Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio of the
Speaker 1: George Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2: Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong and Getty, I know
Speaker 2: he Armstrong and Yetty. So we've got a former al
Speaker 2: kaieda guy in charge. Now, what does he have planned
Speaker 2: for the new Syria. I'm assuming it's some taliban asque
Speaker 2: brutal fundamentalists to dystopia.
Speaker 3: There must be legal framework that protects and ensures the
Speaker 3: rights of all, not a system that serves only one sect.
Speaker 4: I asked God Almighty that this be a conquest free
Speaker 4: of revenge, but a conquest entirely of mercy and love.
Speaker 2: Conquest of mercy and love. I think that's how Taylor
Speaker 2: ended the aerostour.
Speaker 3: Wait that.
Speaker 1: The new leader of Siria's is swifty.
Speaker 2: How many terror groups is that guy in?
Speaker 1: That will be so interesting to watch develop. Is it
Speaker 1: going to become a multi sectarian blood bath Islamist nightmare
Speaker 1: for the next seventy five years?
Speaker 2: Or this?
Speaker 1: Does this guy mean what he says? You know, I
Speaker 1: want to get back into that, or I could do
Speaker 1: this later.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll get into that later. The idea of what
Speaker 1: should happen next in Syria, but I wanted to get
Speaker 1: to this. This is I'm going to take you on
Speaker 1: a multi point journey here. Start over here, we're gonna
Speaker 1: end be over there briefly, but then over there is
Speaker 1: gonna lead us over there, and we're gonna end up
Speaker 1: over there.
Speaker 2: You'll enjoy it, trust me. So I love this.
Speaker 1: Laura Powell, who's an attorney, tweeted this the other day.
Speaker 1: You can't from the you can't make this up, this
Speaker 1: stuff up file. A misinformation expert at Stanford one, Jeff Hancock,
Speaker 1: build the State of Minnesota six hundred dollars an hour
Speaker 1: to prepare an expert declaration on the dangers of AI
Speaker 1: generated content. Six hundred dollars an hour the dangers of
Speaker 1: AI generated content. He swore, under penalty of perjury, that
Speaker 1: everything staateent in the declaration was true and correct, but
Speaker 1: after it was discovered that the declaration indeed contained fabricated sources,
Speaker 1: he was forced to admit that he had relied on
Speaker 1: AI to write the declaration. Six hundred dollars an hour
Speaker 1: to talk about the dangers of AI generated content, and
Speaker 1: he shows up with a screen written by AI that's
Speaker 1: almost you know what, it's almost so funny it's worth
Speaker 1: him doing that. But as she points out, and I
Speaker 1: agree completely, if there is a moniker a title that
Speaker 1: leads you to immediately conclude that the person's a fraud,
Speaker 1: it's either fact checker or misinformation expert. Somebody calls himself
Speaker 1: a misinformation expert. I know they're there to sell me something,
Speaker 1: to offer some sort of dishonest snow job. Speaking of AI,
Speaker 1: I found this amusing. Beckett Adams was writing in the
Speaker 1: National Review about how for normal, healthy people they go
Speaker 1: through stages of grief, and his premises for the people
Speaker 1: stupid enough to have trusted a midwin career bureaucrats on
Speaker 1: and scrupulous as Joe Biden, there's a sixth stage just
Speaker 1: before acceptance, delusion, and he gets into the really.
Speaker 2: Odd theories of why.
Speaker 1: That Biden could have served for one thing, and how
Speaker 1: people are shocked that he hunted that he I'm sorry
Speaker 1: that he pardoned Hunter, even though he was completely consistent
Speaker 1: with his entire career. He's been dishonest, a hack, a backslapper,
Speaker 1: you know, with no real principles, and that was utterly,
Speaker 1: utterly predictable. But here's the part that kind of tie
Speaker 1: that I thought was so funny having to do with Ai.
Speaker 1: And he goes into the fact that so much of
Speaker 1: the media, and we played you these clips, was just
Speaker 1: just crowing about the fact that Joe Biden said he
Speaker 1: would not pardon Hunter and that showed him to be
Speaker 1: such an incredibly honorable man, a paragon of justice and
Speaker 1: an American decency and blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: And then he turned around and he was lying the
Speaker 2: whole time. But so enter the delusion.
