace process. I
just finished the Lawrence Rte book Thirteen Days. If you
have any interest in the Middle East or any peace process,
I think I learned a lot from that book about
what they're going to try to do here with Russian
and Ukraine. These peace processed talks are can be crazy,
(08:15):
and you got wild human emotions involved. It's not all
high level college PhD foreign policy this and that. It's
just like people being butt hurt or feeling wounded, or
it's like a fight between a husband and a wife,
as much as anything else. But anyway, my point being,
(08:36):
monockme began why he did a lot of crazy s
over the years as a prime minister, was the world says,
never again, bulls, They'll let it happen again if it
be inconvenient for him. Only we can protect ourselves, and
we got to do whatever we have to do to
protect ourselves. And when I was reading that, I mean
that was his ultimate philosophy. He didn't say that specifically,
(08:57):
that was his ultimate philosophy. When I was reading that,
I was thinking Ukraine. Ukraine's said giving up their nukes
because the world will protect us never again. Yeah, not
so much?
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Right right, Let's see, Pollo writes, this really isn't an
answer to your why is it wrong to back you
and Crane question, just the thoughts about a few things
I need. I think we need to keep in mind
we aren't the dominant military power we were post WW two.
We no longer have the ability to police the world
and impose our will to whatever extent we deem necessary. True, Yeah,
that's true. There are nuances there. I tell you this,
(09:31):
and maybe we'll get to it on another day. Just
read some unbelievable stuff about the state of our manufacturing
capabilities and our stockpiles of weapons, which is something we've
talked about before and others have too. But we in
some of our key weapons systems, our stockpiles would run
out in days and to replenish them would take years.
(09:56):
How the hell are you going to fight a war
with that situation? You spend all of your artillery shells
in say, ten days, and then say, can y'all hang
on till twenty twenty eight because we got to work
on getting some more shells.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
We're in a terrible state. But more on that another time.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
How we might deal with that crazy interesting I'll give
you the five second version. We figure out every manufacturer
in the United States and what they're good at, and
code them and understand how they could be tweaked and
then scaled up to manufacture weaponry, and then we can
immediately say, all two c's, we're gonna call them and
(10:35):
give them incentives to stop manufacturing, you know, bicycle spokes
and start manufacturing bullets or whatever.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Anyway, we have a huge, huge challenge with that. It's
a good point.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
Anything we do to support Ukraine in a way that
would truly threaten Russia will be viewed by Russia as
an attack on Russia.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Well, that's like his problem, sounds like a hymn problem. Yeah,
how are you gonna You're gonna fight NATO in the
United States.
Speaker 4 (11:03):
Yeah, you don't want to be reckless or an idiot,
but the whole well, we don't want them to escalate,
make them afraid we're going to escalate. That kept the
world at peace for your generation and five others, and
we've forgotten. Let's see, there's more on that topic. It's
good stuff, but I want to hit a couple more
very briefly. Let's see Jeff says Putin's a terrible scum
(11:28):
of a human who's hell bent on being bullied of
the world. My issue, as an American who was born
in the early eighties and seen and heard firsthand about
the issues and mostly unsuccessful large scale military interventions we've
been in the last sixty five years, I don't think
it's worth one single American soldier's life to be involved
in this conflict war tragedy. I'm not even happy with
hundreds of billions of dollars tax being money taxpayer money
(11:51):
being used either.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Ah.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
The unwillingness to engage in large scale military action is
what brings on large scale military actions.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Right, and an oversimplification, Absolutely true. I understand how having
lived through the wars you've lived through, but you'd have
that point of view. But us getting involved in Iraq
has nothing to do with whether or not you get
You can let Russia start gobbling up countries nearby and
sending the message message to China that you can take
(12:23):
Taiwan unopposed.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
Yeah, the problem with Iraq, and the problem with all mistakes,
is the danger of over learning lessons. You can do
the right thing in the wrong way. You can do
the right thing in the right way. You can do
the wrong thing in the right way. You can do
the wrong thing in the wrong way. And you got
to figure out which of all of those are and
then or each one of those might be, and then
drill down on the particulars and learn the correct lessons.
