Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2: Armstrong and Gatty and now he.
Speaker 3: Armstrong and Yetty. We are going to talk war with
Speaker 3: Iran and our military analyst Mike Lyons looking forward to
Speaker 3: a huge story. But we have breaking news on something
Speaker 3: also huge. This is big.
Speaker 2: If we had a herd of donkeys, we would have
Speaker 2: them braying right now. The Supreme Court struck down most
Speaker 2: of President Trump's are sweeping tariffs, a ruling that deals
Speaker 2: a major blow to his signature economic policy, stinging political setback,
Speaker 2: and on leaching. Lord knows what logistical nightmare.
Speaker 3: Supreme Court rules Trump's emergency tariffs are illegal. This is
Speaker 3: breaking news. So now I can't even imagine. Oh boy, AnyWho.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the spicy times.
Speaker 3: Trump was asked yesterday about ongoing negotiations with Iran, as
Speaker 3: we've got the biggest military build up there since the
Speaker 3: Gulf War, and he said, this.
Speaker 4: Now is the time for Iran to join us on
Speaker 4: a path that will complete what we're doing.
Speaker 3: And if they join us, that'll be great.
Speaker 4: If they don't join us, that'll be great too.
Speaker 3: But it'll be a very different path.
Speaker 4: They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region,
Speaker 4: and they must make a deal or if that doesn't happen,
Speaker 4: I maybe can understand if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen, but.
Speaker 2: Bad things will happen if it doesn't.
Speaker 3: The theocracy of Iran has killed more US soldiers than
Speaker 3: any other country in the last half a century. Number
Speaker 3: one global exporter of terror. We're supposed to be engaged
Speaker 3: in a war on terror, if I remember correctly, number
Speaker 3: one exporter of state sponsored terror in the world. Trying
Speaker 3: to get a nuclear weapon, which almost everybody thinks would
Speaker 3: be a disaster for the planet. And yeah, now seems
Speaker 3: like a good time.
Speaker 2: And finally, the strange lack of discussion of all of
Speaker 2: these things in the media and the American people in general.
Speaker 2: To discuss all of that and more, my clients, military
Speaker 2: analyst joins us, Mike, greetings, how are you?
Speaker 5: Thank you money guys, great for having me and left
Speaker 5: out the greatest foreign policy failure of the United States
Speaker 5: in a post World War two era as Aarana has
Speaker 5: impacted so many lives since you know, since the revolution
Speaker 5: took place in seventy eight, seventy nine, and it's impacted
Speaker 5: my life. And I could go on and on, but
Speaker 5: it looks like the time is now.
Speaker 2: I was just going to say, I'm fond of saying,
Speaker 2: Mike that there are some problems that can't be solved,
Speaker 2: they can only be managed. But this does appear to
Speaker 2: be a moment where maybe the Iran problem could be
Speaker 2: quote unquote solved. A lot of risk there too as well.
Speaker 5: No question, and you know what the military targets are
Speaker 5: are remained to be seen, likely going after the nuclear capability.
Speaker 5: The first strike we took a few months ago definitely
Speaker 5: set them back, but it didn't actually take out all
Speaker 5: of their capability. You've got three stages of creating a
Speaker 5: nuclear weapon. You have you know, mining uranium ore, and
Speaker 5: the second phase is that in enrichment. We took out
Speaker 5: most of the enrichment facility. And then that third phase
Speaker 5: is weaponizing. They have ballistic missile systems, so they're all
Speaker 5: part of their process and that system there for us
Speaker 5: to actually make sure it goes away, we have to
Speaker 5: take out all capability in all three. Now, you won't
Speaker 5: take out the drain brain. Obviously, they're going to have
Speaker 5: the intellect to do this, but take away our capability
Speaker 5: of trying to create a nuclear weapons the mission right now, well.
Speaker 3: That's maybe the first stop for our missiles. But all
Speaker 3: the reporting is this is going to be a sustained
Speaker 3: campaign for weeks and look a lot more like a
Speaker 3: war than a strike, which we haven't seen for quite
Speaker 3: a while. Are you concerned about where this could go
Speaker 3: and how they could retaliate?
Speaker 5: Well, I think they have one shot. I think they
Speaker 5: have capability to go after Israel, maybe some US bases
Speaker 5: in the region that we've hardened down now over the
Speaker 5: past few weeks, let's say one thousand to two thousand
Speaker 5: ballistic missiles that they could fire. Then eventually they're just
Speaker 5: they're going to run out. They have run out. Israel
Speaker 5: has done a tremendous job over the past six months
Speaker 5: again treading their capability. So we've going to be concerned
Speaker 5: about that and we'll take some losses, Commanders take losses.
