April 23, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Andrew "Art" Arthur talks to Joe Getty!
- Did JD Vance kill the Pope?
- A new level of anger & Harvard Hysteria!
- Market dip & Trump is not firing Jerome Powell
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio of the
George Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
We're getting them out.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
And a judge can't say, no, you have to have
a child, that the trial is going to take two years,
and no, we're going to have a very We're going
to have a very dangerous country if we're not allowed
to do what we're entitled to do.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
And I want an.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Election based on the fact that we get him.
Speaker 5 (00:40):
Out rampant uncontrolled immigration four years, particularly as we're going
to discuss now from Venezuela, the effort to get these
people out of the country as quickly and efficiently as possible,
running into a recent Supreme Court ruling to discuss all
of this, Please welcome Art Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law
(01:02):
and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Art, how are you, sir, Joe?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I'm doing great and my best to all of your listeners.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Oh, thank you, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 5 (01:14):
I see this as a great example of if you
do the wrong thing long enough, doing the right thing
becomes more and more difficult, and that is the challenge
before us.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Now, Yeah, no, that's absolutely correct, and in fact, you know,
that was one of the things that you know, the
Center and I were warning about as we went through
the Biden Border of fiasco is you know, millions millions
of unvetted migrants poured into the United States that the
you know, it was setting up a perfect storm in
(01:49):
which removing those individuals from this country and identifying the
ones who were truly bad was going to require an
all of government effort. And it is that all of
an effort that the Trump administration is now implementing.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
But you know, this is going to be a.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Long slog and it's going to take years for us
to undo all the damage that was done over the
past four years.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
Yeah, one is reminded of the Cloward pivot radical left
strategy of overwhelming the system to break it. But how
let's just do a minute on how we ended up
with Sadam many Venezuelans, in particular trendy Uragua gang members
in the country.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Yeah, and you know, that's great question. They'll give you
the thirty second explanation. Up until the Biden administration, we
really didn't get that many illegal Venezuelans. There's a diaspora
of Venezuelans who have left the country ever since it
was turned into a socialist basket case by Hugo Chavez
and then by his successor, Nicholas Maduro. Once the Biden
(02:54):
administration took off, it's one of the first things that
it did was it gave temporary protected status to Thenalans
who were here.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
That meant we couldn't deport them.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
But you know, the smugglers and the migrants don't read
the fine print of that, may assume that everybody who
came here would be protected from removal, and so consequently
we ended up with four hundred thousand plus brand new
Venezuelans who came into the United States. The Biden administration
you flailed around with how it was going to deal
with them, and it decided that the best way to
(03:24):
deal with them, to keep people from entering illegally from Venezuela,
was to open our airports to Venezuelans who didn't have
any visas, who hadn't been vetted. And that really gets
to the point, Joe, none of these individuals have been
vetted before they come to the United States. If you
get a legal visa. You have to show that you're
not a criminal. You've got to get a letter from
your local police department back home show and you don't
(03:45):
have any crimes. We don't have diplomatic relations with Venezuelan,
and so consequently, Venezuela has no interest whatsoever in telling
us who amongst this population of four hundred thousand plus
who have poured in are good people.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
And who aren't.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
And so unfortunately it's local police departments and now the
FBI that's having to uncover all the activities of those individuals,
Frende Aragua members and other criminals who have come from
Venezuela into the United States. To remember, Joe Donald Trump
was derided, criticized, you know, mocked when he said that
Venezuela was opening its jails and.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Its mental institutions.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Well, Nicholas Maduro is an acolyte of Fidel Castro, and
that's exactly if you remember what Fidel Castro did during
the Mariel Bog crisis. So the apple didn't fall far
from the trade in this particular instance.
Speaker 5 (04:37):
Yeah, So we around here cherish the idea of due process.
It's the idea that our country is based on that
if the government can trample on your rights, eventually they will.
And so the whole system is based around making sure
that the government has to prove it's doing what it's
doing in a way that is legal and respect people's rights.
(05:00):
On the other hand, if you allow the country to
be flooded with many millions of people, including what do
you figure the number is from.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Venezuela, just so I'm semi accurate, Do you have any idea?
Speaker 1 (05:10):
So we know that more than seven hundred thousand, I
think with seven hundred and thirty one thousand, Venezuelan's work
eligible for temporary protected status at the time that all
Jundra New York has issued his second designation of the
group in twenty twenty four. So you're talking about, you know,
seven hundred and fifty thousand people.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
Okay, that's a hell of a lot of people. So,
having said what I said about due process, what would
quote unquote due process look like in this situation because
the phrase can mean different things. If it means a
criminal prosecution, it's beyond a reasonable doubt as a judge
by a jury of my peers, if I've walked across
the border and forty seconds later, I'm apprehended by the
(05:51):
Customs and Border Patrol quote unquote, due process is a
very different thing. So what did the Scotis say the
other day because they had like a late night ruling,
and what should do process look like to deal with
all these gang members?
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:09):
No, I mean you make so many really important points
that your listeners really need to listen very carefully to
that adjective do in due process?
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Is there for a reason.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Due process means different things in different situations.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
And when it comes to an individual.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
At the border or at the ports, those individuals court
to the Supreme Court only have the process rights that
Congress has given them, and in that context, Congress hasn't
given them many. With respect to the individuals who have
been released into the United States, they have slightly more
due process rights, but not the full you know, rights
that are guaranteed under the Constitution to United States citizens.
