August 26, 2025 • 37 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Tim "The Lawyer" Sandefur talks to Jack Armstrong!
- Tim talks about some legal wins with Jack!
- Tim covers the homelessness issue in our blue cities
- Learning on Youtube & Mt. Rushmore
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, Joe Getty, Armstrong and Jetty,
and now he Armstrong and Yetty. We live in a
(00:25):
world where cracker Barrel has booth.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
This is not This is not an easy place to
be to raise our kids this way, so we're all
just gonna have to adjust.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
I guess.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Welcome to the Armstrong and Getty Show. Joe is in
England enjoying his vacation. We'll probably talk to him a
little bit later and hear how things are going over
there where.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Now old friend of the Armstrong and Getty Show and
a fan favorite. We always get so many texting emails saying, man,
I love Tim. It's Tim Sanderfer from the Goldwater Institute.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Tim, welcome, thanks for having me. Is there a title
you want a title?
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Well, I know, as a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican, small government libertarian,
I'm against titles. But my official title is a vice
president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, which is
a free market think tank and litigation organization headquartered in Phoenix,
and my job is to see the government for a living,
(01:20):
best job in the world.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Oh, thank god for you.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Speaking of And I win every time, right, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
But just well sometimes you do win.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
And the fact that they know they can be sued
is probably got to keep them mining their p's and
ques at least a little bit.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Sometimes.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Yes, as long as the government still respects the law,
you know, hopefully there will be myself, my colleagues, and
you know, our sister organizations across the country who are
trying as best we can to hold the government's feet
to the constitutional fire.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
I'm feeling a wide ranging conversation today for some reason
that is just my mood. So you started with mentioning titles.
Why do you think people refer to dictators by the
title that they want all the time? I'm amazed that
everybody in the media, including President Trump, calls putin president putin,
I mean, and Bobama did two and Biden did too.
(02:16):
So it's not just Trump, but why they're not president,
they're a dictator, So why do we go along with
their language?
Speaker 1 (02:22):
We do the same thing.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
President agree. This has bothered me for years. This has
bugged me so long that but you know, it's because
we don't want to be judgmental. We don't want to
we don't want to call things by their right names
and say Dictator Putin because that might defend him. So
instead we give him the kind of false legitimacy that
is exactly what he craves. I think it's a terrible thing,
but it's in that way all my life.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Yeah, that's that's weird that the the the Free West
does that.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
You want us to call you by a certain name. Oh,
sure we.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Will, Okay, I guess that's what we did. Another question
for you, So I was just reading. I know you
know a lot about Waimo the uh the robotoxes. You
act actually visited their plant. They make them in Phoenix.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
They well I don't think they make them in Phoenix,
but they have a headquarters in Phoenix. Phoenix is one
of their largest cities that they are operating in, and
they have a garage there which is where all the cars.
You know, they're all electric cars, so that's where they
go to recharge. And my wife and I got a
chance to go down there and take a tour of
their facility and ride for our first time in a
way mo And since then, I've I've I take every
(03:24):
excuse I can to ride in them, because I just
there's the technology is just mind bogging, and I just
loved standing there in the garage watching these cars come
in and look for parking spaces, and they looked exactly
like a human was driving them, you know, pausing and
backing up because oh there's a spot, and that sort
of thing, exactly like me at the airport, and yet
(03:44):
there's nobody driving them. And I had thought that it
would feel weird to ride in one, and that went
away in five seconds. After that, it felt exactly like
riding in a car with somebody driving it, except there
was nobody in the driving seat. Interesting, absolutely marvelous technology.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
I wonder about that because I've got a self driving Tesla,
so I'm used to the concept now. I wondered what
it was like for people who haven't done that before.
But that's why I was when I wrote a weymo
for the first time in San Francisco. Within a couple
of seconds, it was oh cool, I get to control
the music, and I was looking at the little computer
in front of me and picking my mind.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
I haven't been this enthusiastic about a piece of technology
in a very long time. They have already just statistically speaking,
they have already saved tens of thousands of lives, probably
in the amount of in just the amount of time
they've already been operating in these cities. They're going to
make driving as safe as flying. It's incredible. I'm blown
away by how safe and natural it feels to ride
(04:39):
in these and you know, it's particularly good for the blind.
You know, blind people particular love this technology because they
can they don't have to get in the car with
somebody they don't know, like they do with Uber. And
they can take their dogs, which you sometimes can't do
in an Uber. And when you call, you summon your
robot car, it arrives and it plays a tune so
(05:01):
you know where it is, you know, and these sorts
of techno. It's just a marvelous how it's opened up
the door for people who otherwise wouldn't have had those opportunities.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I like the technology and everything. This is where we're
probably going to part. I hate the idea that the
autonomy of getting to drive where I want to go
and having control over it is going to go away.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Whether I like it or not. I hate that so much.
It makes me want to cry.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
I do worry about that. No, I worry about that,
and I worry about the how easy it would be
for the government to say, well, we want to track
where everybody drives, and you know, we'll run their record
while they're in the car, and then if we think
that they need to be arrested, we'll just reroute the
car to the police station or something like that. You
can easily imagine the dystopian ends to which this can
be used, but all technology can be abused in that way,
(05:50):
and there is no abolishing the technologies of the solution.
The solution is good philosophical and political ideas and a
belief in individual rights and limited government. And since we've
thrown that on the bonfire in the past decade or so,
I mean, this is basically, honestly, this is the least
of our concerns in that respect.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Yeah, but I think about when I was Now, it's
not that many years ago.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
I'm an old man. I'm in the winter of my life,
but it wasn't that many decades ago. Took a day
over eighty, But I've driven all over this country.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
I long I love long road trips.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
But I used to head out on road trips, and
you know, I'd stop at a hotel. I stay in
cheap hotels. They'd have the key hanging on a peg
behind the door. Nobody knew I was there. Nobody knew
I was.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
There after I left.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Now I've got a self driving car that keeps track
of every mile I drive, everywhere I go, I parked,
there's license plate readers going through every parking lot checking
where I was, and they've got all the information at
the hotel. I mean, my entire trip is tracked. So
in my lifetime it's gone from I could have traveled
across the country completely without a single human being knowing
(06:59):
where I was, to now thousands of people and maybe
all governments knowing where I am.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
I find that trouble.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
I totally sympathize. I think this is I would say
this is there's something very American about this tension between
on one hand, wanting the convenience that modern technology gives
you and modern civilization gives you, but on the other hand,
the want the desire to light out for the territory
and and just be away and and keep something you
might say wild alive in your spirit is a very
(07:29):
important part of life and so I totally get that.
My wife and I love to go on long drives
and get away from things also, and so I. But
on the other hand, with this option available for those
who are willing to sacrifice a little bit of their
privacy in exchange for the enormous convenience of it, the
answer is that that both options should be available, and
both options would be available in a society that respected
(07:51):
individual rights. Unfortunately, our society respects that so much less
nowadays that I do very much worry about a future
where truly, you know, individual cars allowing you to drive
wherever you want are outlawed. I can imagine that, Oh, insurance.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Companies will take Yeah, the insurance companies will take care
of that, because as soon as this just the stats
are so overwhelmingly true that it's less likely you're going
to get our wreck with an automated car than without one.
The insurance company is going to make it so expensive
you can't afford to drive a car.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
On your own.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yeah, I can imagine that. It's sort of a gatica
kind of a situation.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
I don't know that term.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Oh Gatka is a great movie from the nineties to
about a dystopian future where it's just run along these
lines where your entire genetic code is sort of sequenced
ahead of time, and so people know whether you're likely
to develop a health condition in the future and limit
your opportunities accordingly, not necessarily through government control, but through
a sick blend of government and private companies that exercise
(08:50):
their power to deprive you of opportunities. Ah, if you
haven't seen the movie, you should.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
It's great.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
One more away, Moll comment, and then I promise after
the break we'll let you talk about some of your
wins suing the government, which are important. I saw the
former may so they're want to get WEIMO in New
York City. That'd be a huge win for WEIMO obviously.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I saw the former mayor build A Blasio come out
and say, yesterday, WEIMO New York is not a town
for WEIMO.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
We should not have them.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
And uh, and I wonder if is that just to
protect all the jobs of Is that what that is?
