Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Ketty arm Strong
Speaker 1: and Getty and he Armstrong and Hetty.
Speaker 2: Find out what happened when and you know what orders
Speaker 2: were given. I think all the all the particulars. You
Speaker 2: want to know what the facts are, and then you
Speaker 2: want to compare that with the relevant and figure out
Speaker 2: you know, procedurally, you know what's the you know the
Speaker 2: correct lawful way to do things, and determine whether or
Speaker 2: not that everything is followed.
Speaker 3: Of course, we're talking about the second strike on the boat,
Speaker 3: turns out second, third, and fourth maybe strikes on the
Speaker 3: boat off the coast of Venezuela, and whether or not
Speaker 3: Pete Hegzeth.
Speaker 1: Ordit it or not, and exactly what was ordered, when,
Speaker 1: by whom, and whether it was legal. It's worth noting
Speaker 1: that the voice you heard was Senator John Thune, the
Speaker 1: Republican leader of the Senate.
Speaker 3: The very last is from the New York Times, citing
Speaker 3: five US officials today that Hegzeth called for the original
Speaker 3: strike but did not specify what should happen if survivors remained.
Speaker 3: And then Admiral Frank Bradley, who you've now heard his
Speaker 3: name a lot, ultimately signed off on the initial strike
Speaker 3: and several follow up strikes that killed eleven people.
Speaker 1: Okay, interesting to gain a little perspective, we've invited on
Speaker 1: the terrific Mike Lyons, military analyst who is also I
Speaker 1: was happy to see writing for Real Clear Defense, including
Speaker 1: a great piece about the possible Ukraine deal, which we'll
Speaker 1: touch on in a minute. But first, Mike, welcome, How
Speaker 1: are you hey?
Speaker 4: Good one, you guys, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1: Trust you and the family had a great Thanksgiving? Could
Speaker 1: do talk to you? Yeah? I was good.
Speaker 4: I didn't have my son home or my daughter home,
Speaker 4: but hopefully well get him a Christmas time at this point,
Speaker 4: so we're looking forward to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, onto that part of life. Yeah, so, Mike, let's
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about your impressions of the you know,
Speaker 1: what is known thus far about the alleged targeting of survivors.
Speaker 1: What do you think?
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, so I've voided this story for a
Speaker 4: while because I just a lot of it as one
Speaker 4: hundred percent politics. That video that was released, I guess
Speaker 4: you know ten days ago, almost two weeks ago, by
Speaker 4: the congressmen and senators over you know, not fine, not
Speaker 4: not obeying legal authors. I thought that pierced this veil
Speaker 4: between the military and the civilians like I've never seen
Speaker 4: before and set this path on to where I think
Speaker 4: we are today. And the fact that this mission is
Speaker 4: being so scrutinized because I could give you multiple examples
Speaker 4: of previous missions that and people have testified in front
Speaker 4: of Congress about these kinds of double taps that we've
Speaker 4: done in the past, but for now it's now reached
Speaker 4: this hyperbolic boiling point over what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Well, let's let's make sure we understand what you're saying there.
Speaker 3: Are you saying the sort of thing that is being
Speaker 3: alleged here happens regularly.
Speaker 4: Well, no, first of all, nobody in the military is
Speaker 4: committing war crimes, which is where this has gone to.
Speaker 4: It's gone to, you know, we're murdering people that are
Speaker 4: hanging off of you know, ship parts in the in
Speaker 4: the Caribbean or the Pacific or whatever the mission was.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, it's not like Robinson, Caruso or
Speaker 4: Rose hanging off the side of the Titanic here. I mean,
Speaker 4: it's insane that we're still having this conversation. This is
Speaker 4: a military target that the initial target was approved legally,
Speaker 4: and the target is to be destroyed and destroyed means destroyed.
Speaker 4: And so if the first target hits and there are
Speaker 4: still survivors and there's still a target in the water,
Speaker 4: well those survivors were still part of the original target
Speaker 4: to begin with. So they are legal targets as well.
Speaker 4: So so, but this is all about context. It's all
Speaker 4: about what, you know, what what people want to view
Speaker 4: and they want how they want to see this, And
Speaker 4: from from my perspective, it's it's a shame. Now we've
Speaker 4: seen the Secretary of Defense throw us over to SOCOM
Speaker 4: commander and this addal now will testify in front of Congress.
Speaker 4: But these missions go on all the time. They're approved legal,
Speaker 4: and once they are approved legal and they start, it's
Speaker 4: pretty hard to bring that health fire missile back.
Speaker 1: So there's a pretty good history, including the Nuremberg Trials,
Speaker 1: of prosecutions for targeting survivors of an attack on a
Speaker 1: ship who no longer posed any threat. Are you saying
Speaker 1: this doesn't apply here or that's wrong or what?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know enough about it. I'd have to
Speaker 4: see a lot more. But sure, we're not going to
Speaker 4: target sole survivors waving their hands in the water, let's say, right,
Speaker 4: especially with the health fire missile, and again I don't
Speaker 4: know what visual is on them, and we're with seal
Speaker 4: Teams six close to them. I mean, there's just so
Speaker 4: much information that needs to come out that would figure
Speaker 4: out whether or not. I mean, I saw this one
Speaker 4: report that said maybe they thought that there was another
Speaker 4: boat in the area and this boat could have came
Speaker 4: and picked up some of the cargo of this ship.