Speaker 5: I'm sure Israel is likely at a full war state
Speaker 5: right now as they prepare for what could be an
Speaker 5: onslaught of ballistic missiles coming in their direction. But the
Speaker 5: upside for US is we don't have the army there,
Speaker 5: so we're not invading anytime soon. There's no troops going
Speaker 5: on the ground there. This is going to literally be
Speaker 5: an air war if it goes in that direction. And
Speaker 5: today you heard the President talk about Diego Garcia and
Speaker 5: Raf Fairford. Those are strategic be to strike you know,
Speaker 5: stealth bombers, the ones that deliver that massive ord penetrator
Speaker 5: bombs and the like. So this is this is the
Speaker 5: tell I think in my perspective, I think that this
Speaker 5: is going to be an air war. And for the
Speaker 5: first time again we don't see the army there being
Speaker 5: a participant.
Speaker 2: Speaking of Diego Garcia, I believe the brit said you
Speaker 2: can't use it. And we're getting no thanks from Saudi
Speaker 2: Arabia and the UAE and some other allies. So it
Speaker 2: might be logistically a little more challenging to get our
Speaker 2: fighters refueled and that sort of thing. Is that going
Speaker 2: to be significant you think to the success of whatever operation.
Speaker 5: Well, I think once the thing starts, I think they'll
Speaker 5: change their minds. And once it starts to go, the
Speaker 5: Saudis do not want the Ranians to have a nuclear
Speaker 5: weapon as well. And if this does happen, and the
Speaker 5: Intel says and based on what you know Israel, inside Mosade,
Speaker 5: inside the country there that this won't be like Venezuela,
Speaker 5: where well they'll take out the leader. In fact, we
Speaker 5: won't target the leader. That's illegal for us to do that.
Speaker 5: But if when we know about the revolutionary guards, the
Speaker 5: individuals that control really the government control everything right now,
Speaker 5: that have their thumb over most of the people. There's
Speaker 5: a generational fault line that's there in any army. There
Speaker 5: is you have the older generals and the younger privates,
Speaker 5: and the captains and the majors and the colonels in between. Well,
Speaker 5: the bottom line is, if there's a revolution and the
Speaker 5: older generation gets wiped out, the people are going to
Speaker 5: come after that middle and younger generation, so they could
Speaker 5: hold the key to this whole thing. If this could
Speaker 5: be one of these successful internal revolutions that take place
Speaker 5: once it gets started kinetically. So that's hope, a little
Speaker 5: bit of a method there, not a method, but fundamentally
Speaker 5: that's what I think the planning is.
Speaker 3: Saying Washington Post. The President has publicly raised the possibility
Speaker 3: of toppling around Supreme Leader, a long time US adversary,
Speaker 3: suggesting last week quote it would be the best thing
Speaker 3: that could happen. Are we going to try to take
Speaker 3: out the Ayatola?
Speaker 5: I just don't think that's legal. I think we can't
Speaker 5: target him legally. We don't want other countries doing that
Speaker 5: to our president.
Speaker 3: And we can't make it look like it's on purpose.
Speaker 5: Are we going to Yeah, yeah, we can target the
Speaker 5: outhouse next to his palace there. Look, that would just
Speaker 5: not be a really good solution here at this point,
Speaker 5: and allowing him to leave might be the way to go.
Speaker 5: But I think I think the rains are dug in,
Speaker 5: and that's why there's no negotiation. I mean, here's the
Speaker 5: bottom line. From their perspective, they are close to breakout.
Speaker 5: They're close to weaponizing nuclear capability, and once they do that,
Speaker 5: now they're a player in the game that they have
Speaker 5: the deterrens that they can that they're looking for. They
Speaker 5: could if they weaponize one or two bombs and can
Speaker 5: fire that at Israel and destroy, you know, kill one
Speaker 5: hundred thousand people in downtown Tel Aviv. That's all the
Speaker 5: deterrens that they need from their perspective, and they're very close,
Speaker 5: and that's why they're trying to extend this negotiation out talking.
Speaker 5: Hopefully they can get it done.
Speaker 3: But they have to be reacting like the Eyetola obviously
Speaker 3: and leaders of the Revolutionary Guard wherever, that this is
Speaker 3: a we're gonna die situation, what the fancy people call
Speaker 3: an existential threat, as in, we're going to die if
Speaker 3: if this occurs. So they're going to give everything that God,
Speaker 3: aren't they.
Speaker 5: Yeah, And that's likely. Like I said, there'll be this
Speaker 5: one barrage that'll come and once it starts, though, I
Speaker 5: think it'll be so overwhelming on our side plus Israel.
Speaker 5: We need Israel at this juncture as well. Maybe other
Speaker 5: allies will get involved, but once I believe it does
Speaker 5: start that we will take out a lot of their capability.
Speaker 5: They also have this humanitarian crisis that's about to happen
Speaker 5: to around doesn't have enough water for its people, So
Speaker 5: that the conditions are right for this revolution to take
Speaker 5: place there kinetically from the air, that again we haven't
Speaker 5: seen historically work before. Usually it's going to take someone
Speaker 5: inside the military there as well, the regular Iranian Garmy
Speaker 5: Army for example. We'll have to do something because if
Speaker 5: the Revolutionary Guards decides to shoot civilians, then it's going
Speaker 5: to be a really bad situation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, at some point we need to talk a little
Speaker 2: more about the actual tools of kinetic warf fair in
Speaker 2: place and what it's going to look like. But the
Speaker 2: politics of this is just so interesting to me. If
Speaker 2: I were to advise the Ayatola and his regime right now,
Speaker 2: I would say, agree to everything at the negotiation. Everything,
Speaker 2: we'll start violating next week, along string and along string.