Speaker 1: CBS's view co host and supposed political insighter and commentator
Speaker 1: Anna Navarro attempted to defend the pardon last week by
Speaker 1: arguing that many presidents, including America's twenty eighth commander in chief,
Speaker 1: have issued such edicts. Woodrow Wilson pardoned his brother in law,
Speaker 1: Hunter debuts, she remarked on social media, but tell me again,
Speaker 1: how Joe Biden is setting precedent. We actually got an
Speaker 1: adamant email from a listener about this, mentioning that Woodrow
Speaker 1: Wilson pardoned his brother in law. Hunter debts, Well, if
Speaker 1: you've never heard of this incident, it's because it never happened.
Speaker 1: There is no Hunter debuts, Wilson never pardoned his brother
Speaker 1: in law.
Speaker 2: It's pure fabrication.
Speaker 1: In a fevered scramble to exonerate Biden for his objectively
Speaker 1: slazy dealings, Navarro had asked chat GPT for exculpatory historical
Speaker 1: examples of similar presidential pardons, and the AI tool then
Speaker 1: hallucinated a non existent event, which it does, and that's
Speaker 1: It's such a head scratcher of a phenomenon too.
Speaker 4: Isn't it.
Speaker 1: It just invents stuff anyway, and Navarro uncritically shared the
Speaker 1: results on social media because she wanted so badly for
Speaker 1: Biden to be at the very least in line with
Speaker 1: historical president but she didn't like look it up or anything.
Speaker 2: To get any sort of verification.
Speaker 1: And then then she she later blamed uh, chat GPT, Hey,
Speaker 1: Twitter sleuths, thanks for taking the time to provide context.
Speaker 2: Avide context.
Speaker 1: You claim something utterly fanciful to defend the indefensible.
Speaker 2: But the great part of this is and.
Speaker 1: I'm quoting who, and I say this is beck At Adams.
Speaker 1: The funny thing isn't that a robot hallucinated a presidential
Speaker 1: pardon from and with a name like Hunter debts. But
Speaker 1: none of this sounded out of place. To a woman
Speaker 1: who's paid handsomely to explain the news in US politics
Speaker 1: to television audiences. One can't help but wonder whether even
Speaker 1: the names huge ass or Amanda hugging kiss would have
Speaker 1: set off alarms in Navarro's head. Oh, that's beautiful, And
Speaker 1: then then he points out huge ass.
Speaker 2: A classic.
Speaker 1: Points out that Esquire political columnist Charles Pierce the absolute
Speaker 1: dimmest burnout in the commentary business. Here I did something
Speaker 1: arguably more embarrassing when he wrote an entire article promoting
Speaker 1: a similar pardon fantasy. The article has since been completely
Speaker 1: retracted from Esquire.
Speaker 2: The one thousand.
Speaker 1: Plus words story originally titled a president shouldn't pardon his son? Hello,
Speaker 1: anybody remember Neil Bush? Claimed that and we got an
Speaker 1: email on this too, claimed that former President George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush pardoned his son over the savings and loan scandal.
Speaker 1: Article sub had read, nobody defines Poppy Bush's presidents by
Speaker 1: the fact that presidency by the fact that he pardoned
Speaker 1: his progeny the moral shut the f up about Hunter Biden, Please,
Speaker 1: except hw never pardoned his son Neil. So immediately after
Speaker 1: a number of readers pointed out Esquire, he didn't. Esquire
Speaker 1: article went through significant changes in revisions, including to the headline,
Speaker 1: which was changed to Hunter Biden isn't the first presidential
Speaker 1: son caught up in controversy? Anybody remember Neil Bush. But
Speaker 1: eventually Esquire attracted the piece altogether because there was no
Speaker 1: longer any point to the article even with the edits
Speaker 1: and revisions, they put up a note this column has
Speaker 1: been removed due to an error anyway, So that all
Speaker 1: leads us through various tales of AI dishonesty intersecting with
Speaker 1: politics to the politics endpoint I wanted to get to.
Speaker 1: And I know dissecting the election is so last month,
Speaker 1: but I thought this was absolutely extraordinary about lefty voters.
Speaker 1: So who did this study? Well, there it is. Hello,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I got a computer glitch. No, I don't
Speaker 1: want to sign up. They did a big poll slash
Speaker 1: study of voters explaining what happened with the election or
Speaker 1: giving their perception their explanation of what happened with the election,
Speaker 1: and the most common, of course, now the website is
Speaker 1: locked up, the most common explanation from Harris voters for
Speaker 1: why she lost was misogyny, sexism. That was number one,
Speaker 1: not the economy or the economy under Trump, not inflation,
Speaker 1: not the border, although those things did burble up in
Speaker 1: the word cloud thing they had. But the number one explanation,
Speaker 1: again was that it was sexism misogyny that people would
Speaker 1: not vote for Harris. And if you as a party
Speaker 1: come from that election having come to that conclusion, you
Speaker 1: don't have a chance the next go around. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have no ability to perceive what went wrong with
Speaker 1: your game, which is really the only thing you can control.