Speaker 4: I don't know. Again, I haven't seen the battle damage
Speaker 4: assessment or anything, but all I know is that so
Speaker 4: many different opinions are being layered into this contextually that
Speaker 4: is now clouded it to the point of we don't
Speaker 4: it's going to get this mission accomplished. Of stopping what
Speaker 4: they're trying to do. I think it's a pure political
Speaker 4: situation that Democrats don't want anything to do with what
Speaker 4: Trump is doing in the Caribbean. I think he needs
Speaker 4: to say what that strategy is. I still don't know
Speaker 4: what that is as well, but this is not the
Speaker 4: way to do it, to use the military, because basically,
Speaker 4: if he's going to accuse hex at about war crime.
Speaker 4: If you're going to accuse him of war crime, you're
Speaker 4: acusing everybody to pull the trailer all the way down
Speaker 4: to who fired that missile?
Speaker 1: Okay, just for the record, obviously, you know, we're not
Speaker 1: engaging in hyperbole or trying to cloud new waters. In fact,
Speaker 1: we're trying to do just the opposite and help people
Speaker 1: understand what are the actual issues going on here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so yeah, no, I don't think you are. This
Speaker 4: is again I avoided this just for this reason. I
Speaker 4: think it's more political. I think it's a shame that
Speaker 4: we're at this place that now the military is going
Speaker 4: to be questioned about this going forward, We're going to
Speaker 4: drag this admiral and into this political hearing, and this
Speaker 4: is all about getting secretary heccess, frankly from my perspective
Speaker 4: and interesting. So it just just seems too close to
Speaker 4: the video that was released ten days ago to have
Speaker 4: this situation come up right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we wondered about that yesterday. The timing seems pretty
Speaker 3: suspicious exactly.
Speaker 4: And then the initial Washington Post article now has proven wrong.
Speaker 4: When the New York Times is throwing the Washington Post
Speaker 4: off under the bus over there, then you know something
Speaker 4: is up, so.
Speaker 3: Is your take, And I just want to make sure
Speaker 3: completely understand what you're saying is that we are entering
Speaker 3: into getting way too loyally on this sort of thing,
Speaker 3: or much more lawyerly than we usually are in reality,
Speaker 3: you know, in a war situation.
Speaker 4: Well, my take is that I think they decided that
Speaker 4: these are legal targets, and they are the military targets
Speaker 4: as they've been declared narco terrorists and enemies of the state,
Speaker 4: and each one is evaluated separately with regard to how
Speaker 4: they're going to take it out and what they want
Speaker 4: to do, and what the definition of destroyed means. And
Speaker 4: I think that once the initial shot was fired then
Speaker 4: and if that was determined legal, then any shot fired
Speaker 4: after it is determined legal as well. Again, I got
Speaker 4: to think there's not a video and audio of Haigs
Speaker 4: that's standing up saying kill them all and all these
Speaker 4: other things that are coming out of this. I mean,
Speaker 4: it's just not the case that the people, you know,
Speaker 4: I had a chance to talk to some of the
Speaker 4: former Jay Sock commanders the last few days, and they
Speaker 4: wanted me to reiterate to everybody that the people that
Speaker 4: are on these missions are professionals, and they're doing things
Speaker 4: exactly by the book. And if they thought for one
Speaker 4: second so that was an illegal target or they were
Speaker 4: there were survivors, and the fact that they thought that
Speaker 4: that the target wasn't destroyed, they wouldn't have fired again,
Speaker 4: did Why did in a couple of weeks later we
Speaker 4: turned two people back over to this to the host county.
Speaker 4: What did that happen? Well, they must have thought that
Speaker 4: situation was different from this. I'm sure that will be
Speaker 4: explained in the Senate Armed Services Committee. But the professionals
Speaker 4: in the military are looking at every single aspect and
Speaker 4: there's just no way they were going to fire on
Speaker 4: a target that wasn't legal.
Speaker 1: All right, well said, we'll wait for more facts to
Speaker 1: come out. Now to your piece about the still taking
Speaker 1: shape Ukraine deal, I thought the way you framed it
Speaker 1: was so interesting that it's not exactly a peace treaty.
Speaker 1: It's more a Korean style armistice or freeze. Tell us
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a freeze, and you know, you know, it's
Speaker 4: a classic trading land for some kind of freedom or
Speaker 4: immediate relief from stopping the war. We all want the
Speaker 4: war to stop, but there's no guarantees of what specifically
Speaker 4: what that means without NATO being involved. For example, I
Speaker 4: still don't believe Russia will accept anything, any peace agreement
Speaker 4: or any agreement that they come to right now anyway.
Speaker 4: And I'll kind of put this out preemptively because it's
Speaker 4: going to forest United States to try to create more
Speaker 4: leverage at some point. But if they did accept what
Speaker 4: what's currently on the table right now, all it does
Speaker 4: is going to set up Round two at some point.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's appeasement to try to stop a world
Speaker 4: We're you know that nineteen thirty eight. Let's say that
Speaker 4: was kind of appeasement to try to keep a war
Speaker 4: from happening. This is the flips it on it's head.
