Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe, Katty Armstrong and
Speaker 1: Jetty and he arms get it the Frum studio scene
Speaker 1: SEEZ and your It's a dimly lit room deep within
Speaker 1: the bowels of the Armstrong and Getty Communications compound. Is
Speaker 1: it already Thursday? The short weeks hit fly by Today
Speaker 1: we're under the tutelage of our general manager. I warned you,
Speaker 1: I warned you. I warned you. I warned you as
Speaker 1: our general That's why wait, I've warned you. I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what I warned you about after I get done
Speaker 1: saying I warned you, our general manager this morning. The
Speaker 1: Court of International Trade. Oh, only one major radio show,
Speaker 1: Slide Podcast, told you about the Court of International Trade
Speaker 1: a week or two ago. You probably tuned out because
Speaker 1: it was a fairly dull segment buyers standards. But it
Speaker 1: was necessary. It was dullassary, It was vegetable, dull, yet necessary,
Speaker 1: dul dulassary. The Court of International Trade has said, no,
Speaker 1: the President doesn't have emergency powers to levy all these tariffs.
Speaker 1: That all is done. Whoa way to hang on the agreements,
Speaker 1: does sum in progress some allegedly what all the tariff
Speaker 1: stuff is off. First of all, we got to use
Speaker 1: the term dolossary more often. We might even have to
Speaker 1: set aside a segment a day now, the dolossary segment.
Speaker 1: It's dull, but it's very important. As an American, you
Speaker 1: should know this exactly. Let's consider that it's the eating
Speaker 1: your vegetables. Finish that and then we can have a
Speaker 1: cookie or something. Yeah, two things on that one. From
Speaker 1: the very beginning, it's been astounding to me that one man,
Speaker 1: not Trump, just any one man could rattle world economy
Speaker 1: that way with his own personal decisions and then wake
Speaker 1: up in the morning and think, nah, it should be
Speaker 1: one hundred and five percent or never mind. I mean,
Speaker 1: one guy being able to do that just doesn't seem
Speaker 1: like the right system periodically, given the fact that a
Speaker 1: tariff is a tax, plain and simple. It's attacks on imports.
Speaker 1: And then secondly, Congress has the right to tax, though
Speaker 1: they have like virtually all of their other rights and
Speaker 1: duties given them over to the executive branch. Because they're
Speaker 1: a bunch of cowards. They are cards. They don't want
Speaker 1: to take a vote on anything. The other part being, hey,
Speaker 1: international Trade Court, with your three judges, what were you
Speaker 1: busy on the left the last two months? That was
Speaker 1: more important than this? Why did it take care get
Speaker 1: this long to get around to this? They were getting
Speaker 1: their ducks in a row, good American made ducks, by
Speaker 1: the way, not for it. You can't get parts for
Speaker 1: them now. They stick to the bottom of the pond,
Speaker 1: right exactly, their toxic Yeah. The Court of International Trade
Speaker 1: blocked one of the Trump administration's most aud assertions of
Speaker 1: executive power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy seven, and they said, in short, the Court
Speaker 1: does not read the Emergency Act to confer such unbounded
Speaker 1: authority and sets aside the challenge tariffs imposed there under.
Speaker 1: That goes now to the circuit courts of appeals and
Speaker 1: then the Supreme Court. This is not some sort of
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's the first and last Court of
Speaker 1: International Trade. It can be appealed and certainly will be.
Speaker 1: Of course, the media, mainstream media, and they're covering of
Speaker 1: this is all about Trump didn't get what he wants,
Speaker 1: So we're happy with this court ruling, even though the
Speaker 1: mainstream media is left and lefties have been talking about
Speaker 1: tariffs as they answer to everything my whole life. So
Speaker 1: it's kind of a reverse thingy they don't they care
Speaker 1: more about Trump losing than the things that they generally
Speaker 1: like or don't like. And then also the other end
Speaker 1: of it is in case well and every time Biden
Speaker 1: trampled on the Constitution, they celebrated it, right, And the
Speaker 1: other end of it is, in case you didn't know this,
Speaker 1: almost every conserve real conservative that I like didn't like
Speaker 1: the idea of a president being able to have this
Speaker 1: much power. Oh right, yeah, I mean, and y'all should agree.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine, because there will be a Democrat in
Speaker 1: the White House at some point or another party because
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is in terrible shape. But and if
Speaker 1: they wield this sort of you know, crazy executive power
Speaker 1: to tax and just throw economies into turmoil, I mean,
Speaker 1: President AOC. Jack has brought up this example before. President
Speaker 1: AOC could declare income inequality a national emergency in the
Speaker 1: way that Trump has declared trade imbalances as a national emergency,
Speaker 1: and then President AOC could dictate enormous changes to the
Speaker 1: economy and trade practices and whatever in the name of
Speaker 1: income equality, or all kinds of things you would hate
Speaker 1: around a climate emergency. Yeah, you get a bad hurricane
Speaker 1: claim that's proof of climate change and all kinds of
Speaker 1: crazy rules and laws, or the school shooting and you
Speaker 1: decide clearly a national emergency, all kinds of things we
Speaker 1: got to do on taking away guns. You're right, don't
Speaker 1: it right? There's lots of easy examples from the left
Speaker 1: you could use if you're going to be okay with
Speaker 1: presidents and executive orders and using emergencies for their justification. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Trump's doing a lot of great stuff that I love.