Speaker 1: And I just find that absolutely extraordinary. And I agree
Speaker 1: with Jack when he said, I think America would love
Speaker 1: to elect a woman president just so we wouldn't have
Speaker 1: to hear about it anymore. And like virtually every conservative
Speaker 1: in America, hey, if she was smart and tough, had
Speaker 1: great policies, loved America, believed in her robust defense, you know,
Speaker 1: try to reduce the size of the government, reduce the debt.
Speaker 2: Whatever.
Speaker 1: Hell, I don't care if she's a woman or non
Speaker 1: binary or a lesbian or whatever else.
Speaker 2: Nobody cares.
Speaker 1: But that's the number one explanation of why our side lost. Wow,
Speaker 1: is that delusional? Speaking of that sort of thing? Brad
Speaker 1: Penny acquitted in New York. Thank goodness, some great commentary
Speaker 1: on that case and what it means and what it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean. Plus activists calling for violence in the wake
Speaker 1: of that case. Just unbelievable. And of course how little
Speaker 1: attention that's getting.
Speaker 2: A lot to squeeze in. Hope you can stay with us.
Speaker 2: Heh y, how you doing? Thanks for being here.
Speaker 1: You're thinking of picking up an A and G sweatshirt
Speaker 1: or hat or something for a loved one for Christmas?
Speaker 1: Probably want to order it today Armstrong and Getty dot com. Yeah,
Speaker 1: premium sweatshirts flying off the shelves. Ran this clip yesterday,
Speaker 1: where'd go the Oh, it's under the the Penny Daniel
Speaker 1: Penny acquittal stuff, give us forty six. This is the
Speaker 1: head of New York's Black Lives Matter, After or just
Speaker 1: during the trial, he was talking on the street corner,
Speaker 1: we need something black visionies. That's right.
Speaker 2: People want to jump up and choke us. Hey, kill
Speaker 2: us for being loud.
Speaker 3: How about we do the same when they attempt to
Speaker 3: oppress us.
Speaker 2: I'm tired tie it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: He went on to say, Daniel Penny, you're not safe
Speaker 1: on the streets in New York.
Speaker 2: We're gonna hunt you down.
Speaker 1: Essentially, and I got no coverage threatening violence against a man.
Speaker 1: People in general because they didn't like the verdict ought
Speaker 1: to be a giant story in America. It's ignored by
Speaker 1: the utterly dishonest to mainstream media because the idea that
Speaker 1: you know, people of color can be racist is so unpopular.
Speaker 1: See if or just it's unspeakable to the media. See
Speaker 1: if this strikes you as a little bit racist, This
Speaker 1: is honorary Kleinsman, race, hustler, fraud, merchant. Ebram X Kendy
Speaker 1: on leashing your screen the screed the other day.
Speaker 4: I don't think.
Speaker 3: White people worldwide have really reckoned with how much their
Speaker 3: own personal identity is shaped by constructions of whiteness, and
Speaker 3: how much that construction of whiteness prevents uh, white people
Speaker 3: from connecting to humanity in other words, uh, recognizing that
Speaker 3: when you when you recognize that you are part and
Speaker 3: parcel of humanity, in other words, you're not over humanity, right. Uh.
Speaker 3: It allows you to.
Speaker 4: Really be able to connect to people who don't look
Speaker 4: like you, who have kinky hair, who have dark skin, uh,
Speaker 4: and to see yourself in them.
Speaker 3: And it's whiteness that prevents that. Right, And when and
Speaker 3: when you're not able to see yourself, uh in other
Speaker 3: human beings. That creates all sorts of problems, but not
Speaker 3: just societal.
Speaker 2: Problems and personal problems.
Speaker 3: Uh that that I think hopefully this, this, this film
Speaker 3: and this work will will liberate those. So I think
Speaker 3: it's this liberat it's liberating all the way around, right it.
Speaker 3: You know, I think it will liberate you know, really
Speaker 3: all of us, because you know, we've all been told
Speaker 3: a lie about ourselves and other people.
Speaker 2: Well, what a delusional crime.
Speaker 1: Liberating you from your inability to pay your bills, I know,
Speaker 1: because you've gotten rich. And I congratulate John cooking up
Speaker 1: a scam that's so effective with soft headed, guilt.