Speaker 4: It's Korea nineteen fifty three in the same regard. That
Speaker 4: will create a DMZ, and we'll create this line, but
Speaker 4: it can always be restarted. And I just don't believe
Speaker 4: this is good for the long term of Eastern Europe,
Speaker 4: and I don't think it's in the long term interest
Speaker 4: in the United States.
Speaker 1: We were wondering yesterday, why would Putin quit?
Speaker 3: If you're a Russia with Russia's goals, would you keep
Speaker 3: prosecuting the war exactly.
Speaker 4: Not for one second would I quit. So that's the thing.
Speaker 4: And there's the battlefield math has not changed. There's nothing
Speaker 4: differently on the battlefield. In fact, the Russians have caught
Speaker 4: up with the Ukrainians when it comes to their drone technology.
Speaker 4: It's incredible the fiber optic drones that are being used
Speaker 4: right now, and they're tethered, and they're ubquous to the weather,
Speaker 4: and and they're not impervious to electronic warfare. You know,
Speaker 4: we need to be paying close attention. I know we
Speaker 4: are at the military academy this because we've got a
Speaker 4: leaf fraud this technology. We can't be satisfied with what's
Speaker 4: good enough on the battlefield right now. We've got to
Speaker 4: be looking over the horizon and figuring out what it's
Speaker 4: going to take, what the drone technology looks like on
Speaker 4: the next battlefield, because because right now it's very very
Speaker 4: advanced right now, and the Russians have caught right up
Speaker 4: with the Ukrainians on it.
Speaker 1: Right and final point on the comparison with Korea, the
Speaker 1: thing that bothers me is somebody who's been standing up
Speaker 1: for Ukraine is that unlike the Korean deal where you
Speaker 1: got your demilitarized zone, but then everybody's armed to the
Speaker 1: teeth on both sides of it. Yeah, this is calling
Speaker 1: for Ukraine to more or less disarmed, to weaken their
Speaker 1: own military and become a just It wouldn't take ten
Speaker 1: minutes for Putin to violate the agreement and beat the
Speaker 1: hell out of the Ukraine, take even more land a
Speaker 1: year or two hence, so.
Speaker 4: Exactly they would have interior lines. They would take land
Speaker 4: that they haven't conquered yet. You know, in Korea we
Speaker 4: poured in forty five thousand troops. There's ten thousand artillery rounds,
Speaker 4: you know, targeting each other right now, that's a tinderbox
Speaker 4: on some level. And we've talked about that and before.
Speaker 4: But this, this in particular, would be it would clearly
Speaker 4: lead to a round two at some point unless NATO,
Speaker 4: for example, provided an air defense umbrella over Ukraine that
Speaker 4: guaranteed all missiles coming from Russia would be shot down,
Speaker 4: perhaps a no fly zone, although a no fly zone
Speaker 4: is technically an active war. But and what are the
Speaker 4: troop where do the troops come from? So NATO has
Speaker 4: to be in the game or the or NATO countries
Speaker 4: have got to be in the game from a security
Speaker 4: perspective or to execute your point, they would roll right
Speaker 4: through Ukraine once this they were disarmed.
Speaker 1: Military analyst Mike Lyons will post his piece forrom Real
Speaker 1: Clear Defense at Armstrong and getty dot com. Mike, really
Speaker 1: interesting perspective. Thanks so much for the time.
Speaker 4: Yeah, great guys, Thanks for having and thanks for having
Speaker 4: this kind of conversation. I'm not sure where other people
Speaker 4: are having it. And I think it's important to recognize
Speaker 4: that our military is professional and not murdering people in
Speaker 4: the water. I just think I just want to make
Speaker 4: that that point clear.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we probably we'd be better off pandering, but we're
Speaker 1: too stubborn to do it. So anyway, Thanks Mike.
Speaker 4: Great to talk to you, great guys, great out here.
Speaker 3: So do these two things go together, though, that our
Speaker 3: military is professional and we're not in the business of
Speaker 3: murdering people in the water, and things aren't quite as
Speaker 3: delineated as you think they are in TV shows or
Speaker 3: whatever around these issues.
Speaker 1: Well, and to what extent is a drug cartel an
Speaker 1: enemy force? And to what extent where are we at war?
Speaker 1: Because that's there's an underlying set of questions before we
Speaker 1: even get to the specifics. But a quick word from
Speaker 1: our friends at Omaha Steaks. That's fabulous. That the sale
Speaker 1: that got going on right now, it's fabulous. There's sizzle
Speaker 1: all the way. Sail. You can get fifty percent off
Speaker 1: sitewide at Omaha Steaks dot com. Plus you good people
Speaker 1: get an extra thirty five dollars off with the promo
Speaker 1: code Armstrong at checkout.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're just doing that for you because we like
Speaker 3: you and we want you to et Omah Steaks.
Speaker 1: Because they're really really good.