Speaker 1: I've tried to make that very very clear. But we
Speaker 1: had a lot yesterday, a very long list yesterday if
Speaker 1: you missed it, but Trump, I'm sorry. Oh, the founding
Speaker 1: Papas were absolutely right. They knew you, not you necessarily,
Speaker 1: but you know, people they want a king. They want
Speaker 1: a king because they think, wow, a king could really
Speaker 1: get the stuff done that I want them to do.
Speaker 1: But here's the problem. And if I have to tell
Speaker 1: you the problem, you should go back to I don't know,
Speaker 1: fifth grade civics class that or read a little bit
Speaker 1: of history or something. That sort of executive power is abused.
Speaker 1: Let's see what percentage of the time one hundred. It's tempting,
Speaker 1: but you don't want it again. I ask, hey, International
Speaker 1: Court of Trade, Court of International Trade? How did this
Speaker 1: not r I as I refer to it. How did
Speaker 1: this not rise to the top of your to do
Speaker 1: box above? Wait? No, no, we got to decide whether
Speaker 1: Belgian yarn falls under the rules were American yarn? No?
Speaker 1: Pass on all that stuff and get to the global
Speaker 1: trade has been changed for all of history or not.
Speaker 1: But anyway, you're just gonna pee all over Belgian yarn.
Speaker 1: Let's see it. That's why you're not on the Court
Speaker 1: of International Trade. I'm looking forward to it. Just came
Speaker 1: across this. I just saw our friend Tim Sandifer retweeted it.
Speaker 1: We have Tim Sanderfer, a great legal mind, on the
Speaker 1: show later this morning to talk about a number of things,
Speaker 1: including Supreme Court releases their most controversial rulings in June,
Speaker 1: which starts here in a couple of days, and so
Speaker 1: we got that to look forward to. Any who. He
Speaker 1: retweeted a George Will column from today from Washington Post
Speaker 1: that says the Trump administration is the most progressive in
Speaker 1: US history in terms of its politics. So maybe We'll
Speaker 1: take a look wi to see what that means. I
Speaker 1: don't know what that means. From the headline, we should
Speaker 1: start the show officially. I'm Jack Armstrong. He's Joe Getty
Speaker 1: on this it is Thursday, May twenty ninth, year twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, or Armstrong and getting with this program. I
Speaker 1: think he probably just means using aggressive executive power to
Speaker 1: reshape the country in one particular, you know vision. All right,
Speaker 1: let's speak in the show officially now. According to FCC
Speaker 1: rules and regulations, lay in truth bombs on you one
Speaker 1: after another. Here we go at Mark, like to stay
Speaker 1: on topic here, But squirrel? Squirrel? Where squirrel? Riley Green's like,
Speaker 1: who invited Rocky? He can get in, he can get out,
Speaker 1: he can go wherever he wants. Oh, look at that,
Speaker 1: he's in the bullpen with the guys down there. Yeah
Speaker 1: he is, Well, what's Tyler halting? Come? Everybody?
Speaker 2: All?
Speaker 1: Tyler gets left, He's and Wright he's out. But not
Speaker 1: squirrels and a squirrel in the field at a baseball game.
Speaker 1: That was our opening clip. Delightful, absolutely so. Tariff policy
Speaker 1: and obscure court rulings and squirrels on baseball face. That's
Speaker 1: the Armstrong and Getty show. Squirrel you know you got
Speaker 1: one hundred and sixty two damn games right based on
Speaker 1: the field, It's right, exactly need more squirrels. You know what,
Speaker 1: Chuck's beavers, whatever, any sort of and looks like a
Speaker 1: giraffe is running across centerfield. Will that thing can really move? Well,
Speaker 1: it would be awesome in a boring late May game
Speaker 1: that is meaningless a giraffe anything? Or or how about streakers?