Speaker 2: Ridden white people.
Speaker 1: But what a load of Do you need a constructor
Speaker 1: do you need a permit to construct your whiteness? Because
Speaker 1: if you're constructing your whiteness every day without a permit,
Speaker 1: you're probably gonna get a fine. Just absolutely cuckoo nuts.
Speaker 1: The idea that white people can't connect themselves to the
Speaker 1: rest of humanity because their hair looks different.
Speaker 2: Have you ever spoken to any.
Speaker 1: White people ebra I mean and lecturing them and taking
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand dollars an hour for one of your
Speaker 1: racist screens doesn't doesn't count as talking to people. But
Speaker 1: I thought this was so interesting.
Speaker 2: There was a big who this poll. It was a
Speaker 2: big pole echelon insights blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: More white progressives think that racism is built into our
Speaker 1: society than black or Hispanic Americans, and white progressives are
Speaker 1: much less likely to agree to the America is the
Speaker 1: greatest country in the world than black or Hispanic Americans.
Speaker 1: This over educated, like the healthcare shooter lunatic dude with
Speaker 1: this view that the great white hope would save the
Speaker 1: darker people even though the darker people. For instance, racism
Speaker 1: is built into our society. White progressives seventy seven percent
Speaker 1: say that's correct, with blacks as sixty one percent.
Speaker 2: That's still too many and that's a.
Speaker 1: Shame, But I mean their number is dwarfed by white progressives.
Speaker 1: Hispanics is like thirty eight percent, and white conservatives is
Speaker 1: like twenty four percent. I believe racism is built in
Speaker 1: our society. America is the greatest country in the world.
Speaker 1: Ninety percent of white conservatives believe that, seventy six percent
Speaker 1: of Hispanics believe it. Fifty nine percent of blacks believe it.
Speaker 1: White progressives thirty percent, by far the lowest number. Most
Speaker 1: people can make it if they work hard. You ask
Speaker 1: a black person that forty percent believe it. That's way
Speaker 1: too low, way too low.
Speaker 2: They have been.
Speaker 1: Absolutely brainwashed into the cult of dependence, and I think
Speaker 1: it's a damn shame. About fifty nine percent of Hispanic
Speaker 1: people believe most people can make it if they work hard.
Speaker 1: White conservatives eighty four percent believe it, White progressives twenty
Speaker 1: three percent, twenty three percent government should increase border security
Speaker 1: and enforcement. About or about fifty percent of Hispanics and
Speaker 1: blacks believe that white progressives it's about sixteen percent.
Speaker 2: Isn't that crazy?
Speaker 1: What a weird little cult white progressivism is. People need
Speaker 1: to be studied at the university level, well, except the
Speaker 1: universities are completely captured by them.
Speaker 2: Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1: I got a couple of emails we might drop in
Speaker 1: during the rest of the show today, including this one.
Speaker 1: We were talking yesterday about how difficult it is, apparently
Speaker 1: to predict revolutions like the one that just happened Syria, revolution, coup, overthrow,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it, and Sean reminded us
Speaker 1: of a famous economics saying he's paraphrasing it. I've predicted
Speaker 1: twelve of the last three revolutions. It usually applies to
Speaker 1: recessions or whatever. Bull markets, I've predicted twelve of the
Speaker 1: last three recessions. Meaning people predict stuff all the time.
Speaker 1: That's the problem. I'm sure there were predictions that Asad
Speaker 1: was about to fall out there, but they were mixed
Speaker 1: in with a bunch of predictions of the opposite, or
Speaker 1: something halfway in between or whatever. It's just everybody's guessing
Speaker 1: all the time. But you think they would see I
Speaker 1: don't know, sweeping across the landscape and Toyota pickup trucks
Speaker 1: and notice it.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Totally different topic. Thought this was so good.
Speaker 1: Mike Lee, who is the Senator from Utah and is
Speaker 1: one of my favorite people in government, don't agree with
Speaker 1: them one hundred percent of the time. But the list
Speaker 1: of people I agree with one hundred percent of the
Speaker 1: time is very very short. In fact, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: there's anybody I change my mind, so I don't agree
Speaker 1: with myself one.
Speaker 2: Hundred percent at the time. Anyway, Mike Lee unleashed this
Speaker 2: the other day.
Speaker 1: It's a Twitter threat it's adopted from something he wrote,
Speaker 1: adapted rather from something he wrote that I thought was
Speaker 1: just terrific and so interesting and.
