Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, Armstrong and.
Speaker 2: Jetty and Pee arms Wrong, get Strong.
Speaker 3: Not live from Studio c Armstrong and Geddy. We're off.
Speaker 3: We're taking a break. Come on, you get a break,
Speaker 3: We get a break. We'll be back live for twenty five.
Speaker 4: Enjoy this carefully curated Armstrong and Getty replay.
Speaker 2: And as long as we're.
Speaker 4: Off, perhaps you'd like to catch up on podcasts. Subscribe
Speaker 4: to Armstrong and Getty on demand or one more thing
Speaker 4: we think you'll enjoy it.
Speaker 1: Sir, outrage on Capitol Hill after eight suspected terrorists from
Speaker 1: Tajika State and we're arrested in the United States, the
Speaker 1: men who investigators believe have ties to ISIS crossed illegally
Speaker 1: at the US Southern border. House Majority Leader Steve Scaliz
Speaker 1: blaming President Joe Biden's policies.
Speaker 3: How many more terrorists are in our country because Joe
Speaker 3: Biden opened up the southern.
Speaker 2: Border and Chinese intelligence agents.
Speaker 3: More on that in just a second, But this hour
Speaker 3: is going to be exciting. So Hunter's Stripper Baby Mama
Speaker 3: has a book coming out. Joe Getty has excerpts from
Speaker 3: the book That's exciting.
Speaker 2: Oh shocking excerpts.
Speaker 4: Jack, We will bear all when it comes to the
Speaker 4: sordid life of Hunter Biden. I want to talk about
Speaker 4: the insanity that luckily is making national news the subway
Speaker 4: in New York where they announced anybody who's a Zionist
Speaker 4: needs to get off the train now, and people chanting,
Speaker 4: what the hell is going on? Did you say ber
Speaker 4: Lin in nineteen thirty six?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 2: It's crazy?
Speaker 3: AnyWho this story should be getting more intention Eight dudes
Speaker 3: with ties to isis arrested. Who would it would be
Speaker 3: actually better in a way if they had snuck across
Speaker 3: the border without encountering anybody. The fact that they did
Speaker 3: encounter border patrol and.
Speaker 2: Went through the process we currently have.
Speaker 3: In place and still got into the country because they
Speaker 3: barely do anything when they encounter you. I mean, what
Speaker 3: is the They call it a vetting process.
Speaker 2: What is the vetting process?
Speaker 4: It's utterly insufficient, obviously, and so I think this is
Speaker 4: a useful screw up. It's so ugly and clearly unacceptable.
Speaker 4: It illustrates the fact that the border is so overwhelmed.
Speaker 4: The folks at the border are so overwhelmed. Any quote
Speaker 4: unquote vetting they're doing is is almost hilariously inadequate. We
Speaker 4: need serious change right now.
Speaker 2: I heard.
Speaker 4: I know if the vast majority of Americans agree with
Speaker 4: us as well on that.
Speaker 3: One of your terrorist experts was on some cable channel
Speaker 3: the other day talking about the terrorist attack we've mostly
Speaker 3: forgotten that happened in uh, outside of Moscow at that concert.
Speaker 3: Remember watching the footage of that. They just ran through
Speaker 3: the building shooting people. Yeah, somebody could put something like
Speaker 3: that together in the United States.
Speaker 4: Hope those were Tajiks too, weren't they. I did that allegedly.
Speaker 3: I don't remember where they were from, but they did
Speaker 3: have the whole isis ties thing. And uh, hopefully it'd
Speaker 3: be hard to get your hands on weapons, but I
Speaker 3: don't know.
Speaker 2: That it would be. Oh in the US.
Speaker 4: No, you just go down to some you know, degenerate
Speaker 4: blue city and wave some cash in front of gang
Speaker 4: members and you'll have all the guns you want.
Speaker 2: Let's go a little more reporting on this before we talk. Uh,
Speaker 2: just more from that Fox report Michael.
Speaker 1: Sources say a majority of these suspected terrorists were found
Speaker 1: in New York, where a democratic councilman says he's worried
Speaker 1: there could be another attack in the Big Apple.
Speaker 2: It's frightening and we're headed for another nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: I predicted that. I think we should have a secure border.
Speaker 2: We should know who's coming into our country. We don't notable.
Speaker 4: That's a democratic councilman. I think the problem has become
Speaker 4: so enormous and so unmistakable.
Speaker 2: I mean, again, look at the poll numbers.
Speaker 4: I'm not surprised to hear Democrats speaking out a little
Speaker 4: more forcefully because they hear their constituents howling for something
Speaker 4: to be done.