Speaker 1: Whatever happened to streakers? Streak? We're surrounded by porn in
Speaker 1: the modern world. Whatever happened to drop and trow and
Speaker 1: running around a base? You know what I think it is?
Speaker 1: I remember from the seventies streakers they were always very fit.
Speaker 1: I think we're all too fat. And what's the point. Oh,
Speaker 1: there's a naked person porn everywhere. You're right, it's not shocking.
Speaker 1: You're right about that. So we got to get to
Speaker 1: some headlines coming up. We got mail bag this hour,
Speaker 1: more news of the day. That is a giant story
Speaker 1: that for the most part, the whole tariff thing is
Speaker 1: over TFN. But I suspect the appeals and Supreme courts
Speaker 1: will uphold the ruling of the he scrolls down, reminding
Speaker 1: himself Court of International Trade. I am very unhappy be
Speaker 1: with how much glee so much of the media is
Speaker 1: taking in Elon Musk stepping away from his government role.
Speaker 1: That's not good. It's not good. Yay, he failed. What
Speaker 1: why are you happy about? Simultaneously, and this shows the
Speaker 1: depth of their stupidity and hypocrisy, Simultaneously they're thrilled to
Speaker 1: report he has problems with the big beautiful bill. Right,
Speaker 1: what are those problems, morons? It's that the government has
Speaker 1: bloated and overspends, which you've been pushing your entire careers.
Speaker 1: But no, now you're happy because it's criticizing Trump. Seriously,
Speaker 1: these people have the intelligence of goldfish. I think. More importantly,
Speaker 1: they have the integrity of goldfish. Well, goldfish might be
Speaker 1: very high integrity. I don't actually know. I see your point, though,
Speaker 1: they have little or no integrity compared to gold vis.
Speaker 1: Guess whatever animal metaphor you prefer. Okay, so we got
Speaker 1: lots of the ways.
Speaker 3: Stay here, Hey, somebody's run out on the field, some
Speaker 3: goofball and a half and a red shirt. Now he
Speaker 3: takes off the shirt. He's running down the middle by
Speaker 3: the fifty he's at the thirty. He's bear chested and
Speaker 3: banging his chest. Now he runs the opposite away, he
Speaker 3: runs with the fifty, he runs the forty.
Speaker 1: The guy is drunk. But there he goes there twenty.
Speaker 1: They're chasing him. They're not gonna get him.
Speaker 3: Breathing his arms, bear chested, somebody's topping there.
Speaker 1: Here comes the blue coke. Oh they got him.
Speaker 3: Here comes the Oh they tackle him at the forty
Speaker 3: yard line.
Speaker 1: Oh, that was the most exciting thing that happened tonight.
Speaker 1: I'd tell you what. That was a great call on
Speaker 1: your pump. That was a great call. No, man, he
Speaker 1: deserves a seat at the right hand of God for
Speaker 1: that alone. Presidential Medal of Freedom. That's my suggestion. Great
Speaker 1: stay here. The last living grandson of President John Tyler
Speaker 1: has died, Yes he has. The reason that is significant
Speaker 1: is that has often been used as an example of
Speaker 1: how few generations you can go back in time, as
Speaker 1: his grandfather was born in seventeen ninety, you know, at
Speaker 1: the time of George Washington of the United States, was
Speaker 1: born when George Washington was president, and his grandson, last
Speaker 1: grandson just died. Doesn't take many generations to go really
Speaker 1: far back in time, right, especially if you've got a
Speaker 1: family that knocks out kids really really old, which is
Speaker 1: what happened, and it has him a little bit later but
Speaker 1: in life than normal. But yeah, you can jump back
Speaker 1: pretty fast. It's interesting. Yeah, the point certainly remains. Although
Speaker 1: in the case of the Tyler family, President Tyler himself
Speaker 1: was sixty three when he had a son, and that
Speaker 1: son was seventy five when he had a son. Really, Okay,
Speaker 1: well this is an extreme example, then yes, because I
Speaker 1: consider having a kid at seventy five damn near criminal.
Speaker 1: Well that is seventy five's literally three generations. So dude
Speaker 1: himself took up three generations, so we are still a
Speaker 1: young country. The point remains, but it's not quite as
Speaker 1: amazing as it sounds. That's a decent point. Taking the
Speaker 1: magic out of things, that's what I do. No, that's
Speaker 1: not interesting. And here's magic out of things. No, that's
Speaker 1: not funny. And here's why. No, you shouldn't be happy.