Speaker 3: Lots of different kinds of steaks, you know, there are
Speaker 3: different cuts and that's stars sort of stuff, and they
Speaker 3: have that Nomaha Steaks, but they're all fantastic. And then
Speaker 3: the burgers are the best burgers I've ever had, absolutely fantastic,
Speaker 3: the apple tart.
Speaker 1: Let's just all kinds of stuff from Ama Steaks that
Speaker 1: are great. You want an endorsement, I've ordered it for
Speaker 1: my papa, who just turned eighty five. Year after year
Speaker 1: after year love Omaha Steaks, Never for a second wonder
Speaker 1: about their quality. It is so good. A lot of
Speaker 1: different packages too. Save big on gourmet gifts and more
Speaker 1: holiday favorites with Omaha Steaks visit Omaha Steaks dot com
Speaker 1: for fifty percent off sitewide during their Sizzle All the
Speaker 1: Way sale. That's a really good name, and for an
Speaker 1: extra thirty five bucks off, use the promo code Armstrong
Speaker 1: at checkout. Use it at checkout Omaha Steaks dot com.
Speaker 1: The code is Armstrong.
Speaker 3: I want to talk about what's your pea doom a
Speaker 3: little bit later if you don't know that term around AI.
Speaker 1: But I don't want to rap name p doom Yo
Speaker 1: yo yo.
Speaker 3: I don't want to be the scariest radio show in America.
Speaker 3: So we have some other stuff where you're coming up
Speaker 3: next farm Strong.
Speaker 1: Hard to believe, but Ireland will finally introduce warning labels
Speaker 1: on alcohol, you know to one of its harmful side
Speaker 1: effects such as katy disease, cancer or worse going home
Speaker 1: with rosy O'Donnell, never forget or something Hey, get it
Speaker 1: by Christmas. Shipping deadline is upon us. Order your new
Speaker 1: Ang T shirt or hoodie now at the Ang Superstore
Speaker 1: Armstrong Giddy dot com. Perhaps you're looking for something else,
Speaker 1: how about the truly amusing kftc apron perfect for your
Speaker 1: favorite griller. Please. I can't wait to get mine. Where's
Speaker 1: mine Handsome or our new drink wear and the ruin
Speaker 1: the entire country Newsome twenty twenty eight T shirts are
Speaker 1: flying off the shelves. Wear them proudly. Halt progressive stupidity
Speaker 1: in its tracks. Anyway, moving along, because we all want
Speaker 1: a quick route to health other than eating a reasonably
Speaker 1: balanced diet and regularly exercising. And I'm not claiming for
Speaker 1: a minute I do those things. But anyway, everybody wants
Speaker 1: to take supplements. Kitty, are you big on supplements? Have
Speaker 1: you been into the turmeric or whatever? Pre pregnancy?
Speaker 5: I was, but then I kept reading all this stuff
Speaker 5: about how it's just they're not regulated and not good
Speaker 5: for you, so I steer clear.
Speaker 1: Came across this piece from our friends Jason Rantz and Seattle,
Speaker 1: who's a terrific radio guy and a good guy. New
Speaker 1: independent lab analysis may make every Amazon shopper I think
Speaker 1: twice before buying another supplement from the world's largest online marketplace.
Speaker 1: A consumer health testing platform purchased forty four of Amazon's
Speaker 1: most popular supplements and put them through ISO accredited labs.
Speaker 1: The results were alarming. Boy fifty two out of the
Speaker 1: forty four failed to meet their label claims for what
Speaker 1: were in them, and even more stunning, of those twenty
Speaker 1: two that failed to meet the claims, twenty of them
Speaker 1: virtually all of them had zero to three percent of
Speaker 1: the main ingredient an amount claimed. That means half the
Speaker 1: supplements tested were effectively fakes, and many of them contained
Speaker 1: none or almost none of what the label promised was
Speaker 1: in them. So Amazon's marketplace has become a huge magnet
Speaker 1: for low quality, foreign manufactured deceptive supplements selling. But did
Speaker 1: they work? They cured the PLACEBA almost right away.
Speaker 3: I had quite a conversation with my niece who's in
Speaker 3: medical school right now for Thanksgiving about PLACEBIA.
Speaker 1: Now I'm all for it.
Speaker 3: If I think it works and it made me feel better,
Speaker 3: one hundred percent, I'll pay for it.
Speaker 1: So the folks who sponsored this, who I believe are
Speaker 1: a domestic supplement maker, they discovered that every single overseas
Speaker 1: registered supplement they tested failed testing, including six from mainland China,
Speaker 1: delivered none of the claimed potency. Plus you get your
Speaker 1: opaque seller identities on Amazon. I've fallen pray to that
Speaker 1: once or twice, two third party sellers. Anyway, fuyerviewer go
Speaker 1: with known domestic brands.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and one thing that I've seen I can't remember
Speaker 5: where I saw this report, but these especially the Chinese manufacturers,
Speaker 5: will pay people to review the product, so then it'll
Speaker 5: show the product is having a higher rating because you
Speaker 5: know they've they've obviously planted all these these reviews and
Speaker 5: then people purchase.
Speaker 3: How about these giant, giant vitamin stores that they have
Speaker 3: in strip malls or whatever, those are probably legit, right
Speaker 3: if you go into one of.