(12:48):
But if thanks for the thoughts, keep them coming. Mail
Bag at Armstrong and Getty dot com. We are absolutely
not about having one viewpoint here and it's the only one,
and we're occultists in one way or another. No, this
stuff is hard. We like none on the problems. Thanks
for your assistance.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
We'll leave it alone from now. But man, as I
kept saying yesterday, the ball is in Trump's court. What
is he going to do. Is he going to throw
up his hands and say that's it. You guys don't
want peace figured out yourselves, which is a win for Putin?
Or is he going to back the sanctions that Europe
has already come with and we continue to arm Ukraine.
And next segment one very short email, extremely controversial but powerful.
(13:30):
Okay and Tim the lawyer this hour which everybody loves,
say here.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Macy's now warning shoppers the prices will be going up,
the CEO announcing the hikes will offset tariffs in competition.
Macy's not yet revealing which items will cost more. The
retailers saying the tariffs are dampening their earnings forecast as well.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
So remember Walmart a couple of weeks ago said they're
going to raise prices on a whole bunch of different stuff. Obviously.
That's was before the Court came out yesterday and said
Trump doesn't have the power to do that. One guy
can't do that, and so most of the tariffs are off.
So where does that leave us on raising prices? I
wonder who knows?
Speaker 4 (14:13):
This is the Court of International Trade. A few people
understood it existed. We talked about it a couple of
weeks ago, warning you that this might happen. It now
goes to the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court.
But yeah, they've said no, the President doesn't have unilateral
emergency powers to do what he's doing.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
But will Walmart still raise prices? And Macy's and everybody else? Sir,
don't know.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
It's all up in the air now, Well, it's still
up in the air. I should say one more email
on the Russia Ukraine thing. Different perspectives, Kevin writes on
a couple of different topics, but he says, finally, and
this is where I put my tinfoil hat on. I'm
not sure that's true, Kevin, He says, is Europe so
far gone that doesn't make sense for us to sink
blood and treasure into helping them?
Speaker 1 (14:53):
If I play out the demographic reality of the UK.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
For instance, in fifty to seventy five years, there'll be
a nuclear armed disigy power.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Oh maybe that's tomorrow's problem.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
But I don't know that we can bank on our
European allies being around in the coming generations unless they
course correct.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Good good point.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Uh, Cabinet's uncomfortably close to the truth. I yeah, I
told his story. I think there is course correction going
on immigration wise, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
So I told this story many years ago. I actually
met a tinfoil hat guy. If you're familiar with that phrase,
how did he even get started to become kind of
a common term people who.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Used like aluminum foil to reflect various government rays they
thought were being trained upon them.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Or space aliens. In the case of this dude, I
know he was a PhD at the university, super smart guy,
but he would wear a tinfoil on his head and
on the tops of his shoes. He would ride his
bike to my house with tinfoil and tops of his
shoes on top of his head to reflect I think
it was extraterrestrial stuff. And he also had it on
(15:59):
the seat of his and he talked about it endlessly
in very serious tones.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
Wouldn't the foil on the seat of his bike reflect
the rays back up into his grundle area.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
And tain't that a problem? I don't know.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Ain't that a shame coming up? Tim Sander for the
Goldwater Foundation? By the way, just in the side, on
a lighter note, my wife and I are having a
bit of a remodel done. Expanding our back patio, pushing
out a wall, redoing the kitchen, that sort of thing
really outdated.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
For a minute, you guys do I don't know whatever
we did yet.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
But although it's funny when they were just building things
like expanding the patio. Oh look they're pouring the footing,
they're building up, the cinder blocks, the bricks they're building.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
That's nice, it was. It was all find and good.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
But now that they're dismantling my house and tearing it apart,
it's getting real in here. I feel like, you know,
like a bride who was saving yourself for the wedding.
And the courtship was wonderful and the wedding ceremony was
beautiful and their reception was so much fun.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
But now we're in the marital bed and it's like, oh,
that's right, Yeah, this is real, This is actually happening.