Speaker 3: I guess this happens. I was just thinking, there's been
Speaker 3: some examples in my life. I guess where there's a
Speaker 3: problem clearly coming and you know it, but you just
Speaker 3: don't want to deal with it now, or it seems
Speaker 3: too hard or something, and then it happens, and then
Speaker 3: you're like, yeah, probably dealt with that earlier.
Speaker 2: This is an extreme example of that.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, obviously you can't just let hundreds of
Speaker 3: thousands of random men from the Middle East to come
Speaker 3: across your border or China or wherever.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4: And it's become so well known around the world that
Speaker 4: anybody you want in the US just send them to
Speaker 4: the Mexican border and say, yeah, yeah, they're killing everybody
Speaker 4: in my village.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, I need asylum.
Speaker 4: And whoever whatever agent you want gets into the United
Speaker 4: States and back in the homeland, they're probably the various
Speaker 4: you know, war lords and ISIS leaders and Chinese intelligence
Speaker 4: chiefs are probably saying, wait.
Speaker 2: A minute, no, it can't be that easy. Stop it.
Speaker 4: No country behaves like that. You have to convince. Oh yeah,
Speaker 4: the US just letting in anybody who wants to come in.
Speaker 4: It's really shocking. Yes, how about some mainstream media coverage
Speaker 4: of it. This is NBC, which focuses on, you know,
Speaker 4: maybe things have changed, that whole executive order that Joe
Speaker 4: Biden put through a week or so ago.
Speaker 3: Maybe you know, they've closed the barn door. Finally, let's
Speaker 3: see new evidence.
Speaker 5: Migrants who cross the border illegally are still being released
Speaker 5: into the US by border agents. A senior DHS official
Speaker 5: tells NBC News those releases have dropped by more than half,
Speaker 5: but are still happening because agents don't have enough space
Speaker 5: to detain the large numbers of arriving migrants. An internal
Speaker 5: mimic to Border patrol agents in San Diego, directs agents
Speaker 5: there to release migrants into the United States. Overall illegal
Speaker 5: border crossings under the new policy are still high, but
Speaker 5: have dropped from four thousand to three thousand per day.
Speaker 5: The record nearly ten million migrants entering the US since
Speaker 5: he took office.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 5: But the Border Patrol Union says the president's new action
Speaker 5: is not tough enough.
Speaker 2: That's NBC News, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 4: The idea that you could come apply to be somewhere
Speaker 4: and you get to stay there as your probably phony
Speaker 4: application is being assessed or the course of years and years.
Speaker 4: This is very odd practice, like showing up to buy
Speaker 4: somebody's house and saying saying, by the way, I'm living
Speaker 4: here now. Well, you decide on my offer, I get
Speaker 4: to live here, and if you throw me out, you're
Speaker 4: the bad guy.
Speaker 2: It's just well again, it's insane.
Speaker 3: Remember we had the polling like a week ago that
Speaker 3: a majority of Americans now favor a wall.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and the majority of Americans, including independence and a
Speaker 4: substantial chunk was that forty percent of Democrats are in
Speaker 4: favor of deporting.
Speaker 2: All illegal aliens.
Speaker 4: It is overwhelmingly popular which if you just if you
Speaker 4: want to say, if we took calls, Jay, I'm starting
Speaker 4: to get you. You know, I think Joe Biden is just
Speaker 4: a He doesn't lead at all. He's just a prostitute
Speaker 4: to whatever is his voters want him to do. He
Speaker 4: just he has no principles, He's just Yeah. But his
Speaker 4: voters want him to kick all these people out of
Speaker 4: the country and secure the border.
Speaker 2: What are they doing?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 3: Yeah, The wording from that CBS poll was, would you
Speaker 3: be in favor of deporting all undocumented immigrant?
Speaker 2: Which was has.
Speaker 3: Never been on the table, will never be on the table,
Speaker 3: It would be undoable even if they passed it. And
Speaker 3: yet nearly two thirds of Americans said, yeah, I'd be
Speaker 3: all for that. How do you not read that in
Speaker 3: the White House and think, oh, we are so far
Speaker 3: to the left of America on this no wonder. We're
Speaker 3: losing by thirty to fifty points depending on the question
Speaker 3: on this.
Speaker 2: Issue, and yet they're tied. Yet overall they're tied.
Speaker 4: Right, Oh, that's discouraging. I hate to end on a
Speaker 4: discouraging note. You know, here's a tangent in the mood
Speaker 4: for a tangent. I was thinking about this, and it's
Speaker 4: this may be a poor example now because of what
Speaker 4: I was just saying about the overwhelming support among Americans
Speaker 4: for closing the border and having seen immigration policies, But
Speaker 4: like in the early days of the Biden administration, when
Speaker 4: just undoing anything Trump did seemed like the right thing
Speaker 4: to do, I don't.