Speaker 1: Those, uh will I would again, I would check the label.
Speaker 1: Maybe go with the better known supplement brands. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe taking turmeric or whatever the hell is today's hot
Speaker 1: hot mineral magnesium a good idea or bad idea, but
Speaker 1: you might as well get what you're paying for. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and then whiz it out because your body gets plenty
Speaker 1: of it just from regular diets like most things. That's correct. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: wiz it out, sweeze it out.
Speaker 3: How much time do we got, Michael? We got to
Speaker 3: talk about that field goal from last night. Yeah, if
Speaker 3: you haven't watched the video, why did they send me
Speaker 3: out to kick a field goal?
Speaker 1: That was a mistake. We got a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: on the way. I hope you can stay here Armstrong
Speaker 1: and Geeddy.
Speaker 3: Forty seven yard trying now by young Way Conny stumbled
Speaker 3: Killen gets swallowed up Patriots ball.
Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever seen that. Yeah, look like
Speaker 1: he just stubbed his foot right into the turf. Here
Speaker 1: it is.
Speaker 5: There was.
Speaker 1: They're laughing. So here's what happened.
Speaker 3: The field goal kicker who is like me, he runs
Speaker 3: up to kick a field goal.
Speaker 1: It's like two feet from the ball. He gets jams
Speaker 1: and foot into the ground. Yeah. Yeah, he never contacted
Speaker 1: the ball, come within a foot of contacting. They speaking
Speaker 1: as a guy who kicked a thirty five yarder on
Speaker 1: the air. I would like to point out that was
Speaker 1: a I've never seen anything like that. No, it's just
Speaker 1: going through a whole any level of football, not high
Speaker 1: school football. No, no, no.
Speaker 3: If you do that in junior high everyone would laugh
Speaker 3: at you and they would wonder why did you ever
Speaker 3: think you could kick a football?
Speaker 1: Understand again, he planted his plant foot, he swung his foot,
Speaker 1: he hit a foot foot and a half behind the ball,
Speaker 1: never even scared the ball, I mean, and the holders like,
Speaker 1: what the hell do I do?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: He picks the ball up and gets the hell beat
Speaker 1: out of him.
Speaker 3: I was just going through a whole bunch of social
Speaker 3: media stuff from various NFL players through the years who say,
Speaker 3: I have watched eight million of games, I've never seen
Speaker 3: anybody do that before. Yeah, it's hard to imagine the
Speaker 3: equivalent of it. I mean, like, if you're shooting a
Speaker 3: free throw and you turned around and faced the other
Speaker 3: direction and tried to put it in the other basket,
Speaker 3: or are you hitting yourself in the face with it, right,
Speaker 3: It's amazing how there was a play like this in
Speaker 3: the World Series where somebody dropped a pop fly.
Speaker 1: Basically, how professionals who.
Speaker 3: Are the best in the world at it can make
Speaker 3: the you know, I am a sucky athlete, thirteen year
Speaker 3: old mistake sometimes.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, but to drop a fly ball is one thing.
Speaker 1: To stand there and have it like go four feet
Speaker 1: away from your mitan that would be the equivalent to this.
Speaker 1: I'm sure he'll be out trying to explain that guy
Speaker 1: was just cut by another team and he caught on
Speaker 1: with the sucky Sucky Giants. Oh boy boy, I'm like,
Speaker 1: oh the barrel now, I'm just picturing what his teammates
Speaker 1: must have said to him as he was walking back
Speaker 1: to the bench.
Speaker 3: Would there be nothing to say? You don't need to
Speaker 3: say anything. There's nothing you could say. The guy knows
Speaker 3: what he did. His foot hit not even closing the ball.
Speaker 3: He probably about broke his ankle.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll tell you. There's one thing you could say,
Speaker 1: hope you catch on with another team, buddy. Sorry, maybe
Speaker 1: Carr's Gonza. That's what I'd have said to him. Car insurance.
Speaker 1: You ever thought about that? People need car insurance? Be
Speaker 1: that way to make a living.
Speaker 3: Be that guy at Costco that says to people when
Speaker 3: they walk by, hey do you have vinyl sighting?
Speaker 1: Be that guy you know if he's got a smart agent.
Speaker 1: He's trotting him out right now with some sort of
Speaker 1: sometimes just swinging miss badly. And that's when you call
Speaker 1: service master or something. I don't know, something escape anything.
Speaker 5: Apparently the quarterback was on the sideline, Jackson Darty.
Speaker 1: You could see him lipping in the camera. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: I saw that. I saw that. It was just oh
Speaker 1: my god. He turns and then he turns and says
Speaker 1: what and then the mercifully his said has turned. Yes, Yes,
Speaker 1: you got to lean into it. That's exactly it.
Speaker 3: You gotta be on Kimmel tonight, and and you know,
Speaker 3: do something ridiculous and become a household name for that,
Speaker 3: and you'll make your living pitching various products the rest
Speaker 3: of your life. You'll make more then you were ever
Speaker 3: gonna make as a second tier kicker. Right, you need
Speaker 3: to become a household name for the worst kick in
Speaker 3: NFL history.