Speaker 1: And here's why I'm strong and getty. Taking the magic
Speaker 1: out of things. He heard a headline that fills you
Speaker 1: with joy or awe, here's why you're wrong, stomping the
Speaker 1: magic out of life. I'm strong in Getty Show. Speaking
Speaker 1: of Witch, here's your first headline. AI could wipe out
Speaker 1: half of all entry level, white colored jobs and spy
Speaker 1: unemployment by ten to twenty percent within five years. Warren's
Speaker 1: the CEO of AI Giant Anthropic. Yeah, man, I didn't read.
Speaker 1: There's a piece in the New Yorker where a leading
Speaker 1: AI expert who's on the side of it's not gonna
Speaker 1: be near as big a deal as you think writes
Speaker 1: an essay, and then a leading AI expert who says
Speaker 1: this is going to change everything. Hold on, buckle up,
Speaker 1: writes an essay. And I haven't read it yet. I
Speaker 1: guess it's it's it's pretty pretty well thought out on
Speaker 1: both sides. But one point I heard the other day
Speaker 1: is one out of ten workers does some sort of
Speaker 1: driving job. One out of ten, So whether truck drivers, Uber,
Speaker 1: you know, Amazon delivery, just all kinds of different things. Bus. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I could go on and on, but you could probably
Speaker 1: use your own imagination driving. I mean that alone, if
Speaker 1: self driving comes along, you disrupt ten percent of jobs,
Speaker 1: that would be huge, and it's going to be significantly
Speaker 1: more than just driving. So this chap told Axios that
Speaker 1: companies and the government must stop sugar coating the threat
Speaker 1: and prepare for mass disruption and tech law and finance.
Speaker 1: As my kid is halfway through law school, or a
Speaker 1: third of the way, most people are unaware of this
Speaker 1: is about to happen, he said. It sounds crazy. Another headline,
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio, Secretary of State among other duties, announced last
Speaker 1: evening that the US will begin revoking visas of Chinese students,
Speaker 1: including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party. You're
Speaker 1: studying in critical fields. I know this is headlines and
Speaker 1: we're not supposed to go deep on these, but back
Speaker 1: to the AI thing briefly. It just was just thinking,
Speaker 1: ruminating about it. If it's going to disrupt the entire world, yeah,
Speaker 1: we can take a minute. It's just ruminating while you
Speaker 1: were talking. So are people who have like school age
Speaker 1: kids like I do. Ten years from now, are twenty
Speaker 1: something kids going to be living in our house as
Speaker 1: we all just try to figure out the way the
Speaker 1: new world works and what they're gonna do or how
Speaker 1: they're gonna do it, or what government program is going
Speaker 1: to pay them to stay home or oh my god,
Speaker 1: there is a significant chance that that is indeed, we will.
Speaker 1: Holy crap. And by significant, I don't mean and I'm
Speaker 1: not an expert in the field obviously, but by significant,
Speaker 1: I don't mean like ten percent. I mean like forty
Speaker 1: re emphasizing that the actual experts differ in the timeline
Speaker 1: on this, but there is a decent chunk of them
Speaker 1: that think it's coming really soon. Yeah. Yeah. As we
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier, if you're just tuning in the US Court
Speaker 1: of International Trade, that is a thing blocked Trump from
Speaker 1: imposing all of his more severe tariffs on imports from
Speaker 1: countries like China and Mexico. Canada Justice Apartment says it'll peel.
Speaker 1: It goes up to the circuit course and then the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, But for now, all the big tariff stuff
Speaker 1: is off. It is off. Another headline that I like
Speaker 1: is it looks like Trump told net and Yahoo know,
Speaker 1: we ain't going to help you bomb Iran, and don't
Speaker 1: you bomb Iran because we're close to a piece deal
Speaker 1: and he waved off Netan Yaho nuts. Whether or not
Speaker 1: Israel acts alone, we don't know, And whether we are
Speaker 1: indeed close to a piece deal, it's tough to say,
Speaker 1: because Trump usually comes off very positive. Yeah. No, doubt
Speaker 1: about that. We got a lot more. I hope you
Speaker 1: can stay here, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2: But the paper itself, she was citing real books, but
Speaker 2: the quotes did not exist. The page numbers were the
Speaker 2: citing page seven hundred in the book only had three
Speaker 2: hundred pages.