Hello plastic walls. Oh man. Uh. Tim the Lawyer, which
if you haven't heard of, you're gonna love it, fan favorite,
coming up to talk about a whole bunch of different things.
Law Wise, Armstrong and Getty Tox six fifty KSDV. Too
(17:26):
much news. We've been saying that for a while the
government needs to step in. There's too much news every
day and too many good books. I was thinking that too.
If you're abode one, one or two a week.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
Yeah, all the government should permit to discuss a number
of important constitutional issues before various courts these days. Please
welcome Tim the Lawyer Sandover. Tim's the vice president for
legal affairs with the Goldwater Institute, also an adjunct scholar
with the Cato Institute.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Always a pleasure, Tim, How are you?
Speaker 5 (17:54):
I'm just great. You know you joke about the limiting
the number of books to be published every years? Actually
does do that?
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Really? What's the theory behind that?
Speaker 5 (18:05):
The way it forces people to read better books?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Well, if you know, it's it's classic censorship. If I
could trust who was making the list, that would be fine.
But you can't. It's totally freaking French. Am I wrong?
I'm not wrong. Wow, I don't tell that they actually
have a limit on how many books can be published.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
That's insane, My god, I hate collectivism so much. So, Tim,
before we get into some really interesting stuff that the
Goldwater Institute and you are involved in personally, is there
anything in the Supreme Court docket, because they make all
sorts of big announcements in June, anything particularly exciting that
you're looking forward to.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
None of the big cases have been decided yet they
are going to except for there was the case about
a religious discrimination in schools. It was a charter school
that wanted to operate in Oklahoma as an officially church
oriented school. But in Oklahoma the law deems charter schools
(19:05):
to be public schools. And the question therefore was can
the government officially charter explicitly religious school or does that
violate the First Amendment? And the Supreme Court said, yes,
that's not allowed. But they did so on an even split.
Four justices went way when one way and four justices
(19:25):
went the other way, and Justice Barrett was recused from
the case. So that means it sets no legal precedent,
and that means it's still up in the air about
the constitutionality of government basically allowing private religious schools to
operate under the government's aegis.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
It was one of the.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
Things we'd all been watching for very closely, and it
kind of ended with a fizzle, which means that next
year we're going to have to be arguing this issue
all over again.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
So one quick question on this before we get to
what I know you want to talk about. And there's
not an Obamacare or a gay marriage every year, obviously,
but there's usually a big case we're waiting for. Or
is it just like an anomaly that there's not a
big case, or did this court decide to issue their
big ones rather than wait till the last day in
a way that most courts don't.
Speaker 5 (20:11):
Well, the justices can release an opinion at any time,
they usually hold the controversial one to the last day,
primarily because the dissenting justices want to write their disagreement
as thoroughly as possible, and so out as a courtesy,
they hold off until everybody's comfortable. We like to joke
that the reason they hold off is so that they
can get out of town the July fourth holiday, when
(20:32):
they make everybody angry, but have been. There has been
a number of kind of controversial decisions that have already
come out, and I think the reason why is because
there are there We now have a more conservative court,
there are fewer liberal justices, so there's fewer reasons to
hold off and wait, you know, and so we're starting
to see the cases get front loaded more into the summer.
(20:53):
I mean, it's kind of inside baseball as to why
they do that, But I think the court is also
more interested to nowadays in culture issues. You see these
issues about you know, sex education in schools and whether
parents have a constitutional right to withdraw their children from
the schools that sort of issue, and less of the
property rights oriented issues that we saw on previous terms.
(21:15):
But it's really hard to say, because then they can
take whatever path they want in deciding what cases to
hear and how they decide.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
I find it curious that you, as a non sports
fan who does not use many sports metaphors, use use
the sports metaphor that refers to getting far too into
sports metaphors.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Well, inside baseball.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
Baseball is my one exception, Joe, I enjoy a baseball game.