Speaker 2: Is there any reason they wouldn't do that? Could they
Speaker 2: possibly think that they can hold off the US with arms?
Speaker 5: No, I don't think they can, and that's exactly what
Speaker 5: I would do also, But they still are very brazen
Speaker 5: what they're saying, and they seem to be still adamant
Speaker 5: about not compliantly. I mean, what the US is demanding
Speaker 5: is something that they really can't accept. It's unfettered inspections.
Speaker 5: It's either ballistic missile program is gone. It really breaks
Speaker 5: up the alliance. Where is the alliance? Where's the China,
Speaker 5: Russia and North Korea alliance?
Speaker 2: Here?
Speaker 5: Or China has not helped them at all. They delivered
Speaker 5: some ander fence systems over the past few months. Russia
Speaker 5: has no game that they could play right now, There's nothing.
Speaker 5: There's no way they can try to support this. North
Speaker 5: Korea is smart to stay on the sidelines here because
Speaker 5: if they start acting up again, the United States will
Speaker 5: go after them as well. So this is a good
Speaker 5: reflection of what the mission in Venezuela. Obviously gave the
Speaker 5: world the signal about our capability, so I think from
Speaker 5: the deterrence perspective, that's really good. But things still could
Speaker 5: go sideways, and I'm sure that's what they're planning for.
Speaker 3: Is this going to be a sustained campaign of weeks?
Speaker 5: I think it's I think it's going to be a
Speaker 5: sustained campaign of once they're confident they've destroyed every single
Speaker 5: arrange in target, whether that's the underground missile basis, whether
Speaker 5: that's revolutionary guard installations, and any last standing nuclear facilities.
Speaker 5: They had about eleven of them when this whole started
Speaker 5: last June, when we first attacked, really only after a
Speaker 5: few of them, and so I think every single one
Speaker 5: of them will be turned to ash, and we're not
Speaker 5: going to stop until the satellites show that that's the case.
Speaker 2: Military analyst Mike Alliance, Mike, so interesting and so much
Speaker 2: more to say, is the events develop can't wait to
Speaker 2: talk again.
Speaker 3: Thanks, thanks for remy all right, absolutely also his whole
Speaker 3: It would be illegal to take out the iatola. Uh,
Speaker 3: randomn't care about I mean, Israel doesn't care about that
Speaker 3: sort of thing. Like We're probably not gonna pull it
Speaker 3: and put a bullet in the back of the head
Speaker 3: of some nuclear scientists, but Israel will.
Speaker 2: And come on, plausible deniability. So you find out the
Speaker 2: iatola is in buildings, c you take out buildings A
Speaker 2: through half. Oh he was in there. Damn. I wow,
Speaker 2: that's unfortunate. Come on, come on, here's a quick word
Speaker 2: from our friends at rough Greens. And then next segment,
Speaker 2: we have got to talk about the Supreme Court knocking
Speaker 2: down Trump's tariffs. I have all sorts of good analysis
Speaker 2: already gathered up, so stay with us. That's big rough
Speaker 2: Greens not a new food for your dog. It is
Speaker 2: a supplement, a live nutritional supplement you add to your
Speaker 2: dog's food. It does all sorts of great stuff, natural
Speaker 2: antioxidants and inflammatory compounds that help reduce oxidative stress, support
Speaker 2: immune defense, and slow age related declinents. What it's all
Speaker 2: about helping dogs stay active, mobal and alert as they age.
Speaker 3: So once again, this is not changing your dog's food.
Speaker 3: You keep the same food. You just put this live
Speaker 3: nutritional supplement Roughgreens on top of the food, and it
Speaker 3: ain't gonna cost you much.
Speaker 2: To try it.
Speaker 3: Rough Greens is offering a free Jumpstart trial bag. You
Speaker 3: just cover the shipping. Use a discount code Armstrong to
Speaker 3: claim your free Jumpstart Trial bag at roughgreens dot com
Speaker 3: spelled rufff like the way dogs talk roughgreens dot com.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, what's the price on that starter path That
Speaker 3: all you're paying for is the shipping?
Speaker 2: Oh damn? Roughgreens dot com. Use that promo code Armstrong.
Speaker 2: So don't change your dog's food. Just add rough Greens
Speaker 2: and watch the health benefits come alive. Roughgreens dot com. Woolf.
Speaker 3: I want to hear the legal analysis of the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court decision that these tariffs are illegal, and then what's
Speaker 3: the economic analysis of unspooling this whole thing. I can't
Speaker 3: even imagine.
Speaker 2: How that will work. O nightmare god, I'd say. Anyway,
Speaker 2: we've got all bear on K Street, that's my title.