Speaker 2: A little annoying, troubling and raging. But he begins.
Speaker 1: Of all the deceptive sales techniques the US government is
Speaker 1: used on the American people, one of them, the Social
Speaker 1: Security Act, gets far too little attention. Buckle up, because
Speaker 1: this is a wild ride. In nineteen thirty five, the
Speaker 1: American people were sold a bill of goods. They were told,
Speaker 1: pay into this system and it'll be your money for retirement.
Speaker 1: And he has some of the actual verbiage of these
Speaker 1: Social Security Act. Sounds great, right, But here's where it
Speaker 1: gets juicy in a really ugly way. Two years later,
Speaker 1: when the Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of the
Speaker 1: Social Security Act, the government did a complete one point
Speaker 1: eighty The government, through Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson, this
Speaker 1: is under FDR. Are you in essence? Oh no, no, no,
Speaker 1: this isn't your money at all. This is a tax
Speaker 1: and we can do whatever we want with it. Classic
Speaker 1: bait and switch. And let's not forget the ruling in
Speaker 1: Hellverring v. Davis, where the Supreme Court upheld the Social
Speaker 1: Security Act by embracing the government's argument slash admission just
Speaker 1: skipped ahead that what people pay into Social Security is
Speaker 1: tax revenue available to be used as Congress may direct,
Speaker 1: and not at all money belonging to those who paid it. So,
Speaker 1: to summarize, the proponents of the Social Security Act told
Speaker 1: American workers that what they paid in the system would
Speaker 1: remain their money, not the governments, to get Congress to
Speaker 1: pass it, and then told the courts the exact opposite
Speaker 1: when defending the Act's.
Speaker 2: Use of money.
Speaker 1: So, now let's talk about what happens to your money
Speaker 1: once it's in the government's hands. Wright, senatorly spoiler alert,
Speaker 1: it's not managed like your or four one K and
Speaker 1: I think a lot of you know this, but it's
Speaker 1: worth repeating, indoor, filling in some of the details, end
Speaker 1: or bringing people along.
Speaker 2: We had no idea this.
Speaker 1: First of all, the money that goes its taxed out
Speaker 1: of your hands into Social Security does not sit in
Speaker 1: a nice individual account with your name on it. No,
Speaker 1: it goes into a huge account called the Social Security
Speaker 1: Trust Fund. But here's the kicker. The government routinely raids
Speaker 1: this fund. Yes you heard that right, They take your
Speaker 1: money and use it for whatever the current Congress deems necessary,
Speaker 1: including stuff that is completely one hundred percent not related
Speaker 1: to Social Security or benefits for old people or whatever.
Speaker 1: There's talking Congress about saving Social Security. I've introduced and
Speaker 1: co sponsored a number of measures over the years that
Speaker 1: would fix it, but most in Congress show little desire
Speaker 1: to fix it and are instead constantly looking for ways
Speaker 1: to borrow from it quote unquote, with no plan to
Speaker 1: put it back. And the returns, forget about compound to
Speaker 1: interest or stock market gains. Your investment in Social Security
Speaker 1: can give you a lower return than inflation. If you
Speaker 1: had put the same amount into literally anything else, a
Speaker 1: mutual fund, real estate, even a savings account, you'd be
Speaker 1: better off by the time you reach retirement age, even if.
Speaker 2: The government kept some of it. Do the math with
Speaker 2: Social Security.
Speaker 1: You're looking at a return that's pathetic compared to market
Speaker 1: market averages. It's not even an investment, it's a tax.
Speaker 1: And let's talk about how this system is set up
Speaker 1: to fail. The democraphic shift, more retirees, fewer workers. It's
Speaker 1: almost fair to compare it to a Ponzi scheme that's
Speaker 1: running out of new investors and every dollar you pay
Speaker 1: into Social Security only to see it gobbled up by
Speaker 1: the government itself is a dollar you cannot invest in
Speaker 1: your own future. It's government dependency at its worst. Remember
Speaker 1: this isn't just about retirement, it's about independence, about controlling
Speaker 1: your own destiny. With social Security, you control nothing. The
Speaker 1: government promises you security but gives you dependency. It promises ownership,
Speaker 1: but it gives you a tax receipt. And don't get
Speaker 1: me started on the management. The Social Security administration is
Speaker 1: a bureaucratic biemuth, not exactly known for its efficiency or innovation.