The reason I'm okay with baseball is because when you
go to a baseball game, nobody expects you to pay
attention and so much time. You know.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
I was funny, I was at a baseball game Friday
night and I was thinking about I can see why
it doesn't work for young people. It is kind of
a you kind of sit around and talk and you
don't have to pay close attention. It's like listening to
all long jazz solo. You almost kind of have to
tune out to get into it or what.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
You and I being jazz fans, that's cool with it.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Yeah, I pay attention to every pitch and assess it
on a number of different metrics. So you're not holding
your breath for any particular Supreme Court decision in the
next few weeks.
Speaker 5 (22:16):
Well, no, not for the next few weeks, but there
are a lot of interesting cases coming up. This tariff
decision yesterday is really it's a fantastic win for freedom.
Got to give congratulations to my friends at the Liberty
Justice Center in Illinois who brought this case and struck
down these illegal, unconstitutional tariffs. It's a big win. But
that case is going to be appealed to the Court
(22:38):
of Appeals next and then of course to the US
Supreme Court, so excited about.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
As you know, we're big around here, whether quote unquote
our guy is an office or the other side's guy
or somebody nobody likes.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Just limiting executive power is good anyway.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Goldwater Institute doing some good stuff with protecting privacy, specifically
of donors.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
Do you want to tell us about that?
Speaker 5 (23:00):
So you know, there's these efforts that the progressives especially
are pursuing to force people to list their names, addresses,
and telephone numbers and their employment information on a publicly
accessible government list whenever they donate to a nonprofit organization
like the gold Daughter Institute, for example, that's out there
making statements about politics or endorsing or opposing ballid initiatives.
(23:25):
And the progresses want to expose people's private information in
this way because they say, well, this will keep the
money out of politics, which is nonsense. I mean, as
long as the government can redistribute wealth, there's going to
be money in politics, because that's why people invest money
in positives. They want to get a profit from it.
The only way to get money out of politics is
to get the government out of the business of picking
(23:46):
winners and losers in the marketplace and taking money from
some people and giving it to other people. But the
progresses don't want to do that, so instead what they
want to do is name and shame anybody who supports
a cause that progresses don't like. And the result, of
course is harassment and intimidation and violence against people who
donate to nonprofits that are conservative and orientation primarily. And
(24:10):
there have been cases, the big one a few years
ago in the US Supreme Court called AFP versus Bonta,
where California forced these nonprofits to turn over their private
IRS documents not redacted, and then posted them on their
Internet and distributed them. And once you put people's names
and addresses out there, they are targeted for harassment and
intimidation and violence.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I was going to say that back in the day
this would have been bad, but not nearly as in
the Internet age, where wow, they can they can figure
out what caused Jenny and accounting uh donated money to
and and and and get that out there and people
can start you know, attacking or online or go and
buy our house or whatever. That's horrifying.
Speaker 5 (24:51):
Oh yeah, and you know Prop eight in California, the
single the same sex anti same sex marriage initiative. The
people who donated to that campaign had their names and
addresses posted on the Internet, and they were subjected to
a campaign of intimidation and harassment, vandalism of their houses,
the damage to their churches. People who track down these
churches and knock their signs and statues over, and graffiti
(25:14):
on all these sorts of things. And that was years afterwards.
I mean, care information is out there, It's always out there.
So a cause that is today considered perfectly normal. Remember
President Obama himself right post the same second.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
He and Hillary both ran on a marriage is between
a man and a woman. That wasn't that long aga.
Speaker 5 (25:31):
So then twenty years later that becomes a politically anathema,
politically incorrect, as bad as segregation, et cetera, et cetera. Right,
And so now people can track down who donated to
that campaign and harass them and threaten them. This is
all intended to silence conservative voices, to stop them from
donating to causes they believe in. And then the progressives
(25:52):
can go out there and say, see, we got money
out of politics because we get our way.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Just as a quick aside, you mentioned Rob Bonta the
Attorney General of California. If I were to state that
I think he's a rotten human being who would willingly
urinate on an original.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Copy of the Constitution. What would your response be.