Speaker 1 (09:23):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yes, it's it's They were exactly the same way about
Uber back in the day, if you remember they were,
they were very resistant to Uber because the tax theyre
the taxi drivers, you know, unions and things like that.
They don't want the competition, and so it's the convenience
thing to do is use the government to exclude legitimate
competition order to raise your prizes and screw the consumer.
And that's been the recipe for centuries. And unfortunately Wemo
(09:47):
and other companies you know, face that that opposition, and
it's really just an attempt by people who don't want
to compete fairly to use the government to block legitimate
competitions so that they can raise their prices at your expense.
It's a violation of individual liberty and it's economically foolish.
But New York has been that way first centuries.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Technology comes along eliminates another a lot of jobs, but
throughout history it's also created other different jobs. However, right,
I don't think that's going to continue with AI, do you?
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Oh, I have no doubt that it will continue. Really,
every time every time that technology has come along and oh,
they're taken our jobs, every time that happens, it turns
out that it actually develops more jobs, not just you know,
people think, well, yeah, but these people become programmers. No,
it's not that. It's that new technology opens up new
opportunities for economic growth that people could never have foreseen
(10:42):
in the years before. Then, you know the cell phone.
When I remember when I got my first iPhone years ago,
nobody could ever have imagined something like Uber Eats or
door Dash at that time. And now look at how
many people earn money working for those companies thanks to
smartphone technology. These new technologies open up vistas that nobody
(11:04):
could possibly have imagined, and people take advantage of that
and the economy grows. It's almost like creating something out
of literally nothing. It's it's amazing to see. So there's
I have no doubt that self driving technology will in
the long run increase employment opportunities and more importantly, increase wealth.
And if it's allowed to flourish, if the government doesn't
(11:25):
get in the way and create roadblocks.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
I really really want you to be right about that
with aiser.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Well, historically speaking, I've been right about that in every
single time that a new technology has come about. With
the buggy whip makers, I'm sure they complained when the
automobile came along and nobody was hiring buying buggy whips anymore,
and they were saying, oh, our jobs are going to
go for overseas. We need to outlaw cars so that
the union, the buggy whip union, can can flourish. And
(11:53):
what about the workers, et cetera, et cetera. And here
we are living in a society where hardly anybody buys
buggy whips, and we have more employment and more opportunity,
and more wealth and more technologies than they did back then.
So I have no doubt that I'm right about this.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Oh God, I hope you are. Tim Sanderfer.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
When we come back, he's going to talk about some
of his wins with the government and some of the
good stuff that's happened. There's a good homeless case that
you should know about. Actually that one went the wrong direction,
but we'll hear about that when we come back. Want
to remind you football is back. Of course, if you're
a football fan, you absolutely know that, and you need
to get on Prize Picks.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
That's the way to kick off the season. You get
fifty dollars.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Instantly in lineups when you play your first five dollars
with Prize Picks. They've already got millions of members. Prize
Picks is the place to put your takes to the test.
You think you know you're right about how somebody's been
working out in the offseason. You think they're gonna have
a great year. Okay, fine, lay down some money that way.
The app is super simple to use. You just picked
two or more players across any sport. You pick more
(12:49):
or less on their projections, and if you're right, you
could cash in prize picks as an available in forty
plus states, including California, Simple stats, user friendly policies.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
So here's the deal.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Download the Prize Picks app today. Use the code Armstrong
and get fifty dollars instantly in lineups when you play
five bucks. That's the code Armstrong and prize picks to
get fifty dollars instantly in lineups. And you play five
win or lose, you get fifty bucks in lineups just
for playing guaranteed prize picks.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Run your game more with Tim Sanderfer Right after this.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Armstrong, we're talking with fan favorite Tim Sandfer.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
We used to call him Tim the Lawyer.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Ran into a friend of yours the other day at
my local church who said he worked with you way
back at PLF Pacific Legal Foundation. About how interesting that
you guys work together. He's the minister of my local church.
You're the most hardcore atheist I've ever met. And you people,
yeah got along.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
I know who you must be talking about, and that
those are good times. He taught me a lot about law. Actually,
we were both young lawyers together working together. I miss
those days.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Cool.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
So I got an inkling of some of the things
you want to talk about. How about this moving company
in California? Tell me about this one?
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Oh my goodness. So we've filed the lawsuit against the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that's in charge
of discrimination cases, because they won't even.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Tell us why.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
They filed a fifteen million dollars fine against a moving
company in California called Meathead Movers, which is one of
the largest I think it's the largest moving company in California,
the largest independently owned moving company in California, employees three
hundred people. And the EEOC claims that they've been engaging
in age discrimination in hiring. Now, let's pause for a
(14:33):
moment to think about that. They say they're that this
moving company is hiring employees who are too young, that
they're not hiring old people as employees. Now, that's not true.
They've never discriminated against people in hiring based on age.
But is it really all that surprising that a moving
companies employees tend to be big, hefty, strong young men
(14:55):
just on average? Is that really that unreasonable? So the
EOC filed this, this fifteen million dollar fine against them,
and we said, well, we'd like to know if anybody
ever actually complained about discrimination. Did you receive any actual
complaints from anybody in the private market about this or
did you just do this on your own because you
were looking around for somebody to screw And the EOC
(15:19):
won't tell us, They won't tell us, they won't give
us the information, so we've had to sue them for
these documents.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Well back in just a second, though, So if I've
always been confused about what the law is on this,
So if I am, I'm actually in pretty good shape
right now.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
But say I'm not in good shape.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
I'm a sixty year old man and I go apply
for that job they and they turned me down for
a twenty five year old man. Do I have a
case because they discriminated against me based on my age?
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Well, you know when you used the question do I
have a case? You have to remember that there's two
ways of answering that the one is do you have
a meritorious right? And the other one is can you sue?
And you can sue even if you don't have a
meritorious case. And when you sue, you know, then the
other side has to high lawyers, and it takes a
long time, it costs a lot of money. Just the
fact that you can soon to begin with is a
big detriment to a lot of businesses. Now, the answer
(16:08):
to your question is that, of course the company can
choose people based on physical strength and stuff and that,
but they can't discriminate based on age. But where do
you you know, in a particular circumstance, where do you
draw the line? That, unfortunately is for the judges to
figure out after you spend all this money for lawyers.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
But obviously, a world where moving companies have to hire
sixty five year old men at the same rate that
they hire twenty two year old men would be insane.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Yep, this wells as the saying has. This is the
world that the left wants, right, They want a world
in which moving companies are forced to hire grandma instead
of just the weightlifter, because that's more equitable.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Oh, that's hilarious. That is a good one. Well, thank
god you're fighting the good fight. I know we've got
a bad news story about a homeless ruling in you, Utah.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
We're going to get to coming up in just a
few minutes. Yeah, I'm well concerned about Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
So, unfortunately, the Utah Supreme Court issued a bad decision
in a case, one of these cases about homeless encampments.
Now we have a solution, but it's going to take
a while to get that done, so I'll tell you
about that after the break.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Cool.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
How many like, how much time do you spend every day?
You know, writing, pouring over books, doing lawyer stuff all
the time, all the time. It's the dream job. It's
my dream job.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
I go to work and I sit at my desk
surrounded by books written by you know, Thomas Jefferson and
Sir Edward Cook and write about it. And then I
go home and I'm surrounded by books here.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
I love it.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
It's great. A world of ideas about freedom and making
them real in people's actual lives is what the Goldwater
Institute is all about. And that's why it's the best
job in the world.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
That's fantastic. If you have a job like that, like
I do. People ask how much time he's write all
my time? But I would do it even.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
If I wasn't doing this.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
I just I like following the news and reading everybody's opinions,
so it's easy. But anyway, we'll tell you about this
homeless ruling that went the wrong way. We didn't need that,
did We coming up with Tim Lawyer in just a
little bit if you miss a segment or an hour
the podcast Armstrong and Getty on.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Demand Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
So we're talking about Tim the Lawyer, fan favorite Tim
Sanderfruit the Goldwater Institute, who I like you describe your
job title as you sue the government man.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
That's got to get you out of bed in the morning.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
I don't know. There's always plenty of work, that's the thing.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Yeah, no kidding.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
I'm amazed by the people who are on the other side,
who who I think have to know they're doing evil
for the schools for instance, like some of the teachers'
union people.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
And stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Don't they they or did they convince themselves somehow they're
doing something good?