Speaker 3: And then we've also got to get to woo you
Speaker 3: boo goo. Right if you don't know what that means,
Speaker 3: stick around.
Speaker 6: The Supreme Court ruling that President Trump's use these emergency
Speaker 6: tariffs that he has implemented are illegal. It's the most
Speaker 6: significant economic case to reach the High Court in years,
Speaker 6: sweeping implications for the economy and of course for presidential
Speaker 6: power and at stake. Here are billions of dollars in
Speaker 6: revenue that have already been collected by the government.
Speaker 2: The out of control Trumps Supreme Court is what.
Speaker 3: So, the thing Trump has been talking about since the
Speaker 3: eighties that the country needs to do to stop the
Speaker 3: unfair ripping us off by countries around the world turns
Speaker 3: out it's illegal. That's something All my conservative sources that
Speaker 3: I look to are happy. I don't know about Trumpy sources,
Speaker 3: but conservative as opposed to Trumpy, who believe in the
Speaker 3: rule of law and that one man shouldn't be able
Speaker 3: to upend the economy like this, are happy about this ruling.
Speaker 2: The Court holes that AEPA, that Emergency Executive Powers Act
Speaker 2: does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. It's written
Speaker 2: by the Chief Justice.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it just occurs to me if you're going to
Speaker 3: follow this through Twitter or cable news today, Democrats who
Speaker 3: have always wanted to use tariffs Bernie and his crowd
Speaker 3: have always wanted to use tariffs. That crowd is going
Speaker 3: to cheer that Trump lost. And then there's a whole
Speaker 3: bunch of people that yes, Republicans have always been against tariffs.
Speaker 3: And the court comes in and says no to this,
Speaker 3: then a whole bunch of Republicans are going to be boo.
Speaker 3: So the scripts have really flipped there.
Speaker 2: Indeed, Yeah, so Roberts wrote the decision based on tourds
Speaker 2: separating by sixteen others. In i EPA regulate in importation,
Speaker 2: the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on
Speaker 2: imports from any country of any product, at any rate,
Speaker 2: for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.
Speaker 2: It's a six to three with Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissenting.
Speaker 2: I'd like to big fans of all I.
Speaker 3: Know and they're hardcore conservatives, or certainly Thomas, I would
Speaker 3: like to read, actually read his explanation why I think
Speaker 3: the president could do this. The winning opinion decision to
Speaker 3: the power to impose tariffs is very clearly a branch
Speaker 3: of the taxing power, which is what a lot of
Speaker 3: people have been saying.
Speaker 2: It's a taxing and separation of powers is a sacred
Speaker 2: principle of conservatism, So I'm surprised I've got to read
Speaker 2: Thomas Alito and Kavanov's descents. But just for the record,
Speaker 2: Roberts wrote it, joined by Soda, Mayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett,
Speaker 2: and Jackson, and then the both the concurrences and the
Speaker 2: sense are long, dozens and dozens to hundreds of pages,
Speaker 2: which says to me, yeah, I agree with y'all, but
Speaker 2: I think you're getting this wrong. And that's not quite
Speaker 2: right and very scattered decision. So I doesn't say a
Speaker 2: thing about refunds, by the way, well right, the refunds thing.
Speaker 2: All the people that paid, you know, X dollars more
Speaker 2: for a car or truck or a microwave or whatever
Speaker 2: the hell do you get your money back? All the
Speaker 2: companies that ate a whole bunch of that or saw
Speaker 2: their sales go down because of the tariffs, do they
Speaker 2: get anything back? How does this get unspooled? About a
Speaker 2: thousand lawsuits, probably significant implications for the US economy, consumers,
Speaker 2: the president's trade policy. Trump said, I lost the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court would force the government to unwind to trade deals
Speaker 2: with other countries. Correct and potentially pay hefty refunds to importers.
Speaker 3: Well, this is his big stick in a lot of
Speaker 3: cases too. What he would you know, whether it was
Speaker 3: Country's about Greenland or punishing China or whatever. It's just okay,
Speaker 3: one hundred percent tariff starting next week if you don't
Speaker 3: come around and that tool is gone. Now.
Speaker 2: I have been harshly critical of that tool and the
Speaker 2: way Trump's yielded it. And like we say about a
Speaker 2: handful of different things these days, you go far enough
Speaker 2: down the road of a bad policy untangling, it's going
Speaker 2: to be really painful, see immigration for instance. Yeah, in
Speaker 2: the opposite direction, I agree with a lot of what
Speaker 2: Trump's doing on that.
Speaker 3: I'm glad it was six three and not five four.
Speaker 3: That's a little helpful.
Speaker 2: Or all the conservatives and all the liberals just right,
Speaker 2: because that makes that stupid, dishonest narrative too easy to perpetrate.
Speaker 2: We have some savvy analysts, including the great Jonathan Turley,
Speaker 2: cued up and ready to go for your next segment,
Speaker 2: trying to sort out what all this means.