Speaker 1: If you think your money is safe there, you're in
Speaker 1: for a rude awakening. The mismanagement, the waste, the deception,
Speaker 1: it's all on display. And I'm going to pause now
Speaker 1: and depart from Michaele's text to point out for the
Speaker 1: millionth time the utter incompetence, bias, and stupidity of the
Speaker 1: mainstream media. This is a story so massive and so important.
Speaker 2: To all of us.
Speaker 1: It affects all of us directly financially. You'd think you
Speaker 1: would hear about this all the time, and not just
Speaker 1: from quote unquote conservative commentators.
Speaker 2: And I honestly don't know.
Speaker 1: What's conservative or not conservative about this discussion. Unless you
Speaker 1: just want everything controlled by the government, you're that sort
Speaker 1: of progressive.
Speaker 2: Anyway.
Speaker 1: So Mike Lee, right, So what's the solution. We need real,
Speaker 1: genuine reform within the Social Security administ system. Americans should
Speaker 1: be able to invest in their own future and not
Speaker 1: be shackled by the worst parts of this outdated, mismanaged
Speaker 1: system again, which was cooked up going on one hundred
Speaker 1: years ago. It's time we acknowledge the truth. Social Security
Speaker 1: as it now exists is not a retirement plan. It's
Speaker 1: a tax plan with retirement benefits as an afterthought. We
Speaker 1: were sold to dream but received a nightmare. It's time
Speaker 1: for a wake up call. We need real reform. It's
Speaker 1: time for Americans to know the true history of Social
Speaker 1: Security Act. The more people learn the truth, the more
Speaker 1: they'll start demanding answers, options, and real reform from Congress.
Speaker 2: Please help spread the word.
Speaker 1: The history of the Social Security Act, which sadly must
Speaker 1: include the deceptive manner in which it was sold to
Speaker 1: the American people, is yet another reason why America's century
Speaker 1: long era of progressive government must be brought to a close.
Speaker 1: Please follow if you'd like to read more posts.
Speaker 2: Like this one.
Speaker 1: I retweeted it, of course. But what's interesting about this
Speaker 1: is human beings. I think the vast majority of us
Speaker 1: are fundamentally conservative, not in a political way, but and
Speaker 1: this is super, super frustrating to me when you look
Speaker 1: at whether Social Security, which is indefensible as a system,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just dumb, or the tax code, which
Speaker 1: we've talked about many, many times. If you were to
Speaker 1: propose it as it is, not only would you be rejected,
Speaker 1: you would be hooted out of the country for proposing
Speaker 1: something so ludicrous and wasteful and complex.
Speaker 2: I mean, seriously, people would laugh at you.
Speaker 1: They wouldn't even bother rejecting your idea to implement what
Speaker 1: we have right now because it's so clearly idiotic. And yet,
Speaker 1: and this gets back to my point about people being
Speaker 1: fundamentally in a way conservative. If you suggest changing these things,
Speaker 1: reforming them, it's practically effortless to get people to reject
Speaker 1: that idea because they don't know what they want, but
Speaker 1: they want what they know. They're so afraid to mess
Speaker 1: with anything or experiment. Maybe that's a scary word, I
Speaker 1: don't know, to innovate, to just take a look, are
Speaker 1: we doing this the right way that you just can't
Speaker 1: get anywhere with it politically speak. And most politicians have
Speaker 1: accepted this long ago. If you you know, fed them
Speaker 1: truth serum or just got them one on one and said, hey,
Speaker 1: all of this is off the record, how's Social Security
Speaker 1: looking or what do you think of it as a system,
Speaker 1: they would most of them say, oh, it's a nightmare,
Speaker 1: total nightmare.
Speaker 2: But you just can't.
Speaker 1: Get the voters to a place of understanding adequate to
Speaker 1: then explaining why you've got to change it and in
Speaker 1: what way it's a real failing of democracy or something.
Speaker 2: I'm just trying.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about this even as I'm talking. I mean,
Speaker 1: especially when you look at the size of the entitlements,
Speaker 1: the share of the federal budget that is the entitlement programs,
Speaker 1: and how they're obviously screaming toward a cliff and the
Speaker 1: system is indefensible at its birth, it was utterly dishonest
Speaker 1: the moment it was.
Speaker 2: It's like Obamacare.
Speaker 1: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Speaker 1: It's discouraging that we can't get any momentum behind fixing
Speaker 1: this stuff. And I really like Mike Lee. Maybe he's
Speaker 1: a bit of a tilter at windmills. But these are
Speaker 1: windmills that are going to ruin the country, so I
Speaker 1: appreciate his awe his efforts anyway.