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Well, there's there are some people who take shelter in
the idea that everybody deserves a defense, which is true.
You know, they're fine if that's what you want to do,
but I couldn't.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
I wouldn't be happy doing that.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
And then there's people who do it because it's part
of the path to another job. You kind of have
to work as a prosecutor or a US attorney is
something if you wanted to become a judge someday, And
so they go through what the Romans used to call
the courses a normum, the series of positions that you
have to have in order to rise in the government
and something like that. I've never really had a great
(19:25):
deal of ambition in that respect, and I don't think
i'd be very good at it anyway, because I'm not
really good about keeping my opinions to myself.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
So one of the most interesting things I ever heard
from David French, who now works for The New York Times.
He's a Harvard Law School grat He said he was
always worried about that the whole you know, having to
defend an awful person or an awful company or something
like that as a lawyer.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
How you do it, he said, it doesn't become an issue.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
You always find a way to convince yourself that your
guy or.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Company is getting screwed somehow, so they need a good defense.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
You just always do Yeah, And how could you live
with yourself if you became the kind of person who
did that, but your client was the government. How can
you know that you are able to accommodate your conscience
to the kinds of things that the federal and state
governments are doing to people day in and day out
in this country. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
So what did Utah just rule about homelessness? That's going
to appalla.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
So this is the latest in this series of lawsuits
where cities have allowed homeless encampments or even encouraged homeless
encampments on government owned properties that create what we call
a nuisance for neighboring property owners. Now you might remember
a couple years ago, Phoenix had the largest homeless encampment
in the country, a thousand people living on the streets
(20:37):
of Phoenix through one hundred and twenty degree summers because
the government was like, yeah, sure, fine, you can camp here.
We're not going to enforce the laws against that here.
And it destroyed local businesses. It really was. All The
real victims of these policies are the tax paying hard
working citizens of these communities who pay their tax dollars
for police protection and don't get it because city officials
(20:59):
decided they would rather not enforce the laws. Well, in Utah, unfortunately,
in Salt Lake City they were doing the same thing.
There's a lot of city owned property in the city,
and the city was like, yeah, sure, if you want
to have a homeless encampment there, that's fine, We're not
going to do anything about it. And locals sued the
city for maintaining a nuisance. Now, the problem is that
a lot of states have a legal principle that says
(21:21):
you can't sue the government for failing to enforce the law.
The government can choose when to enforce the law and
when not to, and the reason why is because they
have limited resources and sometimes they want to take mercy
on people or whatever, and so in general sense, it's
okay for the government to pick and choose the cases
it's going to pursue. But unfortunately, what happens is then
the government uses as an excuse to just stand back
(21:43):
and do nothing. And so unfortunately, the state Supreme Court
in Utah ruled that Salt Lake City could not be
sued on the grounds that effectively ran on a bunch
of nuisances in the city, damaging people's property and threatening
public safety. Because of this rule that you can't sue
the government. Now we have so you have in Arizona
(22:06):
the courts went one way saying, yes, you can sue
the government for this, and in Utah you have the
opposite way, where you can't sue the government for this.
The goldwaterers to do, we developed a solution of this problem.
It's called Prop. Three twelve. We ran it on the
ballot in Arizona and it passed, and it says, if
the government chooses not to enforce the law against these encampments,
(22:26):
then and if you have to take steps to protect yourself,
they say, put bars on your business to keep people
from breaking in the windows, or install security cameras or
higher security guard you should be able to deduct that
from your taxes. If the government's not providing you with
the services that it is supposed to be spending your
tax dollars on, you should get your tax dollars back, essentially,
(22:46):
and so it'll our initiative, which which is now the
law in Arizona, says just that and where I'm saying, Utah,
if you're listening, this is a solution to your problem.
Your state Supreme Court has decided not to require the
government to enforce the law. So there's an answer to that,
and that is, if you have to take steps to
protect yourself, you should you at least shouldn't have to
pay twice.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
That is again, no kidding. That is really an interesting
idea you guys came up with, and I'm glad it worked.
So I'm wondering if we had something wrong here. So
a couple of weeks ago here in the state capitol
of California and Sacramento, they came up with this new
rule where no homeless people around city hall.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
And we were mocking that actually, because.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
They were saying, you know, it's not fair that our
employees have to be worried walking to their cars or whatever. Yeah,
and we were mocking that because, okay, fine for the
government worker, but what about the guy just four blocks
over at the restaurant. He's you know, he's got to
step over drug addicts to get into his business. You
care about the government workers, but not him. But should
we be happy that they started with the government property
(23:53):
or not?
Speaker 3 (23:53):
I don't I don't know, talk about left to meat cake.
That's outrageous. I mean we actually we had a benefit
in Phoenix in that the enormous Holsing camp it was
right there in the middle of the area where the
government complex is. It was next to the Supreme Court,
next to the state Capitol building. You couldn't avoid seeing
it if you were a government employee. And that was
(24:14):
good because it put pressure on the government to actually
enforce the existing laws against this kind of behavior, which
they were refusing to do so by saying, oh no,
you you ordinary, hardworking proletarian Californians, you can deal with this.
We government officials, because we have stars on our bellies,
you know, like the like doctor Seuss's speeches. We don't
(24:37):
have to put up with that. That's that really is
I mean, how how louis the fourteenth can you get?
I mean, this is this is French ancion regime kind
of stuff. Crazy.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Yeah, So, I often I realized the law is is
crafted around a lot of protecting individuals and minorities from
the tyranny of the majority, But it seems so often,
at least living in California, the tyranny of the minority
against the majority happens so often.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Yeah, California. California's political culture has as a hangover from
the sixties, this obsession of ignoring or penalizing the hard working,
wealth creators of your state to benefit the so called oppressed,
who in many cases are in fact lawbreakers who are
(25:28):
damaging other people's property and other people's rights. And it's
so perverse. But it's the problem is California, is it? Well,
there's money problems, but one of the biggest ones is
it's political culture, this mawkish obsession with the allegedly disenfranchised
or the allegedly underprivileged, when in fact, what it is
(25:51):
is that the state refuses to protect the rights of
those who actually go out there and work for a
living all day. Why should you bother if the state's
going to do everything for you, why would you bother
are going out and working hard and creating wealth and
providing jobs and things like that. I just at some
point people have to wake up about this stuff, right,
I don't know, California has not woken up about the
(26:12):
bullet train still, so who knows?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
No freaking kidding, That's all I believe.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
California is on the road to reform when when it
mixes that ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
No kidding.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
We're almost into September, which gets us close to October,
which gets us into another Supreme Court session. Are there
any big cases coming this next year that we should
look forward to?
Speaker 4 (26:30):
Do?
Speaker 1 (26:30):
You know?
Speaker 3 (26:31):
I think so. I think you're going to see a
birthright citizenship. I think you're gonna see this thing just
yesterday about firing the head of the FED. So you
know what's going on there is Back in the thirties,
the Supreme Court issued a decision that said that it's
that says that the Congress can create these jobs that
(26:52):
the president can appoint, but then then the president can't
fire these people. And the question is is that constitutional?
The Constitution says the president has the executive power, and
that means in theory, that should mean the president gets
to appoint people, and he gets to fire people, and
everybody in the executive branch works for the president and
can be fired by the president. But back in the thirties,
(27:13):
during the New Deal era, Congress started creating these new
kinds of bureaucratic administrative agencies and said, well, the president
can't fire them. We want them to be independent from
the president, but also sort of independent from Congress and
also kind of independent from the courts. Well, the US
Constitution only contemplates three branches of government, and so for
a long time this has been a problem whether the
(27:35):
Congress can create these agencies that the president isn't really
in charge of. And so what Trump is doing by
firing the head of the FED is triggering this lawsuit
about whether or not that's constitutional. Let a reconsider those
decisions from the nineteen thirties that created these independent administrative agencies.
On one hand, I agree, I think these are unconstitutional.
(27:57):
I think if you're in an executive branch, you work
for the present and if that's how the constitution works,
and he can fire anybody who wants in the executive branch.
But on the other hand, that opens the door to
a lot of chaos, as we saw with the markets
yesterday with the announcement of the firing of the FED.