Speaker 3: Well, this is a big deal. In a couple of
Speaker 3: days before the State of the Union address, where he
Speaker 3: was going the days before we go to war with Iran,
Speaker 3: when he was going to go up and tout the
Speaker 3: good account of me, which he's got a lot of
Speaker 3: numbers to back him up. But he probably was going
Speaker 3: to credit the tariffs for the good economy, and or
Speaker 3: maybe he still is. I don't know, probably Armstrong and getty.
Speaker 3: A lot of times your big Supreme Court splashy Supreme
Speaker 3: Court rulings are actually very very complicated and misconstrued by
Speaker 3: all the coverage. I don't know that this is the
Speaker 3: case in this one. Everything I'm reading so far, it's
Speaker 3: pretty clear cut that even a dunce like me can
Speaker 3: understand why the Supreme Court said, no, you can't put
Speaker 3: tariffs in all these different countries. Call it an emergency,
Speaker 3: and do it as the president, with John Roberts writing,
Speaker 3: had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power
Speaker 3: to impost tariffs, it would have done so expressly right,
Speaker 3: which is very simple to understand. If Congress wanted the
Speaker 3: President to be able to do this, it would have
Speaker 3: been very clear.
Speaker 2: One more key quote from the decision, the President SERTs
Speaker 2: the extraordinary power to unil laterally imposed tariffs of unlimited
Speaker 2: amount duration, and scope. In light of the breadth history
Speaker 2: and constitutional context of that assorted authority, he must identify
Speaker 2: clear congressional authorization to exercise it. The Chief Justice wrote again,
Speaker 2: the dissenters were among my fath Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh,
Speaker 2: interestingly enough, can't wait to read their descents.
Speaker 3: Well, that's probably eight million pages. I'll have to have
Speaker 3: AI summarized for me. But I'm interested in that too.
Speaker 3: There are two kinds of tariffs. One I thought maybe
Speaker 3: they'd let him slide on, because you got the one
Speaker 3: kind that was every remember on Liberation Day, every country
Speaker 3: on Earth, because we have a trade imbalance with them,
Speaker 3: which is nonsensical.
Speaker 2: But and some of those countries who got a trade
Speaker 2: surplus with.
Speaker 3: But that's not an emergency now, even if you buy
Speaker 3: the idea that as the world's biggest superpower, of course
Speaker 3: there's more trade going on one direction than the other
Speaker 3: in a lot of cases. But how do you call
Speaker 3: that emergency.
Speaker 2: The other one, though, less you're a mercantilist, google it.
Speaker 3: Canada, Mexico, and China. The one about fentanyl. I thought
Speaker 3: they might let him slide on that one, calling that
Speaker 3: an emergency. But none of those kinds of tariffs. This
Speaker 3: ruling says, Nope, you can't do any of this. Jonathan
Speaker 3: Turley was a couple of interesting takes. Let's start with
Speaker 3: thirty seven.
Speaker 7: Michael, this is what some of us predicted. This was
Speaker 7: a case where the administration was at a disadvantage. AJIPA
Speaker 7: does not refer to tariffs, and tariffs are a big
Speaker 7: deal under the Constitution. It's a critical form of revenue
Speaker 7: that is left to Congress. And I thought that the
Speaker 7: administration did a terrific job in front of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 7: They could not have argued this case better, in my view,
Speaker 7: but you can't really escape that language. And right out
Speaker 7: of the bat when that oral argument began, the Chief
Speaker 7: Justice John Roberts said, this is a tax, and you
Speaker 7: could almost hear the administration gulping because that's not what
Speaker 7: they wanted the justices to take from their argument. Roberts
Speaker 7: and others clearly view this as a tax that rests
Speaker 7: with Congress.
Speaker 3: Jonathan Turley is good and he knows he's talking to
Speaker 3: the Fox audience, so I like the way he words it.
Speaker 3: I always thought that the Trump administration was at a
Speaker 3: disadvantage here. It's a nice way of saying you're wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and always have been. Yeah, a little more turly now.
Speaker 7: There's a lot of runway still for the administration. We
Speaker 7: have to really get into this opinion, into some of
Speaker 7: the weeds to see if it is prospective only. But
Speaker 7: also the administration is other tools in its toolbox. It
Speaker 7: can actually impose tariffs under other statutes. So this night
Speaker 7: is hardly over for the administration when it comes to tariffs.
Speaker 2: How about the absolutely fantastic Sarah Isger.
Speaker 1: This has been a Supreme Court that has really been
Speaker 1: shrinking down executive power. We saw them do this during
Speaker 1: the Biden administration with his student loan debt forgiveness. The
Speaker 1: reasoning here is nearly identical the idea that presidents cannot
Speaker 1: look back to old, vague statutes from Congress to expand
Speaker 1: their own power. This, as Devin said, is a huge
Speaker 1: shift in presidential authority moving forward and probably the most
Speaker 1: important case we've seen from the Supreme Court in decades,
Speaker 1: really putting the ball in Congress's court. If presidents want
Speaker 1: to have these big policy initiatives, they will need to
Speaker 1: work with Congress moving forward.