Speaker 1: So that's a professor on the lead with Jake Tapper
Speaker 1: on CNN talking about a student who used a AI
Speaker 1: on their paper. Well, that's that makes the news. I
Speaker 1: have a feeling that here at the end of the
Speaker 1: school year about eighty to ninety percent of papers have
Speaker 1: at least used AI for something, if not a lot
Speaker 1: of the paper. I would be shocked if that wasn't
Speaker 1: the case. Well, I think he'd be a fool if
Speaker 1: you didn't use it for a list of good sources
Speaker 1: and or proposed structure for the paper. I'm in the
Speaker 1: habit thanks to you bringing it up now, of I
Speaker 1: go to it before I go to Google for most things,
Speaker 1: and it is so good and thorough, it's just absolutely amazing.
Speaker 1: I've got it on the front page of my phone
Speaker 1: now because it's my go to if I got a
Speaker 1: question about anything. It's just so good at getting there.
Speaker 1: But to that point of cheating. You brought this up
Speaker 1: last week, this hilarious story of this Harvard professor writing
Speaker 1: a paper about dishonesty in which she stole and or
Speaker 1: made up facts. She did both. I'm sorry, I must quittle.
Speaker 1: She is one of the leading scholars in the field.
Speaker 1: This is multiple major projects that have attracted huge attention
Speaker 1: through the years she was making. This came out today.
Speaker 1: She was making at Harvard Francesca Gino a million dollars
Speaker 1: a year. She was one of their highest paid faculty.
Speaker 1: She was a giant in the field. She was making
Speaker 1: a million dollars a year as a behavioral scientist at
Speaker 1: Harvard Business School, and she got fired for fabricating data
Speaker 1: on her studies focused on dishonesty, which is just too much.
Speaker 1: A million dollars a year, These freaking frauds. Yeah, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: and she's she's counter student claiming all sorts of stuff.
Speaker 1: But you've got these rogue rogues, is that the right word.
Speaker 1: These crusading scholars who go through all sorts of scholarship,
Speaker 1: and they use algorithmic analysis of the data to find
Speaker 1: suspicious patterns, and when they find it, they dig into
Speaker 1: it further and they've identified all sorts of fraudulent academia
Speaker 1: or academic work. You know, you combine that with the
Speaker 1: utter ridiculousness of the so called soft sciences, as James
Speaker 1: Lindsay and Helen Pluckrowse and Peter Bogosien pointed out famously
Speaker 1: a few years ago, how much well, okay, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: And then to finish the delicious stew of stupid, you
Speaker 1: combine that with all the woke crap that's being taught
Speaker 1: on campuses, the federal subsidies to higher education, which has
Speaker 1: made it suffocatingly expensive. I mean, our university system could
Speaker 1: not be more diseased. And it used to be the
Speaker 1: envy of the world. Man, Harvard is to fallen in
Speaker 1: terms of the way people think about Harvard a lot
Speaker 1: in the last five to ten years, for a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of different reasons. This is the first professor that's
Speaker 1: with tenure that's been fired since the forties. That alone
Speaker 1: is probably a problem. You're gonna tell me there's not
Speaker 1: one professor in the last eighty years that has deserved
Speaker 1: to be fired. Okay. I think there's it's a great
Speaker 1: truth there, and it's still forming in my head. Harvard
Speaker 1: has gone from a place that achieved greatness because it
Speaker 1: was so academically rigorous, to a place that has preserved
Speaker 1: its greatness by pretending nothing's wrong. So I think in
Speaker 1: the years that built Harvard, which is like the year
Speaker 1: sixteen eighty on, they would have heaved professors out for
Speaker 1: being fraudulent or dishonest right and left. That's how they
Speaker 1: became great. But now that they are great, to protect
Speaker 1: that greatness, it's another facet or it's like a tangent
Speaker 1: to the iron law of bureaucracy. Harvard is now a
Speaker 1: giant self protecting bureaucracy. The vast majority of people there
Speaker 1: do not get up in the morning with the aim
Speaker 1: of pursuing academic excellence. They get up in the morning
Speaker 1: with the aim of protecting Harvard. I know this. First
Speaker 1: of all, this is hurtful to sever of people. I
Speaker 1: know I hope aren't listening, but and I know what
Speaker 1: their response would be. I gotta believe the vast majority
Speaker 1: of published papers are crap, useless crap that's only for
Speaker 1: each other, and nobody reads we know statistically that's true.
