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