Speaker 3: It's interesting that she says they're reigning in presidents just
Speaker 3: getting make decisions based on, you know, vaguely worded things
Speaker 3: from the past. Is that going to apply to the
Speaker 3: military stuff at some point, because we've been doing that
Speaker 3: for a long time. Where you use that authorization from
Speaker 3: nine to eleven, from way back for anything you want
Speaker 3: to do in the world.
Speaker 2: Let's table at motion, put a pin in it, circle back, etc.
Speaker 2: For another day. It's a big and ah. I would
Speaker 2: say this to my conservative brethren. Of course, conservatives are
Speaker 2: against hers, my trumpy brethren. The last thing in the
Speaker 2: world we want is the presidency to become kingly. Our
Speaker 2: system protects us from that. Our ideas are better than theirs.
Speaker 2: They work better. Now it's a fight because we're up
Speaker 2: against the academy, as they say, academia and the media
Speaker 2: and entertainment. But our ideas are better. We don't want
Speaker 2: to veer from one king to another every four years.
Speaker 3: No, and especially if we're about to head into a
Speaker 3: you continue our populist age, socialist y populist age of
Speaker 3: speaking to the aggrieved and getting them all whipped up
Speaker 3: and tell them why they deserve more of other people's stuff.
Speaker 3: You really don't want the president to be able to
Speaker 3: just dole out student loans. You don't have to pay them.
Speaker 3: Let the rich pay them. And it's the rich that
Speaker 3: took out the loans. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that was a great episode of Jack Armstrong
Speaker 2: Political Theater. Ah yeah, yeah. I've got to get deep
Speaker 2: into the rulings to figure out what this means. But
Speaker 2: the there was not a word that I have seen
Speaker 2: thus far about what do we do with all the
Speaker 2: money we collected and what do we do as you
Speaker 2: pointed out, with the people who paid it and the
Speaker 2: companies who went out of business because they're materials that
Speaker 2: they had to import to manufacture in the United States
Speaker 2: were too expensive and they shut down.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I assume there'll be some lawsuits there. The whole
Speaker 3: all of us paid more for a tablet or a
Speaker 3: microwave or whatever. We're just out of luck. I mean,
Speaker 3: there's no way we're getting our money back, obviously. But
Speaker 3: now the companies that went under or had to retool,
Speaker 3: but the companies that you know are breaking ground on
Speaker 3: plants because the only way you can move forward is
Speaker 3: if you make that thing here in the United States.
Speaker 3: Because the whole tariff situation.
Speaker 2: I suspect very strongly that most of those companies were
Speaker 2: saying that's what they were doing to please the Trump
Speaker 2: administration and Trump himself, when they'd planned on doing it anyway,
Speaker 2: because that's a classic maneuver in the Trump era.
Speaker 3: Sure, yeah, you, uh, breaking ground any day. I did
Speaker 3: it rained last weekend, But next weekend, that's when we're
Speaker 3: gonna bring around.
Speaker 2: And anybody who said we're gonna spend three billion dollars
Speaker 2: because thanks to Presidents Trump's tariffs, we're going to bring
Speaker 2: back American manufacturer would be a fool. Number One, it
Speaker 2: was still in the courts and everybody knew it was
Speaker 2: not an easy day for the administration. Number two, the
Speaker 2: administration is gonna be gone like it or not in
Speaker 2: a couple of years.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no matter what. And but what about all these
Speaker 3: countries that pledged all this money to try to stay
Speaker 3: out of trouble. And then he'd lower the tariffs, so
Speaker 3: you know, I don't remember the numbers, but they he'd announce,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm gonna hit China with a fifty tariff
Speaker 3: for one hundred percent tariff, or India or whoever, and
Speaker 3: then they'd pledge, we're going to we're donating, donating and
Speaker 3: basically eighty billion dollars. Yeah, five hundred million dollars whatever. Yeah,
Speaker 3: is that just never really believe it was always phony anyway,
Speaker 3: So it's extra phony.
Speaker 2: Yeah, now it's well, it's a phony and hollow.
Speaker 3: Mmm. I'll be damned. That's quite the thing.
Speaker 2: Separation of powers, man, you gotta love it. You've got
Speaker 2: to love it. It's kept us afloat this long.
Speaker 3: Well, it's you got two powers. You got the executive branch,
Speaker 3: which is doing plenty of good job under Republicans and
Speaker 3: Democrats of flexing their power and seeing who will push
Speaker 3: back Supreme Court doing something Today, You dumb bastards still
Speaker 3: ain't seeing much out of Congress flexing their muscle.
Speaker 2: You gotta have muscle to flex it.
Speaker 3: They just answer to whoever is uh uh which party
Speaker 3: has got the presidency at the time.
Speaker 2: They just raised money on TikTok. Yeah, that's Congresses. It's
Speaker 2: not there in the Constitution, but it's implied.
Speaker 3: Well, I hope, I hope most people realize. I mean,
Speaker 3: I really think this is good news, really good news.