Speaker 2: What am I driving at. I think.
Speaker 4: There's way too much representation and too little leadership in
Speaker 4: a lot of government. In other words, just fulfilling the
Speaker 4: whims of this constituency or that constituency, whether it's a
Speaker 4: good idea or not, in a way that you wouldn't
Speaker 4: have done in the old days because you wouldn't have
Speaker 4: known about those temporary whims of a constituency. Because communication
Speaker 4: is so fast and easy now, you can have you know,
Speaker 4: sixty jackasses in your district mad about a good policy
Speaker 4: because they don't understand it, and you'd be completely swayed
Speaker 4: by that as a congress person. And I'm looking to
Speaker 4: our own industry and you see it reflected in various
Speaker 4: websites and news channels and stuff like that. They have
Speaker 4: the ability now to track second by second when people
Speaker 4: tune in, when they tune out what you're doing doing
Speaker 4: when they tune out what you're doing, when they're staying tuned.
Speaker 4: It's in Radio two, but we ignore it for various reasons.
Speaker 4: But you become this like you're being jerked on a chain,
Speaker 4: serving the momentary whims of the audience in a way
Speaker 4: that seems like good business at first, but then it's
Speaker 4: to me, it's like shoveling in sugar. That first bite
Speaker 4: sounds great, tastes great and all, but you just keep
Speaker 4: shoveling it in until you're sick.
Speaker 2: It's a it's how do I explain this?
Speaker 4: Being in Congress has always been a balance between being
Speaker 4: a leader and being a representative. And if your constituents
Speaker 4: want something loathsome, stupid and unconstitutional, that's when you got
Speaker 4: to be a leader. And I just I think we've
Speaker 4: got too much representative and not enough leader in our politics.
Speaker 2: I think that's pretty clear.
Speaker 5: The Armstrong and Getty Show, Rhoe podcasts and Our Hot
Speaker 5: Lakes and.
Speaker 2: The Armstrong Congetti Show.
Speaker 3: This is from a guy I don't know, journalist in Australia,
Speaker 3: A dude. Nobody on the left knows how to speak
Speaker 3: to young men because every five seconds this has why
Speaker 3: so many young men voted for Trump and are moving
Speaker 3: away from the Democratic Party, where the younger people used
Speaker 3: to all flock to the Democrats. Nobody on the left
Speaker 3: knows how to speak to young men, because every five
Speaker 3: seconds at a leftist meeting, you have to either do
Speaker 3: a land acknowledgment or go around in a circle and
Speaker 3: pay homage to the power of queer joy or some crap.
Speaker 2: He actually says, yes, it's briefly.
Speaker 3: I know this because I used to be a socialist,
Speaker 3: and this is how all these organizations act. I saw
Speaker 3: all this with my own eyes. You have to literally
Speaker 3: be self flagellating to be in the left as a
Speaker 3: young man these days, and this is probably the understanding
Speaker 3: and experience in perspective of ninety percent of young men.
Speaker 3: The feeling is that you have to always constantly apologize
Speaker 3: for effing existing and just the crime of being born.
Speaker 3: And this is why the right is so effective at
Speaker 3: hoovering all these people up, because the experience of constant
Speaker 3: self flagellation and self criticism is effing exhausting and annoying,
Speaker 3: and nobody wants to wake up every day feeling like
Speaker 3: they are an s person just for the.
Speaker 2: Crime of being born. I like that. Amen to that.
Speaker 3: He also goes on, we have to fix this because
Speaker 3: I hate watching young guys fall into the Andrew Tait masculinity,
Speaker 3: and then he goes through a couple of examples of that.
Speaker 3: Because they got nowhere to turn to, They're going to
Speaker 3: these like super over the top extremist weirdos just to
Speaker 3: find somebody that's you know, appealing to them and not criticize, Yeah,
Speaker 3: not criticizing them for being a man. This is an
Speaker 3: existential threat for the Left and even an existential threat
Speaker 3: for humanity itself because the end result if we don't
Speaker 3: fix these gender warfare dynamics is South Korea style gender
Speaker 3: hyper war and a total fertility rate of point four.
Speaker 2: And humanity just gets wiped out.
Speaker 3: That is absolutely I mean, that is absolutely true on
Speaker 3: the left, if you're going to continue to make U
Speaker 3: males feel bad about even being born.
Speaker 2: You're not gonna win a lot of elections or ever
Speaker 2: get that crowd.
Speaker 4: My heart bleeds for the little boys in public schools
Speaker 4: or continually treated as if their maleness is a defect.
Speaker 2: I know, it's horrorbies.
Speaker 4: It's their energy, They're boundless. Energy is a misbehavior. Oh
Speaker 4: I just you want to get me going.