So there's a real constitutional and economic reckoning to come,
and I think we're going to see that in this
Supreme Court in the coming year.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
So I was listened to a podcast the other day.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
They were actually talking about the specific case of TikTok,
which Congress passed law the TikTok's got to go. It
it ended up in the other branch, the Justice branch,
nine to oh. The Supreme Court decided it's okay to
boot TikTok, But the executive branch has decided, for whatever reason,
not to get rid of TikTok?
Speaker 1 (28:39):
And is it possible and you could apply this to
a whole bunch of other situations other than TikTok?
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Is it possible for her country to function with only
two of the three branches actually doing anything because Congress
has decided, Eh, we'll let the courts and the president
with his pen and phone do everything and we're just
going to stay out of it.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
And they did it with Biden and Obama doing it
with Trump.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Yeah, you've put your finger on the real problem is
Congress's refusal to do its job. The Constitution was written
by people who expected Congress to show up for work
and actually do something every day, and instead, what Congress
has done is passed a series of laws that gives
the president power to make or break and do whatever
he wishes. And then they've washed their hands of it
and gone home. And no, the system cannot work that way.
(29:22):
We need a Congress that actually does its job. And
now I would dispute whether we actually have two functioning
brands of the government. I would say we have about
half of a functioning branch of government. Half of the
judiciary basically works, half of it doesn't. Congress doesn't do anything.
The president just does whatever it feels like. And the
TikTok ban is a great example of that. It's totally
unconstitutional for the president to refuse to enforce a TikTok ban.
(29:45):
The Constitution requires the president to quote take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, not just executed, but faithfully executed.
That means it's his job to enforce the law, whether
he likes it or not. The only exception to that
is if the president needs laws unconstitution then he doesn't
have to enforce it. In fact, he's obligated not to.
But the president does not claim that the TikTok band
(30:05):
is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court is said that it's not.
So the president has a moral and legal obligation do
in forrest this wall, and he just doesn't care, and
Congress doesn't care, and nobody's doing anything about it. It's
it's truly astounding.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
And that's one of many examples. Anyway, Tim Sanders, and I.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
Can hear people saying, but Obama did it too. Yeah,
that doesn't make it right. No, no, don't make it right.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
No no, Well that's that's what I was talking about yesterday.
How do we end this race to the bottom? How
do you end thee Well, they play hardball. We're gonna
play harder ball.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
You know where you end up when you do that,
the race to the bottom. I mean, it just all
comes apart.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
But anyway, Tim Sanderfer with the gold Water Institute, appreciate
all your time today, Tim, great as always. I'm sure
I'm gonna get all kinds of text and emails saying
have Tim back soon.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
We love Tim so and only a few of those
will be from me.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Thank you, Tim Sanderfer. Okay, cool, what did you tell me?
Speaker 4 (30:52):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (30:52):
I know what I got to talk about here. This
is something I'm really excited about and I've got it
for the whole family. Now tell you about webroot. Cybercrime
obviously a problem. Every twenty two seconds someone becomes a
victim of identity theft, and it can happen with you.
Click on a link on your computer or your phone
or whatever. That's why we use Webroot Total Protection. It's
not just anti virus, it's real time protection against malware, ransomware,
(31:17):
phishing scams.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
Which I always worry about.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Plus a web threat shield that blocks dangerous sites before
you click. And you also get a firewall, VPN and
password manager. A password manager. Finally, to keep your family
secure on every device. How about this with plans covering
up to ten identities, so easy to get you, your kids,
your wife, grandma and grandpa, whoever on this and you're
protected in the whole family with up to a million
dollars in reimbursement if identity theft happens.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
So don't wait until it's too late. Get fifty five zero.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Percent off Webroot Total Protection or Webroot Essentials right now.
Webroot dot com slash Armstrong. Protect your digital life today
because hackers aren't slowing down. Get fifty percent off Webroot
Total Protection or webroots Essentials, webroot dot com slash Armstrong.
One more time, that's webroot dot Com slash Armstrong. I'm
actually very excited about this and the fact that I've
(32:06):
now got it and I should have done it a
long time ago. Actually, UH as always some super interesting
stuff from Tim.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
That that last part is fascinating.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Will Congress ever decide to be serious about the fact
that they're supposed to be they're they're Article one power.
I mean, they're the basis of our entire government, you know,
up against the other balancing acts of the executive and
the jiu jitsu. But Congress has just decided we'll just
(32:40):
do whatever a president at the time wants, and then
if we're out of power, we just don't do anything.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
It's very, very frustrating.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
Anyway, we got more on the way if you have
a thought for any of this text line four one
five nine five k FTC.
Speaker 4 (32:54):
Strong.
Speaker 5 (32:57):
Matsuzawa learned how to kick just five years ago studying
YouTube videos of Seattle Seahawks kicker Jason Myers. Matsuzawa moved
to Ohio to play at a community college, where he
turned to his favorite online tutor to learn English, before
transferring to UH to play on scholarship. In all, Matsuzawa
made three field goals in Hawaii's twenty three to twenty
(33:17):
win over Stanford, proving then there's a will and a
lot of YouTube there's a way.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Hawaii beat Stanford, and that story with the kicker. That's
something Joe and I talk about a lot.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
I'm not saying that. I mean, obviously it would be
stupid to say that.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Practice and lessons and hiring a coach and all that
sort of stuff doesn't matter. But man, at the end
of the day, a lot of it is just your
natural born athletic ability, a lot of it. And it's
amazing how many people start playing basketball at age fifteen
or football or whatever and go on to do really
(33:53):
well because they're great athletes. And your kid who started
at age five and has been in thirty different legues
with the pro coach because they just.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Can't run as fast. You know that whole You kind
of have it or you don't. Yeah, there's a certain
amount of that to sports.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
Now, if you've already got the talent and skill his
strength and speed and everything like that, and you hire
coaches against a kid who doesn't, that could make a
huge difference. But you definitely have to have the strength,
speed and coordination to start with. Yeah, Okay, so there's
that story.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
I wanted to get this ridiculous story on. Also, Mount Rushmore,
an American Icon.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
There is now an effort by some supporters of Donald
Trump to add his face to the monument. Congresswoman Anna
Paulina Luna has a bill in Congress that would add
Trump to Mount Rushmore. From an engineering and geological perspective,
adding any faces near impossible. A close look shows the
mountain filled with deep fractures. Paul Nelson, an engineer who
(34:53):
worked on the mountain, warns any new carving could cause
serious damage.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
I can't believe they at actually went to an engineer
to talk about adding another face to Mount Rushmore, which
if you've been there, and I've been there fifty times
in my life because I'm from South Dakota, you actually
had to go talk to some a guy who carves
faces on mountains to come up with the idea that
it's there's no room on there for a face. For
(35:20):
one thing, you take Teddy Roosevelt off because nobody knows
why he's up there, and you put Trump right there.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
It's a little slap.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
You got Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, you know, really really three
big ones, and then you got Trump right over there
in the corner where Teddy Roosevelt used to be and
nobody knows why.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
Remember when Pelosi flooded putting Biden up there. I know,
I just I was thinking about this.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Everybody has a different level to the extent they're willing
to kiss their boss's ass, and some people, as we
all know, are willing to go really far. You watch
them in the hallway or listen to him in the
conference room, and you think, ah, you're such a suck up.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
You make me ill. And then there's the.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Person that won't do it at all. I'm pretty I'm
a lot closer to that level. I can do it
a tiny bit some if I'm in the right mood sometimes,
and I justify it with I'm looking up for my
own career, my own betterment, to make more money for
my family. It's a it's a selfish act of trying
to help. But I can only do it a little
(36:29):
bit sometimes. The starting a bill in Congress to put
Trump on Mount Rushma, I mean, that is just so dumb,
and it's so obviously what it is.
Speaker 1 (36:40):
And Trump knows it's obviously what it is. It's not
like he doesn't know what you're doing. Oh, he thinks
you're pathetic.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
You realize he thinks you're a pathetic suck up that
has no spine of your own. That's what Trump thinks
of you when you talk about putting him on Mount Rushmore.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Jack, what you just said was brilliant. Yeah, well, I
mean you're just the best. Oh my god, that hurts.
Speaker 2 (37:05):
That's like the worst thing I can find out if
somebody is being nice to me, only because I.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
If it's not genuine, I'd rather not get.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
It at all.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
Oh, Jack, your glasses look really nice today. Thank you
very much. If you missed a secment, get the podcast.