Speaker 1: Going turn and ads for one of those divorce lawyers.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm young, ho ku did you did you swing
Speaker 1: and miss on your first marriage?
Speaker 3: They get a fair settlement, Jason lawyers bet in a
Speaker 3: car wreck?
Speaker 1: Right? Why this was a car wreck, wasn't it? And
Speaker 1: they show the tape. Yes, if you've been in a
Speaker 1: car wreck, call Joe good if they fight for you.
Speaker 3: We posted that at armstrong in getdy dot com because
Speaker 3: you got it. If you haven't seen the video of
Speaker 3: the Giants kicker missing that field goal, you think we're exaggerating,
Speaker 3: We're not.
Speaker 1: We're we're not doing it justice of how bad that is.
Speaker 1: Missing the field goal hardly is that's really inadequate to
Speaker 1: describe what happened. The ball didn't get off the ground.
Speaker 1: If I you know, the ball wasn't even juststled. No,
Speaker 1: the ball didn't get off the ground. The ball was
Speaker 1: not assaulted, the ball was not contacted. The ball has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with this. It was not part of
Speaker 1: the play. All right, thank god for that. Coming up.
Speaker 1: Two things. Number one, it may be the greatest scam
Speaker 1: ever perpetrated in terms of the dollar value, and it
Speaker 1: was perpetrated against the people of Europe. I will explain.
Speaker 1: And also this, this is so good. The question and
Speaker 1: who is asking it? The question is if I am
Speaker 1: really turned on by a woman's bare feet? Is showing
Speaker 1: me pictures of a woman's bare feet pornography? And who's
Speaker 1: asking it? The irs? I'll try to get past.
Speaker 3: The because I think feet are disgusting and I just
Speaker 3: do not under stand people who are turned.
Speaker 1: On by feet. I'm foot neutraled or handy for walking certainly,
Speaker 1: But so I'll just try to ignore that that you're
Speaker 1: a freaking weirdo if you're turned on by feet, and
Speaker 1: just accept that some people are. You know, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to go too deep in the Getty playbook, but
Speaker 1: a nice foot rob is, you know, it's a nice
Speaker 1: it's a good thing, right al or anti that you
Speaker 1: refuse to indulge their or what I mean, you don't
Speaker 1: have to getting or giving giving. I'd rather not. I
Speaker 1: think feet are gross. Wow wow wow, Katie high Seval.
Speaker 1: You can sigh heavily enroll your eyes, or you could
Speaker 1: step up to the mic, your idiot, jack. Feet are
Speaker 1: just disgusting. They should always be covered. Do you look
Speaker 1: at yours every day and go ew keep them away
Speaker 1: from people? But the coming up the irs wants to
Speaker 1: know if feet turn you on? Is that porn?
Speaker 3: I know somebody I know a woman who became aware
Speaker 3: of the fact that one of her male co workers,
Speaker 3: if she were if she was barefoot in like you know, uh,
Speaker 3: attractive footwear at work, that that male coworker stared at
Speaker 3: her feet all the time, oh boy. And it kind
Speaker 3: of became people and the people. Other people became aware
Speaker 3: that man, oh boy, he's really going to be checking
Speaker 3: you out today, Like you know, if she showed up
Speaker 3: in open toed sandals of some.
Speaker 1: Sort, man, everybody with some sort of quasi lesbian look
Speaker 1: from then on and go hiking boots and sick woolen
Speaker 1: sucks every day.
Speaker 3: Because apparently he was obvious about it, that other people
Speaker 3: in the workplace were aware that, oh boy, Jim's going
Speaker 3: to be staring at your feet today, you know that sort.
Speaker 1: Of Oh that's uncomfortable. Yeah, that's that's terrible. But it's
Speaker 1: well for us.
Speaker 3: For somebody who's like in defeat, it's the equivalent of
Speaker 3: wearing you know, a tube top or something, I guess
Speaker 3: for somebody who's in the battle.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so yeah, yes, please, it's not your fault, all right.
Speaker 1: So I will explain that that confusing story coming up
Speaker 1: after a brief break. But our friends at Prize Picks
Speaker 1: want to remind you that Prize Picks is the easiest,
Speaker 1: most fun way to get into fantasy sports. You see,
Speaker 1: all you do is pick two players and you can
Speaker 1: combine sports if you want. Your lineup can have a
Speaker 1: basketball player and a football player, for instance, and you
Speaker 1: just pick more or less on the stat projections for
Speaker 1: at least two players.
Speaker 3: For instance, did you go more or less field goal
Speaker 3: kickers who would kick into the ground three feet from
Speaker 3: the ball. I actually don't think they had as an option,
Speaker 3: but if they had, you might have done.
Speaker 1: Well. Yeah, the more or less could have been the
Speaker 1: ball and move one inch. It didn't anyway. Prize Picks
Speaker 1: is super cool. You can make your picks on fantasy
Speaker 1: score free throws, made field goal attempted at even turnovers.
Speaker 1: A couple of players really stack up their free throws.