Speaker 2: I do too. The restrained president of executive power is
Speaker 2: good for all Americans.
Speaker 3: Unwinding, it's going to be interesting oh lord. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: so you got the State of the Union address Tuesday,
Speaker 3: which who cares? But he's got to give it, get
Speaker 3: up there and give a speech, and uh, he's he
Speaker 3: got the tariff thing and war? Are we going to
Speaker 3: go to war? Is he gonna hold off the word
Speaker 3: after the State of the Union address?
Speaker 2: So you can I heard the Is he going to
Speaker 2: pull an Obama and browbeat the Supreme Court from the rostrum?
Speaker 2: Oh as they sit there but.
Speaker 3: Robed that'd be a good one. That'd be exciting. No,
Speaker 3: it'd be terrible hus entertainment value.
Speaker 4: You.
Speaker 2: Uh, there are days I think if our country was
Speaker 2: a family, I'd think it's falling apart, probably on.
Speaker 3: A fall apart. What was they gonna say?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: Washington Post said Trump might be waiting until the Olympics
Speaker 3: are over. Do you wait till the Olympics are over
Speaker 3: to launch a war? And if so?
Speaker 2: Why? Yeah? Wow, that's well, I mean Russia did that
Speaker 2: with the Olympics in China. But why so they could
Speaker 2: have their party and not distract and cause controversy in
Speaker 2: the rest?
Speaker 3: Well, okay, they they need they need China support. We
Speaker 3: don't need Italy's what do we care? With Italy thinks,
Speaker 3: we don't anybody have any thoughts on any of this
Speaker 3: text line four one five two nine five KFTC.
Speaker 8: It's definitely a very unusual case. The caller alleged that
Speaker 8: there was a dentist practicing and showing signs of intoxication.
Speaker 8: They found Kelly Buck, who did exhibit signs of intoxication,
Speaker 8: failed the field sobriety tests. She was ultimately arrested for
Speaker 8: performing surgery while intoxicated and taken to the Grayson County jail.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: So somebody calls the police and says, I think my
Speaker 3: dentist is drunk in the middle of the day. I
Speaker 3: assume because that's when dental procedures usually happen. The police
Speaker 3: come and do a field sobriety test on the dentist
Speaker 3: and say, yep, this dentist is drunk.
Speaker 2: What's a field sobriety test for dentists? Right? Still this cavity,
Speaker 2: Oh hey, hey, you went outside the lines?
Speaker 3: Well right, what's the legal limit for people? Always use
Speaker 3: the legal limit for driving for everything with alcohol?
Speaker 2: Right, Like there's some sort of government limitation for how
Speaker 2: drunk you can get? Right? There's not? Thank god, I
Speaker 2: thought this was America.
Speaker 3: Well, there's all kinds of things you can perform at
Speaker 3: an adequate level buzzed beyond what we allow for driving.
Speaker 2: Sure, easily, it's an entirely different question. Yeah, you stupid.
Speaker 3: You are not out of control sitting on your own
Speaker 3: couch bowing a one point zero watching a football game.
Speaker 3: There's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean your kids
Speaker 3: are in danger, or your neighbors or anything like that.
Speaker 3: But it's produced that way twice the legal limit, right, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: of for what, idiot? Yeah, I media is so bad,
Speaker 3: so do I don't know how. I don't know how
Speaker 3: drunk I want my dentist to be with their sharp tools,
Speaker 3: the gouger, the poker, et cetera. What do you know
Speaker 3: about this, Katie the grinder?
Speaker 9: I don't know anything about it other than I don't
Speaker 9: want my dentist drunk at all?
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, like my airline pilot low threshold.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's just not even a don't even sniff very low.
Speaker 3: What if it steadies their hands? Maybe they're the sort
Speaker 3: of person that you know, A quick a drink a
Speaker 3: bracer and calms me down. Now I can do a
Speaker 3: good job and concentrate.
Speaker 2: I famously got better at the road test after a
Speaker 2: couple of drinks. Now it degenerated quickly after that many
Speaker 2: years ago. Yeah, I hear you, Jack, I'm here.
Speaker 3: Yes, I'm guessing since a number of patients had complained
Speaker 3: and actually called the police, that it was more of
Speaker 3: an oh still all still.
Speaker 2: More like that. It's not like they have random road
Speaker 2: block checkpoints for dentists. Somebody said something clearly going around.
Speaker 2: I'm not. I'm perfectly still to move around. Wow, next
Speaker 2: hour when ambulance's attack. Stay with us for that?
Speaker 3: Uh you?
Speaker 2: Oh? Oh, that's right. There was something else I really
Speaker 2: wanted to get into, and it flitted out of my mind.
Speaker 2: What's the matter with me too drunk watching football games
Speaker 2: or something. I'll come up with it.
Speaker 3: I got another dentist story for Katie because she may
Speaker 3: not have heard this one. This happened in Woodland, California.