More on the Way
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, Armstrong and Jetty,
and now he Armstrong and Yetty. We live in a
(00:25):
world where cracker Barrel has booth.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
This is not This is not an easy place to
be to raise our kids this way, so we're all
just gonna have to adjust.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
I guess.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Welcome to the Armstrong and Getty Show. Joe is in
England enjoying his vacation. We'll probably talk to him a
little bit later and hear how things are going over
there where.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Now old friend of the Armstrong and Getty Show and
a fan favorite. We always get so many texting emails saying, man,
I love Tim. It's Tim Sanderfer from the Goldwater Institute.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Tim, welcome, thanks for having me. Is there a title
you want a title?
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Well, I know, as a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican, small government libertarian,
I'm against titles. But my official title is a vice
president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, which is
a free market think tank and litigation organization headquartered in Phoenix,
and my job is to see the government for a living,
(01:20):
best job in the world.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Oh, thank god for you.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Speaking of And I win every time, right, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
But just well sometimes you do win.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
And the fact that they know they can be sued
is probably got to keep them mining their p's and
ques at least a little bit.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Sometimes.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Yes, as long as the government still respects the law,
you know, hopefully there will be myself, my colleagues, and
you know, our sister organizations across the country who are
trying as best we can to hold the government's feet
to the constitutional fire.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
I'm feeling a wide ranging conversation today for some reason
that is just my mood. So you started with mentioning titles.
Why do you think people refer to dictators by the
title that they want all the time? I'm amazed that
everybody in the media, including President Trump, calls putin president putin,
I mean, and Bobama did two and Biden did too.
(02:16):
So it's not just Trump, but why they're not president,
they're a dictator, So why do we go along with
their language?
Speaker 1 (02:22):
We do the same thing.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
President agree. This has bothered me for years. This has
bugged me so long that but you know, it's because
we don't want to be judgmental. We don't want to
we don't want to call things by their right names
and say Dictator Putin because that might defend him. So
instead we give him the kind of false legitimacy that
is exactly what he craves. I think it's a terrible thing,
but it's in that way all my life.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Yeah, that's that's weird that the the the Free West
does that.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
You want us to call you by a certain name. Oh,
sure we.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Will, Okay, I guess that's what we did. Another question
for you, So I was just reading. I know you
know a lot about Waimo the uh the robotoxes. You
act actually visited their plant. They make them in Phoenix.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
They well I don't think they make them in Phoenix,
but they have a headquarters in Phoenix. Phoenix is one
of their largest cities that they are operating in, and
they have a garage there which is where all the cars.
You know, they're all electric cars, so that's where they
go to recharge. And my wife and I got a
chance to go down there and take a tour of
their facility and ride for our first time in a
way mo And since then, I've I've I take every
(03:24):
excuse I can to ride in them, because I just
there's the technology is just mind bogging, and I just
loved standing there in the garage watching these cars come
in and look for parking spaces, and they looked exactly
like a human was driving them, you know, pausing and
backing up because oh there's a spot, and that sort
of thing, exactly like me at the airport, and yet
(03:44):
there's nobody driving them. And I had thought that it
would feel weird to ride in one, and that went
away in five seconds. After that, it felt exactly like
riding in a car with somebody driving it, except there
was nobody in the driving seat. Interesting, absolutely marvelous technology.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
I wonder about that because I've got a self driving Tesla,
so I'm used to the concept now. I wondered what
it was like for people who haven't done that before.
But that's why I was when I wrote a weymo
for the first time in San Francisco. Within a couple
of seconds, it was oh cool, I get to control
the music, and I was looking at the little computer
in front of me and picking my mind.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
I haven't been this enthusiastic about a piece of technology
in a very long time. They have already just statistically speaking,
they have already saved tens of thousands of lives, probably
in the amount of in just the amount of time
they've already been operating in these cities. They're going to
make driving as safe as flying. It's incredible. I'm blown
away by how safe and natural it feels to ride
(04:39):
in these and you know, it's particularly good for the blind.
You know, blind people particular love this technology because they
can they don't have to get in the car with
somebody they don't know, like they do with Uber. And
they can take their dogs, which you sometimes can't do
in an Uber. And when you call, you summon your
robot car, it arrives and it plays a tune so
(05:01):
you know where it is, you know, and these sorts
of techno. It's just a marvelous how it's opened up
the door for people who otherwise wouldn't have had those opportunities.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I like the technology and everything. This is where we're
probably going to part. I hate the idea that the
autonomy of getting to drive where I want to go
and having control over it is going to go away.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Whether I like it or not. I hate that so much.
It makes me want to cry.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
I do worry about that. No, I worry about that,
and I worry about the how easy it would be
for the government to say, well, we want to track
where everybody drives, and you know, we'll run their record
while they're in the car, and then if we think
that they need to be arrested, we'll just reroute the
car to the police station or something like that. You
can easily imagine the dystopian ends to which this can
be used, but all technology can be abused in that way,
(05:50):
and there is no abolishing the technologies of the solution.
The solution is good philosophical and political ideas and a
belief in individual rights and limited government. And since we've
thrown that on the bonfire in the past decade or so,
I mean, this is basically, honestly, this is the least
of our concerns in that respect.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Yeah, but I think about when I was Now, it's
not that many years ago.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
I'm an old man. I'm in the winter of my life,
but it wasn't that many decades ago. Took a day
over eighty, But I've driven all over this country.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
I long I love long road trips.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
But I used to head out on road trips, and
you know, I'd stop at a hotel. I stay in
cheap hotels. They'd have the key hanging on a peg
behind the door. Nobody knew I was there. Nobody knew
I was.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
There after I left.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Now I've got a self driving car that keeps track
of every mile I drive, everywhere I go, I parked,
there's license plate readers going through every parking lot checking
where I was, and they've got all the information at
the hotel. I mean, my entire trip is tracked. So
in my lifetime it's gone from I could have traveled
across the country completely without a single human being knowing
(06:59):
where I was, to now thousands of people and maybe
all governments knowing where I am.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
I find that trouble.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
I totally sympathize. I think this is I would say
this is there's something very American about this tension between
on one hand, wanting the convenience that modern technology gives
you and modern civilization gives you, but on the other hand,
the want the desire to light out for the territory
and and just be away and and keep something you
might say wild alive in your spirit is a very
(07:29):
important part of life and so I totally get that.
My wife and I love to go on long drives
and get away from things also, and so I. But
on the other hand, with this option available for those
who are willing to sacrifice a little bit of their
privacy in exchange for the enormous convenience of it, the
answer is that that both options should be available, and
both options would be available in a society that respected
(07:51):
individual rights. Unfortunately, our society respects that so much less
nowadays that I do very much worry about a future
where truly, you know, individual cars allowing you to drive
wherever you want are outlawed. I can imagine that, Oh, insurance.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Companies will take Yeah, the insurance companies will take care
of that, because as soon as this just the stats
are so overwhelmingly true that it's less likely you're going
to get our wreck with an automated car than without one.
The insurance company is going to make it so expensive
you can't afford to drive a car.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
On your own.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yeah, I can imagine that. It's sort of a gatica
kind of a situation.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
I don't know that term.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Oh Gatka is a great movie from the nineties to
about a dystopian future where it's just run along these
lines where your entire genetic code is sort of sequenced
ahead of time, and so people know whether you're likely
to develop a health condition in the future and limit
your opportunities accordingly, not necessarily through government control, but through
a sick blend of government and private companies that exercise
(08:50):
their power to deprive you of opportunities. Ah, if you
haven't seen the movie, you should.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
It's great.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
One more away, Moll comment, and then I promise after
the break we'll let you talk about some of your
wins suing the government, which are important. I saw the
former may so they're want to get WEIMO in New
York City. That'd be a huge win for WEIMO obviously.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I saw the former mayor build A Blasio come out
and say, yesterday, WEIMO New York is not a town
for WEIMO.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
We should not have them.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
And uh, and I wonder if is that just to
protect all the jobs of Is that what that is?
Speaker 1 (09:23):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yes, it's it's They were exactly the same way about
Uber back in the day, if you remember they were,
they were very resistant to Uber because the tax theyre
the taxi drivers, you know, unions and things like that.