Speaker 3: God, I came across some schoolwork the other day and
Speaker 3: my uh, my son is homeschooled. But so much of
Speaker 3: the teaching material out there is put out there by
Speaker 3: publishing companies that are so left.
Speaker 2: I mean, you really have to work at getting the
Speaker 2: right stuff.
Speaker 3: But anyway, this particular thing was all about how women
Speaker 3: can be doctors.
Speaker 2: You know, freaking kidding.
Speaker 3: At the point in my life when somebody says the
Speaker 3: doctor will see you, I assume it's going to be
Speaker 3: a woman.
Speaker 2: I'm surprised if it's a man. So what are you?
Speaker 2: What are you talking about?
Speaker 4: You won?
Speaker 2: Wow? That's just again a head scratcher.
Speaker 4: What wow?
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 4: I thought I would feel differently after the election.
Speaker 2: I thought there would be.
Speaker 4: At the very least fairly widespread recognition of some of
Speaker 4: the simple realities of the thing, which is that Kamala
Speaker 4: Harris was a weak candidate, always was week candidate. Is
Speaker 4: that putting it out before hapes You all rejected her,
Speaker 4: as I said, like a rabbit raccoon when she was
Speaker 4: in the primary. Was that sexism and racism when you
Speaker 4: did that? Well, I haven't know. Okay, Well, then when
Speaker 4: the same thing happened the presidential election.
Speaker 2: Why is your explanation completely different?
Speaker 3: That is funny that that has never really been put
Speaker 3: to anybody. Your party rejected her when she ran before,
Speaker 3: not like right winger your own party, like the most
Speaker 3: active people.
Speaker 2: In your party.
Speaker 3: Primary voters said no to her before she even got
Speaker 3: to the first contest. So wow, how is it shocking
Speaker 3: that she got rejected by a larger group of people?
Speaker 4: And it's become a so oft observed fact, it's a truism.
Speaker 2: It's working its way toward being a cliche that when.
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris on the View then Colbert was it Colbert
Speaker 4: or Kimmel, it doesn't matter. Could not say how she
Speaker 4: would be different than the extremely unpopular Biden administration. That
Speaker 4: that was one of the most pivotal political moments in
Speaker 4: any campaign. I mean, that is so widely discussed right now,
Speaker 4: there's no point in bringing it up. Everybody knows it.
Speaker 4: But as I was reading the long top tier editorial
Speaker 4: writer editorial writers of the Washington Post dialogue about what happened?
Speaker 4: How did we get a result that didn't come up?
Speaker 3: I haven't seen any criticism of Kamala Harris as a
Speaker 3: candidate from the left at all.
Speaker 2: Maybe that's coming.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I have seen more than I
Speaker 3: have ever seen before, and more than I expected of
Speaker 3: people saying we have democrats have gone too far down
Speaker 3: the road of progressiveness in the culture wars. I have
Speaker 3: seen a fair amount of that. Yes, yeah, yeah, your.
Speaker 4: Old school liberals are finally finding the courage or the
Speaker 4: cover to stand up and say, hey, y'all, all that
Speaker 4: stuff is madness.
Speaker 3: Which, by the way, is the way you win the
Speaker 3: political arguments. That's when you've won. That's a good Other
Speaker 3: side of it would be on gay marriage, where you know,
Speaker 3: if you're old enough to remember this whole battle and
Speaker 3: discussion in America, it got to the point to where
Speaker 3: Republicans realized, we got to stop being anti gay marriage.
Speaker 3: It's just a losing issue and we just can't be
Speaker 3: and you stop talking about it. And hopefully that's gonna
Speaker 3: start on the left with the you know, boys playing girls'
Speaker 3: sports or all kinds of different things, where they realize
Speaker 3: this is we're gonna lose.
Speaker 2: We nobody wants to hear this, or not enough people
Speaker 2: want to hear this.
Speaker 4: Right right, our academic left wing is just completely wildly
Speaker 4: out of touch with Americans.
Speaker 2: That LATINX and her story, Herkstreet and that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3: Is insane, absolutely insane.
Speaker 2: Are Strong the Armstrong and Getty Show. So a couple
Speaker 2: of barely related thoughts.
Speaker 4: We're talking about this Bizarro ruling in California where this
Speaker 4: male rapist, he's a brutal forcible rapist, he's done it
Speaker 4: more than once, is now identifying as a woman, which
Speaker 4: is meaningless and stupid, and so the judges insisted the
Speaker 4: prosecutor refer to him as she and her through the trial.
Speaker 4: Then this person's in a woman's prison is obscene.
Speaker 2: And I was.