Speaker 3: Maybe you did report it when you were doing San
Speaker 3: Francisco radio. It was very popular around here. The dentist
Speaker 3: who would convince people it was a dude. He would
Speaker 3: convince women that they had TMJ, their jaws hurt, and
Speaker 3: that his cure for it was to massage their breasts. Oh,
Speaker 3: and he did this for years. He did this for
Speaker 3: years where he would just rub on women's boobs, claiming
Speaker 3: he was carrying their team.
Speaker 9: There's two problems here. One, he's a creep. Two the
Speaker 9: women that fell for it. I know, come on, that's
Speaker 9: what we said at the time.
Speaker 2: Like you'd think as the owner of a couple of breasts,
Speaker 2: you would have heard about that, you know at some
Speaker 2: point in your life that that was legit. Yeah, because
Speaker 2: it's pretty notable that in a professional setting somebody gets
Speaker 2: to grab onto both of them, right, you'd think word
Speaker 2: would get around that. Hey, you know if you get
Speaker 2: TMG the TMJ the way they relieve it is, and
Speaker 2: the women would think geez, really.
Speaker 3: That would have been on the radar. Oh yeah yeah,
Speaker 3: and plenty of women would thought, well, I'm only going
Speaker 3: to do that with a female dentist or whatever, not
Speaker 3: just some guy.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, trust me, if they if they had to
Speaker 2: kick in the balls to cure like, I don't know,
Speaker 2: an overbite, yeah, word would get around.
Speaker 3: Excuse me, doc, can I chat GPT this real quick?
Speaker 3: It's just fine to have trouble. How these two things
Speaker 3: come together.
Speaker 9: I just couldn't even imagine if a Dennis said that
Speaker 9: to me, going.
Speaker 3: Oh, okay, yeah, sure, I remember talking about this a
Speaker 3: lot at the time, and it's it's an interesting insight
Speaker 3: into a chunk of society that will just go along
Speaker 3: with things out of fear of conflict or something.
Speaker 2: I guess, yeah, fear of conflict, of fear of challenging authority,
Speaker 2: just being so shocked. I mean, I give some leeway
Speaker 2: for wait a minute, what and people are just shocked
Speaker 2: into inaction. I tend to be shocked into action. But
Speaker 2: I think that might just be genetic or something. I
Speaker 2: don't know. I mean, personally, like you, Katie can't even
Speaker 2: imagine thinking, well, he's the dentist. I suppose I'll let
Speaker 2: him grope me. Yeah, not a chance, Nephie says, I
Speaker 2: have to drop my pants. I'll just submit to that
Speaker 2: as well, right.
Speaker 9: Gause.
Speaker 3: That solves an over bike and that wraps up our
Speaker 3: Friday segment. Rogue Dennis, We'll see you next Friday. Tails
Speaker 3: of gentle.
Speaker 2: Woo oh boy, still Hostell, I am holding still you
Speaker 2: drunk idiots and taking off my stock next hour. Really
Speaker 2: want to talk about this, even if you are a
Speaker 2: hardcore atheist, Judeo Christian values are what make your life livable, productive,
Speaker 2: and happy in the United States, and everybody needs to
Speaker 2: know it and say it out loud, and Marco Rubio
Speaker 2: did the other day. I want to salute him for
Speaker 2: that and drill down a little bit into culture means everything.
Speaker 2: Culture is upstream of everything except perhaps the word of
Speaker 2: God if you believe in God.
Speaker 3: So quickly. A couple of big things if you haven't
Speaker 3: heard them. Supreme Court is ruled Trump can't do that
Speaker 3: whole terraff thing, the whole emergency tarff thing, can't.
Speaker 2: Do me out of control Trump Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: So that's a big one. All news organizations reporting sources
Speaker 3: inside the White House and Pentagon saying this strike on
Speaker 3: Iran is looking almost certain and is going to be
Speaker 3: a pretty big deal. So we got that also, Prince
Speaker 3: I haven't even mentioned we're blockading Cuba, right, What are
Speaker 3: we trying to get out of them?
Speaker 2: We're trying to get communism out of them.
Speaker 3: That'd be next source is, Yeah, we got a bunch
Speaker 3: of good stuff coming in the next two hours. I mean,
Speaker 3: the show's only half over and it's been great so far,
Speaker 3: and it's going to continue to be good.
Speaker 2: That's faint that I haven't slacked off yet as half
Speaker 2: a miracle, So stay tuned to see how the next
Speaker 2: couple of hours.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna be dentist. I'm gonna be dentist drunk the
Speaker 3: last two hours.
Speaker 2: But if you can't stick around, here's an idea. Subscribe
Speaker 2: or follow our podcast, Armstrong and Getty on demand, and
Speaker 2: while you're at it, give us a glowing five star review.
Speaker 2: It helps the algorithms recommend us instead of morons and
Speaker 2: or liberals who poison the minds of our youth.
Speaker 3: The markets kind of liken the Supreme Court ruling. It
Speaker 3: looks like, among other things, we can talk about coming
Speaker 3: up
Speaker 2: Armstrong and Getty