Speaker 1: Nobody ever cites or reads them. It's just it's like
Speaker 1: a it's like an internal make it justify each other's
Speaker 1: existence organization that they've built. Correct. Yeah, well, you're so
Speaker 1: fond of good Heart's law, speaking of the great laws
Speaker 1: that govern the universe, where if a measure becomes a standard,
Speaker 1: it ceases to be it ceases to be valid as
Speaker 1: a measure. Yeah. Well, if I've got to publish what
Speaker 1: happened for papers a year? I have gone from a
Speaker 1: guy who published papers because they ought to be published
Speaker 1: because there's good research and data and people should know
Speaker 1: this stuff too. Ah crap, I gotta do four papers,
Speaker 1: all right? What am I gonna do this week? But
Speaker 1: this particular paper that one launched her getting investigated and
Speaker 1: losing her million dollar a year job. She had done
Speaker 1: a study claiming that requiring people to sign an honesty
Speaker 1: pledge at the beginning of a form, rather than the end,
Speaker 1: boosted honest responses, which I actually think probably is true.
Speaker 1: You made me say again, so have you ever I've
Speaker 1: filled out tons of papers. I'm sure you have at
Speaker 1: the end where you swear that everything you just said
Speaker 1: was true. Oh yeah, okay, putting that at the beginning
Speaker 1: of the of the form makes it more likely or honest.
Speaker 1: I'll but that's true. That makes sense to me, makes
Speaker 1: perfect sense. How doing you do it at the end
Speaker 1: is kind of odd? Actually, yeah, yeah, she a number
Speaker 1: of her studies were really interesting in thought provoking. They're
Speaker 1: about dishonesty and and you know, I read the descriptions
Speaker 1: of them and thought, wow, that's that's really disappointing that
Speaker 1: she may have faked up the dad, because that's a
Speaker 1: really important revelation about humankind. But also it's also kind
Speaker 1: of funny though, as we were just saying, these papers
Speaker 1: they disappear into the world of justifying each other's existences.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean anything to the rest of the humanity.
Speaker 1: So the fact that you get fired for you know,
Speaker 1: copying somebody else's who cares. I mean, ultimately, it doesn't
Speaker 1: make any difference unless you're gonna tear the whole thing down,
Speaker 1: which I'd be all for. And to remake a point
Speaker 1: have made before, the idea that occasionally these woke professors
Speaker 1: in your fake fields of study, gender studies, you know, ethnics, whatever,
Speaker 1: that they plagiarized. Of course they plagiarized. The entire field
Speaker 1: is repeating the cult's talking points. That's how you become
Speaker 1: a giant in the field. By repeating the doctrine of woke.
Speaker 1: So of course they're plagiary. They're not supposed to innovate.
Speaker 1: That's the last thing they're supposed to do and has
Speaker 1: been well document And it also, if you go against
Speaker 1: the prevailing narrative on whatever topic it is, you got
Speaker 1: no chance. You got to go along with the prevailing narrative.
Speaker 1: See climate change as an example. There's not a chance
Speaker 1: you're gonna get anywhere being a scientist who says, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not exactly sure it is getting that warm that fast.
Speaker 1: That's no money, No, there's not. That's not gonna get
Speaker 1: you anywhere. I had one other thing to say about this.
Speaker 1: I want to point out what was it? And I
Speaker 1: publish the paper on truth and mine. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't pop back in it. Iron Lobby got good
Speaker 1: hearts long so on a completely different topic. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to find the numbers I had the other day. It's
Speaker 1: probably more trouble. I I did want to point this,
Speaker 1: that's such a progressive thing. Though the other people shouldn't lie.
Speaker 1: It's very important people be honest. I, however, am so smart.
Speaker 1: I can handle the you know, the fudging around the edges.
Speaker 1: But only people like me can do that. That's the
Speaker 1: exact you know, free speech. I can determine what speech
Speaker 1: should be. Okay, not on because my vote, my motives
Speaker 1: are so pure, My motives are pure, and my judgment
Speaker 1: is so good. Yeah. Anybody who says that I immediately
Speaker 1: know their motives suck and their judgment is worse. On
Speaker 1: a similar topic, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, that's one
Speaker 1: of like four titles he has announced Wednesday evening that
Speaker 1: the Trump administration would work to aggressively revoke visas of
Speaker 1: Chinese students, including those with ties to the Chinese Communists Party,
Speaker 1: are those who are studying in critical fields. He did
Speaker 1: not nail down exactly what it meant to have quote
Speaker 1: unquote ties to the Communist Party or what the critical
Speaker 1: fields were, although I think we can guess well enough
Speaker 1: at what those things mean. A couple of quick points.