Speaker 5 (26:08):
Tim, it's your First Amendment right to say that, Joe,
and and to donate to a cause that supports that position. Well,
what we're doing in Arizona. So Arizona passed on these
laws that says you have to put your name on
a government list if you donate to a nonprofit. We
sued over this, and this case is now going to
the Arizona Supreme Court, which is going to hear the
(26:30):
case argued in September, arguing that this law violates the
state constitutions protection protections for free speech and privacy. And
this is a new wrinkle because most of these cases
have been argued under the federal First Amendment. People tend
to forget that the state constitutions protect your freedom more
broadly than the federal Constitution does. So we're going to
(26:52):
the Arizona Supreme Court to argue that ignore the federal law,
this violates the state Constitution's free speech and privacy rights guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
That's interesting that as a statement that you just made.
The state constitution protects you more than the federal constitution.
Speaker 5 (27:07):
That's the whole reason for federalism is to ensure that
the government can't deprive you of your federal Bill of
Rights protections. Of course, it can't go below that floor,
but it can provide a higher level of protection. And
most state constitutions do. They have protections like the privacy.
We have a clause in the Arizona Constitution that protects
your private affairs against the government intruding on it. The
(27:30):
California Constitution has a privacy right in its Bill of Rights.
So the state constitutions protect your rights more than the
federal constitution does. And yet we always sit around talking
about the federal First Amendment, and lawyers often forget even
to make these arguments in court. And that's one of
our missions at the incident the Goaldwarnter Institute is to
try emphasize that the importance of state constitutional protections that
(27:51):
can often secure you against the federal government.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Someday, I hope you and I can sit on the
bullet train from Palmdale to Gilroy and discuss these things.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
You know, it's so sad, It's so said California history
is if you read California, it's nothing but the taxpayer
being screwed by the railroads in eighteen fifty, In the
eighteen ninety and nineteen ten, it's the same story. And
here we are in the twenty twenties and California taxpayers
are being screwed by the railroads all over again, and
(28:24):
this time it's the progressives who think it's a great idea.
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Tim Sanderfers, the vice president for legal affairs at the
Goldwater Institute. Tim, as long as we're on the topic,
and you passed on my colorful rob Banta query, Jack
and I have called the continuation of the horrific, mountainous
squandering of taxpayer dollars on the It'll never be a
(28:48):
bullet train train the most egregious failure of democracy we
have ever seen. How is it, briefly, from what you've observed,
that the people of californ you have been unable to
stop this.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
Vampire.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
Well, the complicated answer is what a phenomenon economists called
rent seeking, which is that when the government can take
a bunch of money from a large number of people
and then give it to a small number of people,
the people who receive it. The small number of people
who get that money, they have a huge incentive to
lobby the government for more. Whereas the average taxpayer they
(29:25):
only lose a dollar or two per year, it's not
worth them to spend a lot of time rallying against
what the government is doing. They call that concentrated benefits
and dispersed costs. And it creates this one way road
sort of where the government is always going in the
direction of more and more wealthy distribution because there's all
this lobbying in favor of it from the few people
(29:46):
who benefit from it, and there's not a lot of
lobbying against it by the people who suffer from it.
And that explains not just the bullet trained fiasco, but
all sorts of different regulatory welfare state system. You know,
my friend that my friend Josh Thompson at the Pacific
Legal Foundation. A few years ago, he calculated that it
would actually be cheaper to take every person in California,
(30:08):
buy them a plane ticket to Japan, fly them to Japan,
let them buy them a ticket on their bullet train,
and then fly them back. Then it would to complete
the California bullet Train. And that was ten years ago.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
It's gotten worth oh by a lot.
Speaker 5 (30:23):
Is pathetic. It's just so sad.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
Right, you could.