Speaker 4: Talking about the how you came underestimate what it does
Speaker 4: to you when anybody really but the government forces you
Speaker 4: to say something you know not to be true. You
Speaker 4: have to submit to them. It breaks your spirit, which
Speaker 4: is why I won't do it. And then it's funny.
Speaker 4: We I was in a Troe did a trivia night
Speaker 4: with Judy and some friends, and I was so bummed
Speaker 4: because one of the questions was what is the last
Speaker 4: line of nineteen eighty four or Well's classic? And I
Speaker 4: couldn't remember. And I was so bummed because I just
Speaker 4: read it and I'm so into it. The last line
Speaker 4: happens to be he loved Big Brother. It's Winston Smith.
Speaker 4: When his spirit was so completely broken, he actually internalized
Speaker 4: that he loved Big Brother.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 2: He was fully cognizant of the evil of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and just driving home the message that if you're
Speaker 3: told something enough, you will come to believe it, which
Speaker 3: is highly troubling, but it seems to be the way
Speaker 3: our minds work.
Speaker 4: And my militants about this topic and some others. You know,
Speaker 4: if I run into a transgender person, whatever that means, again,
Speaker 4: it's a mental problem, and I hope you find healing
Speaker 4: and happiness. I truly do. I'm never going to hurt
Speaker 4: anybody's feelings or humiliate them, or try to discriminate against
Speaker 4: them in any meaningful way.
Speaker 2: I think that would be terrible and cruel.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, I understand from Orwell and
Speaker 4: others what it does to you when you submit to
Speaker 4: that sort of ideological oppression. It breaks your spirit, and
Speaker 4: I won't do it. Having said that, I just came
Speaker 4: across this. Big Brother isn't just watching. He's changing how
Speaker 4: your brain works. And this is so interesting. It was
Speaker 4: a study done by an Australian research group at a
Speaker 4: couple of different colleges in Australia, and the methodology is
Speaker 4: a little long and difficult to explain, but what they
Speaker 4: found was if these people subjects of the experiment were
Speaker 4: aware that they were being watched, and they showed them
Speaker 4: these are the closed circuit cameras. We're making sure that
Speaker 4: everything's on the up and up, and we want to
Speaker 4: observe so we can look at it later. And in fact,
Speaker 4: here's the control room, here the TV monitors that we'll
Speaker 4: be using, and blah blah blah. Then they did tests
Speaker 4: on awareness of and sensitivity to various stimuli, including faces.
Speaker 2: Cutting to the end. I know this is utterly unclear,
Speaker 2: Cutting to the end.
Speaker 4: What they found was when people were aware of being watched,
Speaker 4: they were hyper sensitive to images of faces.
Speaker 2: They became cautious and.
Speaker 4: Odes on edge, and I would describe it as borderline afraid.
Speaker 4: They became hyper aware of, oh my god, who's watching
Speaker 4: me and why? In other words, it changes your psyche
Speaker 4: to know you're being surveiled in ways that we're just
Speaker 4: beginning to understand.
Speaker 3: I can feel that, I feel that if I become
Speaker 3: aware there's a camera in you know, you're a lobby
Speaker 3: of something.
Speaker 2: You just look around, you see a camera. It makes it.
Speaker 2: You can feel that something changes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, And again it's not known exactly how much
Speaker 4: and in what way, which worries me. I've heard it
Speaker 4: said that a surveiled society is a an obedient society,
Speaker 4: a polite society.
Speaker 3: Well, we might as well figure out how it affects us,
Speaker 3: because it's here, a lot of places, in coming other places.
Speaker 3: We will all be surveiled all the time, soon everywhere,
Speaker 3: and it's getting closer every day.
Speaker 4: If our purpose is to make ourselves insane as a society,
Speaker 4: we're doing very very well. Sure, I congratulate us home
Speaker 4: completely different topic. I thought this was great. Alan Dershowitz
Speaker 4: and Andrew Stein wrote this piece what Trump can do
Speaker 4: about sanctuary cities, because Trump is vowed to do plenty
Speaker 4: about it. Also bring sanity back to colleges, in elementary schools,
Speaker 4: to the Department of Education, and stuff like that. And
Speaker 4: I love the ideas, but sometimes the mechanics are a
Speaker 4: little mysterious. What levers does he have exactly? And Dershowitz
Speaker 4: and what I say the guy's name is. Stein wrote
Speaker 4: that a constitutional showdown is looming over the border policies.
Speaker 4: We've all heard Tom Holman saying, we're going to deport
Speaker 4: these people. We're gonna round them up. You can either
Speaker 4: help or not. I liked what Holman said too. He said,
Speaker 4: all right, if you're not gonna support us, you're not
Speaker 4: going to cooperate with us, We're gonna put two three times.