Speaker 1: Number one mentioned earlier. All right, I guess it was
Speaker 1: yesterday that foreign students make up less than five percent
Speaker 1: of American university students, but they pay twenty eight percent
Speaker 1: of the tuition. They are a cash cow. No offense
Speaker 1: to Indian students with sacred cows Hinduism, et cetera. But
Speaker 1: you're our sacred cow. You're certainly our cash cow. There.
Speaker 1: They are a huge cash grab and so many, many,
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of American students can't get into the
Speaker 1: so called elite universities because they're busy sucking cash out
Speaker 1: of the rich foreigners, including many many Chinese students. These
Speaker 1: Chinese students are either Chinese agents or Chinese nationals who
Speaker 1: are susceptible to being forced to become Chinese agents. If
Speaker 1: Xi Jinping, the CCP, ever, decides that they would be useful,
Speaker 1: that's second part is risk. Yeah, that second part is tough.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, if you're here as a spy
Speaker 1: and that was your purpose to come here, obviously, if
Speaker 1: we can boot you out, we ought to boot you out.
Speaker 1: But if you're here and you're just seriously wanting to
Speaker 1: study whatever and you like America, just fine. But the
Speaker 1: Communist Party says, hey, your your mom is going to
Speaker 1: lose her job unless you take a picture of these
Speaker 1: forms that you have access to. I feel researcher with us.
Speaker 1: I feel bad for that person. Well, feeling bad is
Speaker 1: no basis on which to conduct foreign policy. Sir, Wow,
Speaker 1: grow up. Wow, now I hear you. It's definitely. It's
Speaker 1: a different situation, but one you have to be aware of.
Speaker 1: I've told a story one hundred times FBI counter intelligence
Speaker 1: going on to a major college campus. Tell them the
Speaker 1: university president, your campus has Chinese agents all over the place,
Speaker 1: and he said, get off of my campus, you racists.
Speaker 1: That is the state of academia. It is an enormous,
Speaker 1: glaring weak spot for US national security. I don't doubt
Speaker 1: for a bit that that is true. But what are
Speaker 1: you going to ban every Chinese born student in America
Speaker 1: from a whole bunch of different academic fields. You're going
Speaker 1: to aggressively revoke visas of Chinese students, including those with
Speaker 1: ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Here those who are
Speaker 1: studying criminal in critical fields here's and listen, there are
Speaker 1: subtleties to this, and I'm so yes, is the answer
Speaker 1: based on that last phrase or studying in critical fields?
Speaker 1: I'm making a bit of a maximalist argument here, partly,
Speaker 1: you know, because of time limitations. But I don't recall
Speaker 1: our educating young Nazis in rocketry program during the nineteen
Speaker 1: thirties and forties. Perhaps I've forgotten about them. Now, our
Speaker 1: relationship with or you know, young Russian students need to
Speaker 1: understand nuclear arms in the fifties. Now, our relationship with
Speaker 1: China is more complex. But there's a real grain of
Speaker 1: truth to that description. Yeah, comparison, you're right, there is.
Speaker 1: That's interesting. We got mail bag on the way, so
Speaker 1: much to talk about today. I hope you can stay
Speaker 1: hear in an hour or two. I want to talk
Speaker 1: about Elon as he is exiting his role in the
Speaker 1: White House. Remember early in the Trump administration, I said,
Speaker 1: for the first time since Trump came on the scene,
Speaker 1: I'm hearing one name more than his and it's Elon.
Speaker 1: Elon got mentioned more within earshot every day than Trump.
Speaker 1: He's leaving now. But the way that's being treated by
Speaker 1: most media drives me crazy. Anyway, hour two, pound on
Speaker 1: their stupid heads. Here's your freedom loving quote of the day.
Speaker 1: To pound on their stupid head heads. But I'm the
Speaker 1: man of peace and will not. Today's freedom loving quote
Speaker 1: of the day from John Philpot Current, who is an
Speaker 1: Irish politician and orator back in the seventeen eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 1: Really an amazing guy. Sometimes when I have a little time,
Speaker 1: I'll figure out who the freedom loving quote of the
Speaker 1: day quota exactly is, and read about them anyway. The quote,
Speaker 1: and this will sound familiar, exists in several different forms.