Speaker 2: But yeah, with compound interest.
Speaker 1: If you just bought a CD, remember those, not ali
Speaker 1: like a music CD, a certificate of deposit like automatically
Speaker 1: renewed at some very modest nineteen nineties level interest rate
Speaker 1: or something like that, you would have many, multiple, many
Speaker 1: multiples of your Social Security benefits. Anyway, It's frustrating. Elections
Speaker 1: have consequences. I guess vote for people who are willing
Speaker 1: to be honest about this stuff. Ah, this is apropos
Speaker 1: nothing but gets again to the topic of government action
Speaker 1: in action. This is el capon El capon from Portland,
Speaker 1: which is a hell of a funny screen name. A
Speaker 1: capon is like a neutered chicken, right, it's a gelding.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I know that.
Speaker 1: I think it's to make them like fatter and yummier
Speaker 1: to eat. I don't know why cutting off their nards
Speaker 1: does that, but it does. Ask a chicken farmer, why
Speaker 1: you're you asking me? Got this note? I recently attempted
Speaker 1: to help my ninety year old wheelchair bound mother in
Speaker 1: law to get her attempting to help her get her
Speaker 1: real ID, which will be required to board US airplanes
Speaker 1: after May the twenty seventh of twenty twenty five. This
Speaker 1: was a nine to eleven thing, right, and it's got
Speaker 1: delayed year after year after year after year, to the
Speaker 1: point of absurdity. Nine to eleven will have been twenty
Speaker 1: four years prior to the actual implementation of this if
Speaker 1: it actually happens anyway, Getting back to L. K. Pond's note,
Speaker 1: it's trying to get his nine year old wheelchair bound
Speaker 1: mother in law her real ID. We provided her birth certificate,
Speaker 1: current California ID, her last marriage certificate, and several utility
Speaker 1: bills to prove her address. She was born in the USA. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: although she never committed a crime, has never been a
Speaker 1: member of any subversive group, she was denied a real ID.
Speaker 1: Why well, her first marriage as a teenager this is
Speaker 1: seventy plus years ago, was an elopement and we were
Speaker 1: unable to provide a valid marriage certificate from that. What
Speaker 1: would that be nineteen forties marriage? Even though we all
Speaker 1: had the aforementioned proof of her identity and citizenship. When
Speaker 1: I asked the Santa Monica DMV agent if it would
Speaker 1: be easier to get a real IDEA if I wheeled
Speaker 1: her up through the southern border.
Speaker 2: The woman just glared at me.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, though what I asked about is likely true, as
Speaker 1: it turns out, US citizenship is not required for a
Speaker 1: real ID. In other words, illegal aliens who have no
Speaker 1: American certified proof of identity can get one. WTF What
Speaker 1: exactly is the purpose of the real ID and the
Speaker 1: idea that a ninety plus year old American citizen can't
Speaker 1: get one because of some paperwork problem with a marriage
Speaker 1: that took place when Truman was striding the halls of
Speaker 1: the White House. It's just incredibly frustrating. But it reminds
Speaker 1: me of the Social Security discussion and the bullet train,
Speaker 1: the bullspit train in California and other things. What is
Speaker 1: as he signs off? What exactly is the purpose of
Speaker 1: the real ID? To that, I would answer, go ask
Speaker 1: two thousand and one, Go ask the year twenty oh two,
Speaker 1: Go ask Dick Cheney. But it got started and we
Speaker 1: decided we needed it, and no government program ever gets ended.
Speaker 1: So your poor nine year old granny is gonna what
Speaker 1: I don't know, I have to take amtrack. Oh faye, eh,
Speaker 1: sorry to bring you down. I have to laugh to
Speaker 1: keep from crying. We'll finish strong next day.
Speaker 2: With Katie Michael. Have you heard about Scrim the Dog?
Speaker 2: I have not. Do you know Scrim the Dog? Scrim?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: I find this story charming in a way, just because
Speaker 1: it's huge in New Orleans and nobody else knows about
Speaker 1: it or is talking about it really, And I'm you know,
Speaker 1: I miss your big box America makes me insane. You
Speaker 1: go to every town in America. Every town looks the
Speaker 1: same now. It didn't used to be that way. Every
Speaker 1: town had its own department store and convenience stores and
Speaker 1: restaurants and holes in the wall and the rest of it.
Speaker 1: Now it's just this ugly corporate mess. So I don't
Speaker 1: suggest you shoot a healthcare executive over it. Maybe just
Speaker 1: to get a canoe and enjoy vacation in the woods.