Speaker 2: As many ICE agents in your city. That's fine, We'll
Speaker 2: get it done.
Speaker 4: Denver Mike Johnston has said he'd be willing to go
Speaker 4: to jail to prevent deportations.
Speaker 2: All right, put him there. What a hell to die
Speaker 2: on again?
Speaker 3: I just say, you're gonna go to jail to protect
Speaker 3: criminals who've committed crime, because that's where we're starting with.
Speaker 3: People are committing crimes in the United States and are
Speaker 3: here illegally. You're gonna go to jail to make sure
Speaker 3: that they don't get deported.
Speaker 2: You're nuts, you know.
Speaker 4: I wish you could somehow get to what is going
Speaker 4: on in a guy like that's head. I mean, my
Speaker 4: guess is that he has a desire to be accepted
Speaker 4: and to be seen as enlightened and progressive and merciful,
Speaker 4: and that desire is so strong in him. It's like,
Speaker 4: you know, being a horny seventeen year old male or
Speaker 4: being starving, starving, hungary. It just so perverts his sense
Speaker 4: of priorities. I don't get that at all.
Speaker 3: Newpole out today similar numbers to what we've had before.
Speaker 3: Two thirds of Americans want all illegals deported. That's never
Speaker 3: gonna happen. But the ones that have committed crimes in
Speaker 3: the United States are gonna get deported. So the percentage
Speaker 3: on that's got to be like ninety percent, and you're
Speaker 3: going to be You're going to die on that ill
Speaker 3: you nutjobs. I really think they are. Again, it's very strange.
Speaker 3: I mean, even if we just deported the twenty percent
Speaker 3: who are the most derelict, lazy, useless, and or criminal,
Speaker 3: that'd be an enormous victory, just a fabulus. Well, there
Speaker 3: are six hundred thousand criminals here illegally right now at
Speaker 3: least sure.
Speaker 2: Anyway, how will this all be resolved by the courts?
Speaker 2: They write?
Speaker 4: Article six of the Constitution mandates that federal law quote
Speaker 4: shall be the supreme law of land, notwithstanding the laws
Speaker 4: of any state. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states
Speaker 4: all powers quote not delegated to the United States by
Speaker 4: the Constitution, nor prohibited by it by it.
Speaker 2: To the states. Oh right, that is work correct.
Speaker 4: The constitutional question is whether the authority to regulate immigration,
Speaker 4: including the power to deport illegal aliens, is a power
Speaker 4: delegated to the federal government, And they write a, of
Speaker 4: course it is. Border crossers can travel from state to
Speaker 4: state unhindered, So entry anywhere in the US is entry everywhere.
Speaker 4: Thus the federal government alone has the authority to control
Speaker 4: the right to enter and remain, as it does the
Speaker 4: power to exclude, deport, and prosecute those who violate immigration laws.
Speaker 2: Now, to me, the only question.
Speaker 3: I'm not an expert in all this law stuff, but
Speaker 3: to me, the only question has been how did it
Speaker 3: go this long? Where a county, a city, of state
Speaker 3: can declare themselves sanctuary.
Speaker 2: That's nuts.
Speaker 4: Well, here's the rub, they write, the Constitution does not
Speaker 4: prohibit states from providing food, healthcare, housing, driving privileges, and
Speaker 4: other necessities to everyone within its borders, nor does it
Speaker 4: compel the states to employ resources to aid the federal government.
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court has articulated an anti commandeering doctrine that
Speaker 4: prohibits the Feds from quote conscripting the state's officers directly
Speaker 4: to enforce federal law, and they write about how the
Speaker 4: doctrine's been revised over the years, and there's no real
Speaker 4: clear guidance on how it would press ically apply to
Speaker 4: sanctuary cities. Much would depend on these specific state action
Speaker 4: at issue, Bob about the President's established when some Southern
Speaker 4: state officials try to prevent the enforcement of federal court's
Speaker 4: desegregation orders. Strongly suggest that states and cities may not
Speaker 4: actively block legitimate enforcement of federal law, but.
Speaker 2: They don't have to help, right is that make them help?
Speaker 4: In Between these extremes are a variety of state actions
Speaker 4: and refusal to act.
Speaker 2: Give some examples.
Speaker 3: I can see legally how that's the thing. And I
Speaker 3: guess if you live in a nut job place like
Speaker 3: San Diego County just voided body the other day, where
Speaker 3: your constituents, a majority of your constituents say, yeah, don't
Speaker 3: help the federal government deport people are committing crimes in
Speaker 3: our county and here legally, if a majority agrees with that, okay,
Speaker 3: I can't believe there are very many places where that's
Speaker 3: the case, including like you saw the city council meeting
Speaker 3: in Chicago. People are horrified they're spending so much money
Speaker 3: on illegals. I find it hard to believe that the
Speaker 3: majority of people would be okay with keeping criminals there
Speaker 3: who are there illegally.