They don't want the competition, and so it's the convenience
thing to do is use the government to exclude legitimate
competition order to raise your prizes and screw the consumer.
And that's been the recipe for centuries. And unfortunately Wemo
(09:47):
and other companies you know, face that that opposition, and
it's really just an attempt by people who don't want
to compete fairly to use the government to block legitimate
competitions so that they can raise their prices at your expense.
It's a violation of individual liberty and it's economically foolish.
But New York has been that way first centuries.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Technology comes along eliminates another a lot of jobs, but
throughout history it's also created other different jobs. However, right,
I don't think that's going to continue with AI, do you?
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Oh, I have no doubt that it will continue. Really,
every time every time that technology has come along and oh,
they're taken our jobs, every time that happens, it turns
out that it actually develops more jobs, not just you know,
people think, well, yeah, but these people become programmers. No,
it's not that. It's that new technology opens up new
opportunities for economic growth that people could never have foreseen
(10:42):
in the years before. Then, you know the cell phone.
When I remember when I got my first iPhone years ago,
nobody could ever have imagined something like Uber Eats or
door Dash at that time. And now look at how
many people earn money working for those companies thanks to
smartphone technology. These new technologies open up vistas that nobody
(11:04):
could possibly have imagined, and people take advantage of that
and the economy grows. It's almost like creating something out
of literally nothing. It's it's amazing to see. So there's
I have no doubt that self driving technology will in
the long run increase employment opportunities and more importantly, increase wealth.
And if it's allowed to flourish, if the government doesn't
(11:25):
get in the way and create roadblocks.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
I really really want you to be right about that
with aiser.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Well, historically speaking, I've been right about that in every
single time that a new technology has come about. With
the buggy whip makers, I'm sure they complained when the
automobile came along and nobody was hiring buying buggy whips anymore,
and they were saying, oh, our jobs are going to
go for overseas. We need to outlaw cars so that
the union, the buggy whip union, can can flourish. And
(11:53):
what about the workers, et cetera, et cetera. And here
we are living in a society where hardly anybody buys
buggy whips, and we have more employment and more opportunity,
and more wealth and more technologies than they did back then.
So I have no doubt that I'm right about this.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Oh God, I hope you are. Tim Sanderfer.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
When we come back, he's going to talk about some
of his wins with the government and some of the
good stuff that's happened. There's a good homeless case that
you should know about. Actually that one went the wrong direction,
but we'll hear about that when we come back. Want
to remind you football is back. Of course, if you're
a football fan, you absolutely know that, and you need
to get on Prize Picks.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
That's the way to kick off the season. You get
fifty dollars.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Instantly in lineups when you play your first five dollars
with Prize Picks. They've already got millions of members. Prize
Picks is the place to put your takes to the test.
You think you know you're right about how somebody's been
working out in the offseason. You think they're gonna have
a great year. Okay, fine, lay down some money that way.
The app is super simple to use. You just picked
two or more players across any sport. You pick more
(12:49):
or less on their projections, and if you're right, you
could cash in prize picks as an available in forty
plus states, including California, Simple stats, user friendly policies.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
So here's the deal.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Download the Prize Picks app today. Use the code Armstrong
and get fifty dollars instantly in lineups when you play
five bucks. That's the code Armstrong and prize picks to
get fifty dollars instantly in lineups. And you play five
win or lose, you get fifty bucks in lineups just
for playing guaranteed prize picks.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Run your game more with Tim Sanderfer Right after this.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Armstrong, we're talking with fan favorite Tim Sandfer.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
We used to call him Tim the Lawyer.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Ran into a friend of yours the other day at
my local church who said he worked with you way
back at PLF Pacific Legal Foundation. About how interesting that
you guys work together. He's the minister of my local church.
You're the most hardcore atheist I've ever met. And you people,
yeah got along.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
I know who you must be talking about, and that
those are good times. He taught me a lot about law. Actually,
we were both young lawyers together working together. I miss
those days.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Cool.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
So I got an inkling of some of the things
you want to talk about. How about this moving company
in California? Tell me about this one?
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Oh my goodness. So we've filed the lawsuit against the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that's in charge
of discrimination cases, because they won't even.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Tell us why.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
They filed a fifteen million dollars fine against a moving
company in California called Meathead Movers, which is one of
the largest I think it's the largest moving company in California,
the largest independently owned moving company in California, employees three
hundred people. And the EEOC claims that they've been engaging
in age discrimination in hiring. Now, let's pause for a
(14:33):
moment to think about that. They say they're that this
moving company is hiring employees who are too young, that
they're not hiring old people as employees. Now, that's not true.
They've never discriminated against people in hiring based on age.
But is it really all that surprising that a moving
companies employees tend to be big, hefty, strong young men
(14:55):
just on average? Is that really that unreasonable? So the
EOC filed this, this fifteen million dollar fine against them,
and we said, well, we'd like to know if anybody
ever actually complained about discrimination. Did you receive any actual
complaints from anybody in the private market about this or
did you just do this on your own because you
were looking around for somebody to screw And the EOC
(15:19):
won't tell us, They won't tell us, they won't give
us the information, so we've had to sue them for
these documents.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Well back in just a second, though, So if I've
always been confused about what the law is on this,
So if I am, I'm actually in pretty good shape
right now.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
But say I'm not in good shape.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
I'm a sixty year old man and I go apply
for that job they and they turned me down for
a twenty five year old man. Do I have a
case because they discriminated against me based on my age?
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Well, you know when you used the question do I
have a case? You have to remember that there's two
ways of answering that the one is do you have
a meritorious right? And the other one is can you sue?
And you can sue even if you don't have a
meritorious case. And when you sue, you know, then the
other side has to high lawyers, and it takes a
long time, it costs a lot of money. Just the
fact that you can soon to begin with is a
big detriment to a lot of businesses. Now, the answer
(16:08):
to your question is that, of course the company can
choose people based on physical strength and stuff and that,
but they can't discriminate based on age. But where do
you you know, in a particular circumstance, where do you
draw the line? That, unfortunately is for the judges to
figure out after you spend all this money for lawyers.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
But obviously, a world where moving companies have to hire
sixty five year old men at the same rate that
they hire twenty two year old men would be insane.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Yep, this wells as the saying has. This is the
world that the left wants, right, They want a world
in which moving companies are forced to hire grandma instead
of just the weightlifter, because that's more equitable.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Oh, that's hilarious. That is a good one. Well, thank
god you're fighting the good fight. I know we've got
a bad news story about a homeless ruling in you, Utah.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
We're going to get to coming up in just a
few minutes. Yeah, I'm well concerned about Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
So, unfortunately, the Utah Supreme Court issued a bad decision
in a case, one of these cases about homeless encampments.
Now we have a solution, but it's going to take
a while to get that done, so I'll tell you
about that after the break.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Cool.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
How many like, how much time do you spend every day?
You know, writing, pouring over books, doing lawyer stuff all
the time, all the time. It's the dream job. It's
my dream job.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
I go to work and I sit at my desk
surrounded by books written by you know, Thomas Jefferson and
Sir Edward Cook and write about it. And then I
go home and I'm surrounded by books here.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
I love it.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
It's great. A world of ideas about freedom and making
them real in people's actual lives is what the Goldwater
Institute is all about. And that's why it's the best
job in the world.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
That's fantastic. If you have a job like that, like
I do. People ask how much time he's write all
my time? But I would do it even.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
If I wasn't doing this.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
I just I like following the news and reading everybody's opinions,
so it's easy. But anyway, we'll tell you about this
homeless ruling that went the wrong way. We didn't need that,
did We coming up with Tim Lawyer in just a
little bit if you miss a segment or an hour
the podcast Armstrong and Getty on.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Demand Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
So we're talking about Tim the Lawyer, fan favorite Tim
Sanderfruit the Goldwater Institute, who I like you describe your
job title as you sue the government man.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
That's got to get you out of bed in the morning.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
I don't know. There's always plenty of work, that's the thing.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Yeah, no kidding.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
I'm amazed by the people who are on the other side,
who who I think have to know they're doing evil
for the schools for instance, like some of the teachers'
union people.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
And stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Don't they they or did they convince themselves somehow they're
doing something good?
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Well, there's there are some people who take shelter in
the idea that everybody deserves a defense, which is true.