Speaker 1: That's interesting. Anyway, download the prize picks at today and
Speaker 1: use the code Armstrong. You get fifty dollars in lineups
Speaker 1: after you play your first five dollars lineup. As the
Speaker 1: code armstrong, you get fifty dollars in lineups to play
Speaker 1: around with for just playing a five dollar lineup. You
Speaker 1: don't have to win. It's automatic prize picks. It's good
Speaker 1: to be right.
Speaker 3: So the whole Pete Heggzeth guys in the Boat second
Speaker 3: Strike thing. We talked about it early in the show.
Speaker 3: Then we had Mike lions On talking about it, and
Speaker 3: we've gotten so many texts about it. We'll maybe get
Speaker 3: some of those an hour three. Seems to be a
Speaker 3: hot topic for y'all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess, wow, Okay, Yeah, I'm surprised. I thought
Speaker 1: we dealt with it just plenty, a lot of plenty
Speaker 1: and a half. But people are crazy into it.
Speaker 3: Fair amount of partisan breakdown, and I think that's true
Speaker 3: in the media also, like Mike Lein said that, you know,
Speaker 3: there's a lot of Democrats that would just love to
Speaker 3: get a scalp with Pete hegseeth having to resign. That
Speaker 3: would I've never understood this kind of partisan ship where
Speaker 3: if you make somebody from the other party resign, like, Wow,
Speaker 3: we've really got them, now, don't I don't understand that?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, what do you think Trump's gonna point AOC
Speaker 1: to the post Now He's gonna point another hardcore pro
Speaker 1: defense Republican.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't. I don't understand that level of politics.
Speaker 3: But anyway, we got that a lot of other stuff
Speaker 3: on the ways to hear our three, We're gonna talk
Speaker 3: to someone covering the Luigi trial. That scumbag murderer I
Speaker 3: did just re saw the video. God, that guy needs
Speaker 3: to if we had if we're gonna have a death penalty,
Speaker 3: that guy should be executed.
Speaker 1: But he's handsome, and some people are unhappy about their
Speaker 1: health insurance, so we should murder young dads, say people
Speaker 1: who ought have he denied the effing vote immediately morons? Anyway,
Speaker 1: So remember when Trump promised to exempt tips from taxes
Speaker 1: to win Nevada. It was a clever political ploy and
Speaker 1: then it was passed into law. This past summer creates
Speaker 1: a number of challenges though, uh, the tax break does
Speaker 1: not exempt tips from taxes entirely, but it's incentive for
Speaker 1: people to earn more of them obviously lost pass and
Speaker 1: people adjust their behavior to them tax laws especially, that's
Speaker 1: one thing liberals never get anyway. To avoid some sort
Speaker 1: of giant economy wide shift of earnings into tips, the
Speaker 1: IRS and the Treasury have imposed some limits. Only people
Speaker 1: who work jobs that have customarily and regularly received tips
Speaker 1: can claim the deduction, like talk show hosts. Exactly, yeah,
Speaker 1: we've started to go fund me. No we haven't anyway,
Speaker 1: so on a list of nearly seventy eligible occupations under
Speaker 1: the IRS list detailed in a proposed regulation in September
Speaker 1: where digital content creators, entertainers and performers and dancers categories
Speaker 1: that are to be a boon for America's sex workers.
Speaker 1: Everybody's thinking, yes, all these tips that I get online
Speaker 1: are now tax free.
Speaker 3: Oh, I didn't know what administration. Yes, I didn't know
Speaker 3: what you meant by digital content creators. I thought that
Speaker 3: those people get tips. You mean only fans people.
Speaker 1: Among others. Yeah, okay, well there's a hell of a
Speaker 1: lot of different digital content, but sure, yeah, but the
Speaker 1: Trump administration then added the tips for prostitution or pornographic
Speaker 1: activity quote unquote would not be entitled to the new
Speaker 1: tax break. Okay, so obviously that was a disappointment, or
Speaker 1: at least or a head scratcher too.
Speaker 3: People post, hey, that's some nice fornicating. Here's twenty percent.
Speaker 3: I'm disappointed in that fornicating. I'll give you a fifteen
Speaker 3: percent tip, but try harder. Well, that's that's how it works.
Speaker 3: That's precisely how it works for the online performance.
Speaker 1: You call it. Take for the coins are well, I
Speaker 1: try to understand stories before I launch into them. So anyway, Oh,
Speaker 1: so where were we? Oh? Okay, So people who post
Speaker 1: sexually explicit or even just sensual comments on platforms like
Speaker 1: only Fans where users leave tips aren't quite sure where
Speaker 1: to where this is going now. Performers in the adult
Speaker 1: entertainment industry already face difficulties accessing basic financial services. They
Speaker 1: know idea, but that's another difficulty. It certainly is. But
Speaker 1: nobody's sure how restrictions on pornographic activity would actually work
Speaker 1: because the IRS, like the rest of us, has not
Speaker 1: yet elaborated on which activities it would consider pornographic. It's unclear,
Speaker 1: for instance, whether strippers could claim the tips deductions. How
Speaker 1: about exotic dancers who just lose their top. How about
Speaker 1: those who take off their top in their bottom? Plenty
Speaker 1: of activity, an accountan or tax lawyer could argue is
Speaker 1: merely titillating and not pornographic. Where's the line? How about
Speaker 1: some girl who does yoga in a bikini? How about
Speaker 1: some gal or guy who just shows their feet to
Speaker 1: people who get super turned on by feet. They are
Speaker 1: getting sexual gratification from it, yet is it pornographic? And
Speaker 1: can you deny them the right to deduct those tips
Speaker 1: from their taxes? Ought somebody do yoga and tights and
Speaker 1: giving them tips? You know?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean I realize you'd like to write some
Speaker 1: sort of ironclad list of what you should be turned
Speaker 1: on by and whatnot and publish that as some sort
Speaker 1: of bible. I find the tax what is porn? Question
Speaker 1: to be more interesting? But whatever? All right? Moving along?