Speaker 4: I know, it's a bizarre notion. I can't believe anybody
Speaker 4: believes it. But so these guys, who are pretty solid
Speaker 4: legal scholars just think, all right, we're not doing nothing
Speaker 4: they can get away with. But even a whiff of
Speaker 4: opposition or impediment would be actionable, and the federal government,
Speaker 4: could you take measures? What measures I might be, I
Speaker 4: don't know. It's still it's obscene to me that you would.
Speaker 4: And look, I am fully acquainted with the argument that
Speaker 4: if the immigrant community fears any interaction with the government
Speaker 4: will lead them to be deported, they won't report a rape,
Speaker 4: they won't report when these Venezuelan monsters kidnap them and
Speaker 4: torture them and take over their apartment. They'll be afraid
Speaker 4: to talk to any authorities. We can't have that. I
Speaker 4: get that, and I actually respect it on one level.
Speaker 4: But the idea that you have have a violent criminal
Speaker 4: that you're going to put out on the streets and
Speaker 4: you're fully aware they've got a detainer, a detainment order
Speaker 4: from the ICE, and you, well, we're not going to
Speaker 4: help them. We're going to release that rapist or that
Speaker 4: arm drobber or whatever onto the streets because we don't
Speaker 4: believe there's such thing as an illegal human. You are
Speaker 4: just you're incapable of operating in the adult world. You
Speaker 4: shouldn't You shouldn't even be like you should have a caretaker.
Speaker 4: You certainly shouldn't be running anything.
Speaker 3: I'm strong and get the reality is this is fabulous.
Speaker 2: I thank you. That's enough of that. This is crazy,
Speaker 2: That's what it is. Yeah, but damn it, we weren't
Speaker 2: allowed to ask about the big guys. This is the
Speaker 2: United States of America. Let's not play James.
Speaker 1: This is the Armstrong and Getty Show, the arm Strong
Speaker 1: and Getty Show.
Speaker 4: This is interesting and not terribly shocking. Well, I guess
Speaker 4: when you get down to the the granular details, it
Speaker 4: is fairly shocking. But Americans are more reliant than ever
Speaker 4: on government aid. An aging population, economic distress raised dependence
Speaker 4: on federal and state support, and it matters a hell
Speaker 4: of a lot for our elections. As you might guess.
Speaker 4: Wall Street Journal looking into a major study. This is
Speaker 4: a little graphics heavy, but I can interpret it for you.
Speaker 4: They're talking about the share of personal income from government assistance.
Speaker 4: How in how many counties is it twenty five percent
Speaker 4: or more? In nineteen seventy, government safety Net money accounted
Speaker 4: for significant income.
Speaker 2: That's more than twenty five percent.
Speaker 4: Twenty five percent or more in fewer than one percent
Speaker 4: of America's counties.
Speaker 2: So say that again, in what year?
Speaker 4: In nineteen seventy it was less than one percent? Okay, okay.
Speaker 4: In two thousand it went from less than one percent
Speaker 4: to roughly ten percent. The year two ten percent.
Speaker 2: Which a tenfold increase is not minor.
Speaker 4: In the year twenty twenty two, fifty three percent, more
Speaker 4: than half of US counties drew at least a quarter
Speaker 4: of their income from government aid.
Speaker 3: So this is we were talking about this last week,
Speaker 3: and now that it's the average person in the bottom quintile.
Speaker 3: I know this is a lot of complicated talking, but
Speaker 3: the bottom twenty percent of income earners in America get
Speaker 3: on average sixty eight thousand dollars per household of transfer payments.
Speaker 3: And that's left out of every argument about we have
Speaker 3: the highest inequality of any nation in the world. They
Speaker 3: never include this stuff and what you just talked about there,
Speaker 3: that's never included in these conversations from Bernie Sanders or
Speaker 3: probably Tim Walls tonight in the debate. People live in
Speaker 3: paycheck to paycheck. Well, more people are getting the handouts
Speaker 3: from the government than ever before by all lot.
Speaker 4: And as we've discussed with Craig the healthcare Guru, socialism
Speaker 4: is not a light switch. It's a fungus oh that
Speaker 4: spreads across a country, and it's programmed benefits and yeah, yeah, sure.
Speaker 2: It starts getting across there's just no stopping it. Yeah.
Speaker 4: So the big reasons for this dramatic growth are interesting.