Speaker 1: But anyway, this is so uniquely American. This is a
Speaker 1: seventeen pound mutt, a funky looking dog too, not like
Speaker 1: an ugly dog contest winner, but funky looking thing. A
Speaker 1: couple adopts it from a shelter. Two hours later it
Speaker 1: escapes jeez, and so they put up posters, help us
Speaker 1: find our dog, Scream the dog. The Thing's been captured
Speaker 1: and escaped many times since, dozens of failed captures, hundreds
Speaker 1: of sightings, thousands of dollars in rescue efforts, a widely
Speaker 1: broadcast detainment, and then a more recent escape out of
Speaker 1: a second story window. Every Neworlean Indian has an opinion
Speaker 1: about Scrim. It's become a craze. This dog.
Speaker 2: Wait, hang on back he jumped out of a second
Speaker 2: story window. Yes, yes, I see in the video.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this funky looking dog who is admittedly kind
Speaker 1: of in a comeete way, very photogenic. Now, every half
Speaker 1: of New Orleans is like, hell bent, it's become their
Speaker 1: great cause. Oh my god, there is flying out of
Speaker 1: the window and smacking in the lawn, then runs away.
Speaker 2: Anyway.
Speaker 1: Half of New Orleans is like, we've got to do
Speaker 1: whatever it takes to find Scrim. There's there's these women
Speaker 1: primarily who are donating like thousands of dollars in all
Speaker 1: of their free time to try to rescue Scrim. And
Speaker 1: then the rest of New Orleans is like, there's so
Speaker 1: many f and straight dogs on the street.
Speaker 2: What are you people doing?
Speaker 1: Kill the thing or ignor it, or let it run away,
Speaker 1: just forget it.
Speaker 2: Don't kill Scram.
Speaker 1: He's cute.
Speaker 2: I see a picture of him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think anybody's actively trying to kill the thing,
Speaker 1: But there are other women who are saying, instead of
Speaker 1: spending so many resources on this one dog, we should
Speaker 1: probably be funding the public animals shelters.
Speaker 2: If we care about dogs this much. Well, now we've
Speaker 2: got to find Scrim.
Speaker 1: Help Scrim, save Scrim.
Speaker 2: Oh, people are stray. Look for the barcessities, a simple
Speaker 2: bare necessities like final thoughts to and anther show.
Speaker 1: I mean the bairncessities on the Mother Nature's recipes, like
Speaker 1: final thoughts from our hosts Jack and Joe. Here's a
Speaker 1: woman who spent about ten thousand dollars from her own
Speaker 1: pocket and other fundraisers on rescue efforts.
Speaker 2: And gear for one dog. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Hey, let's get a final thought from everybody on the
Speaker 1: cruise left to wrap things up for the day. There
Speaker 1: he is our technical director, Michaelangelo. Michael, what's your final thought?
Speaker 2: You know, Jack really does make his life hard.
Speaker 1: He was telling me that he has two full pies
Speaker 1: and a full cheesecake at home.
Speaker 2: Just sitting there. I'm thinking that is torture.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, well I would know what to do with that.
Speaker 1: It started, Katie Green are esteemedn't use woman. As a
Speaker 1: final thought, Katie.
Speaker 2: I'm going to nose dive into this Scrim thing. I'm
Speaker 2: seeing scrim t shirts, scraw bugs. It's a crazy.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: I like that.
Speaker 1: That gall who spent ten thousand dollars on rescuing Scrim,
Speaker 1: educated herself in, tranquilized her dark, shooting and trained and
Speaker 1: stuff like that.
Speaker 2: Says I'm a Cajun, so I'm a good shot.
Speaker 1: Evidently, one of our volunteers shot out the windshield of
Speaker 1: a rescue van, so maybe they're not such a great shot.
Speaker 1: But now the story of Scrim will be following it
Speaker 1: for you. Armstrung and Gedddy wrapping up another grueling for
Speaker 1: our workday. Go to armstrong geddy dot com. Pick up sweatshirt,
Speaker 1: order it for Christmas. God bless America.
Speaker 2: I'm strong and gette.
Speaker 1: They're way better at words, Oh my words.
Speaker 2: It is time for us to do what we have
Speaker 2: been doing in that time as every day pre cool
Speaker 2: matter of fact. But it's also a bob. It's a
Speaker 2: bobcat is the thing. It's thank you.
Speaker 4: All and it's always everybody else.
Speaker 2: I love you all that high note. Thanks all very much,
Speaker 2: Armstrong and Getty