Speaker 4 (30:26):
Probably get them a nice plate of sushi in a
sex spot while they're over there in Tokyo, Tim said
to her from the Goldwater Institute.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Tim always great, stay in touch.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
Anytime you got something that's that's hot, call us, So
don't wait for us to call you.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
Absolutely, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Guys, always pleasure. I can just picture Tim and I
whisked along at high speed on the bullet train from
Gilroy to Palmdale, discussing the Constitution.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
It's a beautiful dream because we have and that's exactly
what it is, a dream.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
Because we have an important appointment in Palmdale, but we
need to get back to Gilroy the same day. You
laugh to keep from crying. Huh, we've got more on
the waist to hear.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
Thanks for taking the money.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
Armstrong and.
Speaker 6 (31:20):
Harvard professor was fired for making up data in research
on dishonesty. Doctor Francesca Gino says she's never been dishonest, adding.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
She's only being.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
Targeted because she's a black male.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Oh, she must have had a picture of her there.
She is a white female yes, yes, that's true. And
as we mentioned earlier, it is revealed that she made
a million dollars a year, fifth highest paid person in Harvard. Wow.
And in her dishonesty studies she was cheating. Well, she's
(31:57):
an expert in the field. That's true, that's true, exactly
what expect. So I wish I didn't have to be
I don't have to be vague about this, but it'd
be kind to be vague because it would be better
for the story and easier to understand. But and you
can probably guess if you've been listening for a long time,
(32:17):
but two people in my orbit, very close orbit, have
had panic attacks in the last couple of weeks. And
did you know much about panic have you? Is anybody
like close to you ever had a panic attack? Yeah?
I've only known a few people in my life. It's
(32:38):
very helpful to me though, that the first person I
ever knew that had a panic attack, that dealt with
panic attacks was a really big, really tough guy, because
otherwise I would have a certain view of panic attacks.
I know I would, because I know my personality that
it is for, you know, a certain type of personality,
and he was he was not that guy at all.
(32:58):
I mean he was a college football player, tough guy,
bar fight guy. I mean, he was absolutely not the
kind of guy. And he just started having him in
his twenties and had no idea why and had to
do a bunch of research on it and everything like that,
and how horrible they were. So but man, I've never
(33:19):
had one. I've never come close to having one. I
don't think I'm capable of one. I think there must
be something in your brain, chemistry, your body chemistry, or
something that allows it to happen for some people and
not others. It doesn't seem to be even according to
the people I know who've had panic attacks, it doesn't
seem to be situational. It happens. It can happen out
(33:41):
of nowhere. It's not like you just got the news
that your car's being repossessed or you know something that
sets it off. It's more, at least in the cases
that I know, maybe you have a different story. It
just can come out of nowhere. Yeah, my experience with
it by proxy, he's a little different. But really, yeah,
(34:04):
if you know anything, but like, what what what have
you done that has worked for you? Text Line four
one five two nine five KFTC. Well four one five
two nine five KFTC. One person I know went to
the hospital because they thought they were dying, which is
what it feels like when you have a panic attack,
is uh. They give you lots of better drill. That's
about all they do, and you wait for it to pass.
And there's not a particular at least in the cases
(34:28):
that I know of, personally, not a particular like remedy
for how to not have it again. So you get
to live for the rest of your life kind of
like a heart attack. You get to live for the
rest of your life wondering if one's going to come
out of nowhere again, which sounds awful.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
Yeah, I know there are coping mechanisms that you can
uh and awareness.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Awareness helps a lot.
Speaker 4 (34:46):
If you can name precisely what's going on and understand
it on a more scientific level, it makes it harder
to get overwhelmed by it.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
So I'm told, well, if you feel like you can't breathe,
that's got to be bad for minutes. Thinking you're going
to suffocate to death and die for minutes sounds really horrible.
I'm glad I don't have them and have never had one. Yeah, Yeah,
I agreed, And I don't know if one out of
a thousand people have panic attacks or one out of ten.
(35:16):
I don't really have any idea on that. Maybe now
at this point I should start looking into it, since
I've had no clue. Two people in my tight circle
have one recently.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
Next Hour a gender bending Madness update The Madness. It's
still on the March. If you can't stick around or
you don't get Next Hour, grab it via a podcast.
Subscribe Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.