Speaker 1: The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man
Speaker 1: is eternal vigilance. Clearly unequivocally true. You want liberty, the
Speaker 1: cost is eternal vigilance. Now he was an amazing man
Speaker 1: of courage, great orator, crusader for freedom, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: then in looking at his biography, I came across the
Speaker 1: final part bitterness in his final years. His last days
Speaker 1: were embittered by domestic troubles and by political disappointment and despair. Quote,
Speaker 1: everything I see disgusts and depresses me. I look back
Speaker 1: at the streaming of blood for so many years, and
Speaker 1: everything else everywhere relapse into its former degradation. So that's
Speaker 1: that he moved into the old man Yells a clouds
Speaker 1: phase of his life. And how do you avoid that?
Speaker 1: I was upset about something yesterday and I thought, I
Speaker 1: can't live the rest of my life disappointed by mankind.
Speaker 1: I can't let me do that. Let me finish the description.
Speaker 1: So everything everywhere relapsed into its former degradation. France rechained
Speaker 1: Spain again, saddled for the priests in Ireland like a
Speaker 1: bisbastinadoed elephant, kneeling to receive the paltry rider, and a
Speaker 1: few days before his death, at the mention of Irish politics,
Speaker 1: he hung his head and burst into tears. So how
Speaker 1: do you avoid that, because there is a I mean,
Speaker 1: I could make the same arguments easily about the United
Speaker 1: States and the direction we're headed and be miserable the
Speaker 1: rest of my life. Oh yeah, to me, be miserable
Speaker 1: that that doesn't help anybody. To me, that's I will
Speaker 1: tell you the answer to that question, which I happen
Speaker 1: to have. The battle for liberty is never ending, and
Speaker 1: the front moves back and forth. And maybe John philpop Kerrant,
Speaker 1: in the prime of his life, had moved the front
Speaker 1: line further toward the goal of liberty, and late in
Speaker 1: his life it had retreated. But he done his part.
Speaker 1: He fought his battles, and now he has to trust
Speaker 1: the next generations to fight theirs. That's just the way
Speaker 1: it works. I know this has taking up all Mailbag's time,
Speaker 1: but so I'm reading monocham Began's autobiography and then listening
Speaker 1: to another book about him. He Prime Minister Israel, won
Speaker 1: the Nobel Peace Prize blah blah blah blah blah. Anyway,
Speaker 1: nineteen seventies primarily uh yeah, but he fought his whole
Speaker 1: life for jewelry and the jew's not jewels, jewelry, jewelry rings. Anyway,
Speaker 1: he spent the last many years of his life just
Speaker 1: hold up in his house, depressed, miserable that he that
Speaker 1: you know, it didn't matter failed. What are you going
Speaker 1: to do? People don't listen to me. I just and
Speaker 1: I thought, God, your whole life, but your last who
Speaker 1: wants to spend like the last ten years of their
Speaker 1: lives miserable about the state of mankind? And I thought,
Speaker 1: if it could happen to him, towering intellect and men
Speaker 1: brave as, how do you avoid that? And a lot
Speaker 1: of old people. I mean, it's like the it's the cliche, right,
Speaker 1: and old guy sitting there in his couch watching Fox News,
Speaker 1: angry at the world. I don't want to spend all
Speaker 1: day like that. How do you avoid that? I think
Speaker 1: you you just and listen. I'm lecturing me, folks, not you.
Speaker 1: I think you'd say what I just said. That things
Speaker 1: EBB and flow. All you can do is do your best,
Speaker 1: and you know it's the cruelty of high expectations. You
Speaker 1: may progress and you're certain that that progress will remain
Speaker 1: and the only thing in front of you is more progress,
Speaker 1: and that's just not the nature of mankind. Yeah right, well, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, speaking of the nature of mankind, obviously you
Speaker 1: got two examples we've just mentioned of like very smart
Speaker 1: driven people who couldn't avoid these sitting there watching Fox
Speaker 1: News being angry syndrome. Yeah, as it were, Oh god,
Speaker 1: dang it, it's just h If John Philpott Current had
Speaker 1: seen Fox News, he would have said, why are demons
Speaker 1: speaking to me from a box? Because it was the
Speaker 1: eighteen I see your point. Yes, anyway, so maybe we'll
Speaker 1: do mailbag next hour. It is quite amusing. There are
Speaker 1: so many big stories. If you're just tuning in, you
Speaker 1: haven't heard. The Court of International Trade has ruled, and
Speaker 1: that's a US court, by the way, has said no
Speaker 1: this tariff stuff. No, no, we're not letting it happen.
Speaker 1: The tariff thing might be over what maybe So if
Speaker 1: you missed this segment with the podcast Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 1: on demand, Armstrong and Getty