Speaker 1: Perhaps the greatest scam in the history of mankind. The
Speaker 1: people of Europe, those poor bastards. They've all got to
Speaker 1: learn like three four languages. What we've changed subjects? I
Speaker 1: was not dragging. We're on a different subject here, yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: on a different topic. European politicians told their voters, we
Speaker 1: go with this big green energy thing. We'll have green
Speaker 1: jobs and cheap, abundant solar and wind energy, also a
Speaker 1: sharp production in carbon emissions, and the poor Euros, having
Speaker 1: learned three or four languages, got screwed. We're two decades
Speaker 1: in and energy prices have skyrocketed. They've caught their they've
Speaker 1: cut their carbon emissions. Great, yeah, China and India, like,
Speaker 1: that's cute way to go, idiots. Yeah, they've cut their
Speaker 1: carbon emissions by more than any other region, thirty percent
Speaker 1: compared to seventeen percent for US. But listen to their
Speaker 1: energy prices, which you and people who pay high energy
Speaker 1: prices in the US, you think you're getting hosed. Now,
Speaker 1: granted these are national averages, and somebody's getting hosed. That
Speaker 1: does count as pornography if they're doing yoga. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure certainly the US. In the US, we pay and
Speaker 1: this is an average. So if you're in you know, Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: it's different than California. You pay eight point one CeNSE
Speaker 1: per kiloodd hour eight cents in the In the UK
Speaker 1: they're paying thirty four cents.
Speaker 3: Wow a kiloodd hour I that it was crazy high
Speaker 3: because of their zero policies.
Speaker 1: I didn't know it was that much, so it's quadruple.
Speaker 1: Italy's a little behind that at twenty nine, Germany twenty seven,
Speaker 1: Poland twenties five ish, France twenty one ish. But yeah,
Speaker 1: unfreaking believable. Charles Seacook of National Review. He's from England.
Speaker 3: He regularly talks about how much cheaper everything is in
Speaker 3: the United States, and people in the United States.
Speaker 1: Don't realize it.
Speaker 3: It's just so much cheaper just to live compared to Europe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Germany now has the highest domestic electricity prices in
Speaker 1: the developed world. There's also industrial energy prices, which complicates
Speaker 1: this a little bit. Well. The UK is the highest
Speaker 1: industrial electricity rates. Average electricity prices for heavy industries in
Speaker 1: the European Union remain roughly twice those in the US
Speaker 1: and fifty percent higher in China. No wonder their economy
Speaker 1: suck and energy prices have grown more volatile as the
Speaker 1: share of renewables increased, so they skyrocket up and down,
Speaker 1: crippling industry, hobbling Europe's ability to attract key economic drivers
Speaker 1: like AI, which requires cheap and abundant electricity. They just
Speaker 1: got ripped off, defrauded.
Speaker 3: So I got a question, Yeah, so is the Trump
Speaker 3: administration arguing for more of those places to count as
Speaker 3: tips or fewer of those places of activities to kind
Speaker 3: of tips like the person doing yoga and stretching on
Speaker 3: camera for people who want to watch them do yoga.
Speaker 3: Are they trying to get that included or trying not
Speaker 3: to They're trying to guess, I would guess they're trying
Speaker 3: to minimize the number of people who could deduct tips,
Speaker 3: just for revenue reasons, like any deduction. I thought they
Speaker 3: were going to try to broaden it just to include
Speaker 3: as many people as possible, but they already you know,
Speaker 3: he's not running for election again, so he doesn't need
Speaker 3: to do that again.
Speaker 1: Right right, So now you make these political promises and
Speaker 1: the IRS has to figure out and you know, a
Speaker 1: more mundane example of it is, all right, what is
Speaker 1: a work expense? Is?
Speaker 3: Are there going to become court cases like trying to
Speaker 3: figure out whether or not somebody's showing their feet?
Speaker 1: If people are turned on, they will have to be right,
Speaker 1: A judge will have to decide right, Uh, yeah, unless
Speaker 1: the IRS goes super liberal on that sort of stuff.
Speaker 1: But yeah, absolutely could end up in court. Wow, I
Speaker 1: have shown one breast your honor, one breast less. Is
Speaker 1: not porn. This is not porn. That is really anatomy.
Speaker 3: We get a lot more of the way if you
Speaker 3: miss a segment or now or get a podcast Armstrong
Speaker 3: and getting on