You know, they're fine if that's what you want to do,
but I couldn't.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
I wouldn't be happy doing that.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
And then there's people who do it because it's part
of the path to another job. You kind of have
to work as a prosecutor or a US attorney is
something if you wanted to become a judge someday, And
so they go through what the Romans used to call
the courses a normum, the series of positions that you
have to have in order to rise in the government
and something like that. I've never really had a great
(19:25):
deal of ambition in that respect, and I don't think
i'd be very good at it anyway, because I'm not
really good about keeping my opinions to myself.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
So one of the most interesting things I ever heard
from David French, who now works for The New York Times.
He's a Harvard Law School grat He said he was
always worried about that the whole you know, having to
defend an awful person or an awful company or something
like that as a lawyer.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
How you do it, he said, it doesn't become an issue.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
You always find a way to convince yourself that your
guy or.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Company is getting screwed somehow, so they need a good defense.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
You just always do Yeah, And how could you live
with yourself if you became the kind of person who
did that, but your client was the government. How can
you know that you are able to accommodate your conscience
to the kinds of things that the federal and state
governments are doing to people day in and day out
in this country. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
So what did Utah just rule about homelessness? That's going
to appalla.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
So this is the latest in this series of lawsuits
where cities have allowed homeless encampments or even encouraged homeless
encampments on government owned properties that create what we call
a nuisance for neighboring property owners. Now you might remember
a couple years ago, Phoenix had the largest homeless encampment
in the country, a thousand people living on the streets
(20:37):
of Phoenix through one hundred and twenty degree summers because
the government was like, yeah, sure, fine, you can camp here.
We're not going to enforce the laws against that here.
And it destroyed local businesses. It really was. All The
real victims of these policies are the tax paying hard
working citizens of these communities who pay their tax dollars
for police protection and don't get it because city officials
(20:59):
decided they would rather not enforce the laws. Well, in Utah, unfortunately,
in Salt Lake City they were doing the same thing.
There's a lot of city owned property in the city,
and the city was like, yeah, sure, if you want
to have a homeless encampment there, that's fine, We're not
going to do anything about it. And locals sued the
city for maintaining a nuisance. Now, the problem is that
a lot of states have a legal principle that says
(21:21):
you can't sue the government for failing to enforce the law.
The government can choose when to enforce the law and
when not to, and the reason why is because they
have limited resources and sometimes they want to take mercy
on people or whatever, and so in general sense, it's
okay for the government to pick and choose the cases
it's going to pursue. But unfortunately, what happens is then
the government uses as an excuse to just stand back
(21:43):
and do nothing. And so unfortunately, the state Supreme Court
in Utah ruled that Salt Lake City could not be
sued on the grounds that effectively ran on a bunch
of nuisances in the city, damaging people's property and threatening
public safety. Because of this rule that you can't sue
the government. Now we have so you have in Arizona
(22:06):
the courts went one way saying, yes, you can sue
the government for this, and in Utah you have the
opposite way, where you can't sue the government for this.
The goldwaterers to do, we developed a solution of this problem.
It's called Prop. Three twelve. We ran it on the
ballot in Arizona and it passed, and it says, if
the government chooses not to enforce the law against these encampments,
(22:26):
then and if you have to take steps to protect yourself,
they say, put bars on your business to keep people
from breaking in the windows, or install security cameras or
higher security guard you should be able to deduct that
from your taxes. If the government's not providing you with
the services that it is supposed to be spending your
tax dollars on, you should get your tax dollars back, essentially,
(22:46):
and so it'll our initiative, which which is now the
law in Arizona, says just that and where I'm saying, Utah,
if you're listening, this is a solution to your problem.
Your state Supreme Court has decided not to require the
government to enforce the law. So there's an answer to that,
and that is, if you have to take steps to
protect yourself, you should you at least shouldn't have to
pay twice.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
That is again, no kidding. That is really an interesting
idea you guys came up with, and I'm glad it worked.
So I'm wondering if we had something wrong here. So
a couple of weeks ago here in the state capitol
of California and Sacramento, they came up with this new
rule where no homeless people around city hall.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
And we were mocking that actually, because.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
They were saying, you know, it's not fair that our
employees have to be worried walking to their cars or whatever. Yeah,
and we were mocking that because, okay, fine for the
government worker, but what about the guy just four blocks
over at the restaurant. He's you know, he's got to
step over drug addicts to get into his business. You
care about the government workers, but not him. But should
we be happy that they started with the government property
(23:53):
or not?
Speaker 3 (23:53):
I don't I don't know, talk about left to meat cake.
That's outrageous. I mean we actually we had a benefit
in Phoenix in that the enormous Holsing camp it was
right there in the middle of the area where the
government complex is. It was next to the Supreme Court,
next to the state Capitol building. You couldn't avoid seeing
it if you were a government employee. And that was
(24:14):
good because it put pressure on the government to actually
enforce the existing laws against this kind of behavior, which
they were refusing to do so by saying, oh no,
you you ordinary, hardworking proletarian Californians, you can deal with this.
We government officials, because we have stars on our bellies,
you know, like the like doctor Seuss's speeches. We don't
(24:37):
have to put up with that. That's that really is
I mean, how how louis the fourteenth can you get?
I mean, this is this is French ancion regime kind
of stuff. Crazy.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Yeah, So, I often I realized the law is is
crafted around a lot of protecting individuals and minorities from
the tyranny of the majority, But it seems so often,
at least living in California, the tyranny of the minority
against the majority happens so often.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Yeah, California. California's political culture has as a hangover from
the sixties, this obsession of ignoring or penalizing the hard working,
wealth creators of your state to benefit the so called oppressed,
who in many cases are in fact lawbreakers who are
(25:28):
damaging other people's property and other people's rights. And it's
so perverse. But it's the problem is California, is it? Well,
there's money problems, but one of the biggest ones is
it's political culture, this mawkish obsession with the allegedly disenfranchised
or the allegedly underprivileged, when in fact, what it is
(25:51):
is that the state refuses to protect the rights of
those who actually go out there and work for a
living all day. Why should you bother if the state's
going to do everything for you, why would you bother
are going out and working hard and creating wealth and
providing jobs and things like that. I just at some
point people have to wake up about this stuff, right,
I don't know, California has not woken up about the
(26:12):
bullet train still, so who knows?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
No freaking kidding, That's all I believe.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
California is on the road to reform when when it
mixes that ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
No kidding.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
We're almost into September, which gets us close to October,
which gets us into another Supreme Court session. Are there
any big cases coming this next year that we should
look forward to?
Speaker 4 (26:30):
Do?
Speaker 1 (26:30):
You know?
Speaker 3 (26:31):
I think so. I think you're going to see a
birthright citizenship. I think you're gonna see this thing just
yesterday about firing the head of the FED. So you
know what's going on there is Back in the thirties,
the Supreme Court issued a decision that said that it's
that says that the Congress can create these jobs that
(26:52):
the president can appoint, but then then the president can't
fire these people. And the question is is that constitutional?
The Constitution says the president has the executive power, and
that means in theory, that should mean the president gets
to appoint people, and he gets to fire people, and
everybody in the executive branch works for the president and
can be fired by the president. But back in the thirties,
(27:13):
during the New Deal era, Congress started creating these new
kinds of bureaucratic administrative agencies and said, well, the president
can't fire them. We want them to be independent from
the president, but also sort of independent from Congress and
also kind of independent from the courts. Well, the US
Constitution only contemplates three branches of government, and so for
a long time this has been a problem whether the
(27:35):
Congress can create these agencies that the president isn't really
in charge of. And so what Trump is doing by
firing the head of the FED is triggering this lawsuit
about whether or not that's constitutional. Let a reconsider those
decisions from the nineteen thirties that created these independent administrative agencies.
On one hand, I agree, I think these are unconstitutional.
(27:57):
I think if you're in an executive branch, you work
for the present and if that's how the constitution works,
and he can fire anybody who wants in the executive branch.
But on the other hand, that opens the door to
a lot of chaos, as we saw with the markets
yesterday with the announcement of the firing of the FED.