Speaker 4: Some of them I think most conservatives would reject out
Speaker 4: of hand, but it gets a little complicated when you
Speaker 4: dig into it. There are much larger share of Americans
Speaker 4: who are seniors. Period, we're living longer, and we've aged
Speaker 4: as a population not having kids anymore. And healthcare raw sorry,
Speaker 4: healthcare costs have risen fairly dramatically as they've gotten more fantastic.
Speaker 4: The technology we have at our disposal to keep ourselves
Speaker 4: healthy and alive is truly awe inspiring, but it costs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and as my doctor said last week, What exactly
Speaker 3: is the point? Sometimes he wonders, as we just get
Speaker 3: you know, our brains don't work, our bodies don't work,
Speaker 3: but we hang around longer at a great expense.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, it could be the money is the point
Speaker 4: in at least some situations, although it's I understand it's
Speaker 4: an odd conundrum that a person could sit around rubbing
Speaker 4: their chin thinking about for a long time. You're not
Speaker 4: going to turn down medical advances because it's every advance
Speaker 4: is an incremental step. It can lead toward other advances
Speaker 4: or cures or what have you. But at the same
Speaker 4: time you and your doctor are quite right, Hey, good news.
Speaker 4: We can keep alzheimer suffering Granny alive for one more year.
Speaker 4: We can stave off for cancer with this new gene therapy.
Speaker 4: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: What are we doing here? Yeah?
Speaker 4: Anyway to get back to the major thread of the thing,
Speaker 4: rouni here. At the same time, many communities, so it's
Speaker 4: the aging and the development of medical technology number one.
Speaker 4: At the same time, any communities have suffered from economic
Speaker 4: declient because of the challenges, including the loss of manufacturing,
Speaker 4: leaving government money. Is the larger share of people's income
Speaker 4: in such places. I you know, I could bore you
Speaker 4: to death. I won't because I do this for a
Speaker 4: living and kind of enjoy getting the paycheck. But one
Speaker 4: of the big debates in conservative circles these days is
Speaker 4: the question of the reagan Esque free trade global economy
Speaker 4: conservatives versus what's being called the new conservatism or whatever you.
Speaker 3: Want to call it. And everybody's always government conservatism. Some
Speaker 3: people call it, yeah, industrial.
Speaker 2: Planning, you know.
Speaker 4: Sometimes people even call it central planning, what have you,
Speaker 4: And are bellowing at each other about it, as if
Speaker 4: the solutions and the questions and answers are very simple.
Speaker 4: They're not at all. They're trillions of dollars at stake.
Speaker 4: So I understand why the people making lots and lots
Speaker 4: of money want to keep that money flowing. They don't
Speaker 4: care how much unemployment there is in rural Pennsylvania, for instance.
Speaker 4: At the same time, oh oh, and the other point
Speaker 4: I was going to make on the side of the new.
Speaker 2: Conservatives.
Speaker 4: Back in Reagan's day, we didn't have the situation where
Speaker 4: our chief global adversary is our one of our chief
Speaker 4: trading partners technology partners, and practically indispensable to the world economy.
Speaker 4: So if you are pitching free global trade of a
Speaker 4: reaganesque sort, your pitching continued interaction slash dependence with China,
Speaker 4: which is just a bad idea. Times have changed, the
Speaker 4: arguments have to change too, So I have sympathy with
Speaker 4: both sides, but it is not simple. So for its
Speaker 4: analysis of government spending, EIG, which is the folks doing
Speaker 4: the analysis, used the government definition of income that includes
Speaker 4: spending on programs that American pay into, such as Medicare
Speaker 4: and Social Security. Another major government health program, Medicaid, is counted.
Speaker 4: The analysis also includes unemployment insurance, food stamps, the Earned
Speaker 4: Income tax credit, veterans benefits, pell grants, COVID Era payments,
Speaker 4: and other income supports. States helped pay for some of
Speaker 4: these programs, like Medicaid, but the federal government covers roughly
Speaker 4: seven seventy percent of the cost, and it doesn't include
Speaker 4: other ways government spending floods into corners of America, such
Speaker 4: as farm subsidies or military bases. So this spending accounts
Speaker 4: for big and growing share of not only the income
Speaker 4: of the nation, but also our national debt. We are
Speaker 4: addicted to government spending slash social programs as a country.
Speaker 3: There's no weaning off that either. I don't believe in
Speaker 3: no backwards. I don't think it's possible.
Speaker 4: No, but you do have to be honest about the
Speaker 4: dollars and cents coming and going, and we're headed for
Speaker 4: a cliff.
Speaker 3: So we went from one percent nineteen seventy to over
Speaker 3: half now correct.
Speaker 2: That's unbelievab.
Speaker 3: Not very many people could tell you that Armstrong and
Speaker 3: Getty