So there's a real constitutional and economic reckoning to come,
and I think we're going to see that in this
Supreme Court in the coming year.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
So I was listened to a podcast the other day.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
They were actually talking about the specific case of TikTok,
which Congress passed law the TikTok's got to go. It
it ended up in the other branch, the Justice branch,
nine to oh. The Supreme Court decided it's okay to
boot TikTok, But the executive branch has decided, for whatever reason,
not to get rid of TikTok?
Speaker 1 (28:39):
And is it possible and you could apply this to
a whole bunch of other situations other than TikTok?
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Is it possible for her country to function with only
two of the three branches actually doing anything because Congress
has decided, Eh, we'll let the courts and the president
with his pen and phone do everything and we're just
going to stay out of it.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
And they did it with Biden and Obama doing it
with Trump.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Yeah, you've put your finger on the real problem is
Congress's refusal to do its job. The Constitution was written
by people who expected Congress to show up for work
and actually do something every day, and instead, what Congress
has done is passed a series of laws that gives
the president power to make or break and do whatever
he wishes. And then they've washed their hands of it
and gone home. And no, the system cannot work that way.
(29:22):
We need a Congress that actually does its job. And
now I would dispute whether we actually have two functioning
brands of the government. I would say we have about
half of a functioning branch of government. Half of the
judiciary basically works, half of it doesn't. Congress doesn't do anything.
The president just does whatever it feels like. And the
TikTok ban is a great example of that. It's totally
unconstitutional for the president to refuse to enforce a TikTok ban.
(29:45):
The Constitution requires the president to quote take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, not just executed, but faithfully executed.
That means it's his job to enforce the law, whether
he likes it or not. The only exception to that
is if the president needs laws unconstitution then he doesn't
have to enforce it. In fact, he's obligated not to.
But the president does not claim that the TikTok band
(30:05):
is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court is said that it's not.
So the president has a moral and legal obligation do
in forrest this wall, and he just doesn't care, and
Congress doesn't care, and nobody's doing anything about it. It's
it's truly astounding.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
And that's one of many examples. Anyway, Tim Sanders, and I.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
Can hear people saying, but Obama did it too. Yeah,
that doesn't make it right. No, no, don't make it right.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
No no, Well that's that's what I was talking about yesterday.
How do we end this race to the bottom? How
do you end thee Well, they play hardball. We're gonna
play harder ball.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
You know where you end up when you do that,
the race to the bottom. I mean, it just all
comes apart.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
But anyway, Tim Sanderfer with the gold Water Institute, appreciate
all your time today, Tim, great as always. I'm sure
I'm gonna get all kinds of text and emails saying
have Tim back soon.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
We love Tim so and only a few of those
will be from me.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Thank you, Tim Sanderfer. Okay, cool, what did you tell me?
Speaker 4 (30:52):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (30:52):
I know what I got to talk about here. This
is something I'm really excited about and I've got it
for the whole family. Now tell you about webroot. Cybercrime
obviously a problem. Every twenty two seconds someone becomes a
victim of identity theft, and it can happen with you.
Click on a link on your computer or your phone
or whatever. That's why we use Webroot Total Protection. It's
not just anti virus, it's real time protection against malware, ransomware,
(31:17):
phishing scams.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
Which I always worry about.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Plus a web threat shield that blocks dangerous sites before
you click. And you also get a firewall, VPN and
password manager. A password manager. Finally, to keep your family
secure on every device. How about this with plans covering
up to ten identities, so easy to get you, your kids,
your wife, grandma and grandpa, whoever on this and you're
protected in the whole family with up to a million
dollars in reimbursement if identity theft happens.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
So don't wait until it's too late. Get fifty five zero.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Percent off Webroot Total Protection or Webroot Essentials right now.
Webroot dot com slash Armstrong. Protect your digital life today
because hackers aren't slowing down. Get fifty percent off Webroot
Total Protection or webroots Essentials, webroot dot com slash Armstrong.
One more time, that's webroot dot Com slash Armstrong. I'm
actually very excited about this and the fact that I've
(32:06):
now got it and I should have done it a
long time ago. Actually, UH as always some super interesting
stuff from Tim.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
That that last part is fascinating.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Will Congress ever decide to be serious about the fact
that they're supposed to be they're they're Article one power.
I mean, they're the basis of our entire government, you know,
up against the other balancing acts of the executive and
the jiu jitsu. But Congress has just decided we'll just
(32:40):
do whatever a president at the time wants, and then
if we're out of power, we just don't do anything.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
It's very, very frustrating.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
Anyway, we got more on the way if you have
a thought for any of this text line four one
five nine five k FTC.
Speaker 4 (32:54):
Strong.
Speaker 5 (32:57):
Matsuzawa learned how to kick just five years ago studying
YouTube videos of Seattle Seahawks kicker Jason Myers. Matsuzawa moved
to Ohio to play at a community college, where he
turned to his favorite online tutor to learn English, before
transferring to UH to play on scholarship. In all, Matsuzawa
made three field goals in Hawaii's twenty three to twenty
(33:17):
win over Stanford, proving then there's a will and a
lot of YouTube there's a way.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Hawaii beat Stanford, and that story with the kicker. That's
something Joe and I talk about a lot.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
I'm not saying that. I mean, obviously it would be
stupid to say that.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Practice and lessons and hiring a coach and all that
sort of stuff doesn't matter. But man, at the end
of the day, a lot of it is just your
natural born athletic ability, a lot of it. And it's
amazing how many people start playing basketball at age fifteen
or football or whatever and go on to do really
(33:53):
well because they're great athletes. And your kid who started
at age five and has been in thirty different legues
with the pro coach because they just.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Can't run as fast. You know that whole You kind
of have it or you don't. Yeah, there's a certain
amount of that to sports.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
Now, if you've already got the talent and skill his
strength and speed and everything like that, and you hire
coaches against a kid who doesn't, that could make a
huge difference. But you definitely have to have the strength,
speed and coordination to start with. Yeah, Okay, so there's
that story.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
I wanted to get this ridiculous story on. Also, Mount Rushmore,
an American Icon.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
There is now an effort by some supporters of Donald
Trump to add his face to the monument. Congresswoman Anna
Paulina Luna has a bill in Congress that would add
Trump to Mount Rushmore. From an engineering and geological perspective,
adding any faces near impossible. A close look shows the
mountain filled with deep fractures. Paul Nelson, an engineer who
(34:53):
worked on the mountain, warns any new carving could cause
serious damage.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
I can't believe they at actually went to an engineer
to talk about adding another face to Mount Rushmore, which
if you've been there, and I've been there fifty times
in my life because I'm from South Dakota, you actually
had to go talk to some a guy who carves
faces on mountains to come up with the idea that
it's there's no room on there for a face. For
(35:20):
one thing, you take Teddy Roosevelt off because nobody knows
why he's up there, and you put Trump right there.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
It's a little slap.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
You got Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, you know, really really three
big ones, and then you got Trump right over there
in the corner where Teddy Roosevelt used to be and
nobody knows why.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
Remember when Pelosi flooded putting Biden up there. I know,
I just I was thinking about this.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Everybody has a different level to the extent they're willing
to kiss their boss's ass, and some people, as we
all know, are willing to go really far. You watch
them in the hallway or listen to him in the
conference room, and you think, ah, you're such a suck up.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
You make me ill. And then there's the.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Person that won't do it at all. I'm pretty I'm
a lot closer to that level. I can do it
a tiny bit some if I'm in the right mood sometimes,
and I justify it with I'm looking up for my
own career, my own betterment, to make more money for
my family. It's a it's a selfish act of trying
to help. But I can only do it a little
(36:29):
bit sometimes. The starting a bill in Congress to put
Trump on Mount Rushma, I mean, that is just so dumb,
and it's so obviously what it is.
Speaker 1 (36:40):
And Trump knows it's obviously what it is. It's not
like he doesn't know what you're doing. Oh, he thinks
you're pathetic.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
You realize he thinks you're a pathetic suck up that
has no spine of your own. That's what Trump thinks
of you when you talk about putting him on Mount Rushmore.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Jack, what you just said was brilliant. Yeah, well, I
mean you're just the best. Oh my god, that hurts.
Speaker 2 (37:05):
That's like the worst thing I can find out if
somebody is being nice to me, only because I.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
If it's not genuine, I'd rather not get.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
It at all.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
Oh, Jack, your glasses look really nice today. Thank you
very much. If you missed a secment, get the podcast.
More on the Way
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.
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