(06:50):
So what President Trump is attempting to do here is
to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. And people say, oh,
it's from seventeen ninety eight. Yeah it is, but it's
also codified. It's fifty US Code, Section twenty one, and
it permits the president in the face of an invasion
or predatory incursion to remove individuals under you know, his
(07:12):
constitutional powers from the United States who were viewed as
having participated in that invasion or that incursion. In this context,
it's trend Aragua members who followed that migrant flow.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
To the United States.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
And you know, in its first order in with respect
to trend Aragua, in response to in order that have
been issued by Judge Boseburg, James Boseburg, the District Court
in d C. The you know, court said, you know,
they're entitled to some process they get notice of, you know,
that they've been charged or that they're going to be
(07:47):
removed under this provision. But the court also made clear
that you know, by and large it's the lower courts,
the district courts have to defer to the Execus to
branch in that determination. This is foreign policy, Joe, and
this is something that the court doesn't have any competence in,
let alone jurisdiction. They can't say whether this is necessary
(08:11):
for the foreign policy the United States or not. So
they're entitled to notice and probably an opportunity to say
I'm not a trend.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
To iron Will member.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
But by and large those district court judges who are
hearing those cases in Habeas are going to have to
largely defer to the determinations of the executive branch, specifically
the FBI, DHS, and the State Department.
Speaker 5 (08:37):
Yeah, it seems a little ridiculous the idea that if
Maduro said, you know what I'll do, and he did
this intentionally, it is clearly an invasion, clearly a hostile
active of foreign power. But if he kind of only
semi accidentally did it, then we've got to give these
guys hearings for years. That just seems absurd to me.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Yeah, and you know, the Trump administration, the second one,
learned a lot from the first Trump administration. And if
you actually go back and you read the Foreign Terrorist
Organization designation from the State Department on February twenty and
you look at President Trump's proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies
Act that he issued on March the eleventh, they actually
(09:17):
go into the political activities of Trende Aragua and they
say in essence that it operates in conjunction with the
Maduro regime and that it supports the Maduro regime's goal
of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.
You know, Nicholas Maduro, the Marxist strong man in Venezuela,
(09:41):
is a bitter opponent of the United States, and we
don't like him either. Even the Biden administration wouldn't admit
that he was a legitimate leader of the country. And
you know, the argument of the government that the President
is making, in fact, it's not even an argument. It's
what he's found is that this is part of an
attempt to undermine the United States, that these crimes that
they participate in, you know, in the United States and
(10:02):
throughout the Americans.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Are part of a plan.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
And you know, with that in mind, this appears to
be on pretty strong legal ground for me. And you know,
even Bill Barr, you know, former Trump administration Attorney general
but no fan of the President today, said yeah, no,
this is perfectly permissible for them to do. We need
to get to the point in which the court's one court,
actually makes that determination that's going to become the law,
(10:28):
and then all of this it's going to become very easy.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
And as always, it'd sure be helpful if Congress would
stand up and do their jobs and get good and
specific about this stuff. Art Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law
and Policy Center for Immigration Studies, aren't we sure appreciate
the time. Thanks for helping to clarify some fairly complicated
stuff for us.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Thank you so much, Joe. It's always an honor and
a pleasure.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Thank you. Likewise, thanks very much more to come stay
with us. The other thing about Kawhi is right, big
fell Yeah, I know, go ahead, keep talking joke. Yeah,
we on TV know what we're doing. Yeah, that's that,
olive all you've been drinking.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Hey, you take some matches with.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
You, Hey, listen, he could hold it after forty you
can hold it.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
What's it first you killed? I've been drink.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
I didn't well the cleaning. Hey listen, I just hope
we got enough matches around it. He's turned his mic off, that's.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
All I got.
Speaker 5 (11:33):
Wow, that was a lot of toilet talk on the
NBA today tonight or whatever.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
That's older men. That show gets huge ratings and makes
huge money. It's very amusing. He's very entertaining.
Speaker 5 (11:46):
So so did did jd Vance kill the Pope? That's
not my understanding of it. I mean I've watched a
lot of crime dramas. He says negative things about a guy.
He goes and meets with the guy for like three minutes.
He walks out of the room. A couple of minutes later,
that guy's dead. I know how these things work. I
(12:06):
know where i'd start the investigation. You bring in a
detective the pope'es what are you doing with that hammerher?
Jd oh, good lord, that's so for the line you're sick.
I'm gonna claim it was the medication or something.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
But so, I've not.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
Liked this pope for much of his poping. I know,
I wasn't hoping for his death or anything.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
I am.
Speaker 5 (12:29):
I am always amazed at how much attention the whole
pope thing gets. I mean, it's the it's the biggest
religion in the world. I mean, if you even if
you separate it from you know, Protestants, I mean, it's
bigger than Baptist anything. It's bigger than Islam. It's it's
the biggest because also the biggest. There's one point five
(12:50):
billion Catholics on Earth.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
It's amazing.
Speaker 5 (12:52):
But even with that, and I think there are eighty
million Catholics in the United I'm surprised how much attention
the selection of the pulpe gets. I think a lot
of it has to do with the whole it's white
people follow the royal family. We like royalty, We like
the pageantry. We're built for that, even though it's anathetical to,
(13:17):
you know, the way we structure our society and our
government in theory.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
We just we like that sort of thing, the pageantry,
the robes, the slippers.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
Yeah, those are somebody is all powerful and that thing.
I think Catholics are clustered disproportionately in the northeast of
the US two now and also in the southwest, certainly
with the Hispanic folks who've joined us recently welcome. So
the mainstream media tends to be like extra serious about it,
(13:49):
even if they're not Catholic, because there's somebody next to
them in the newsroom who is. But yeah, you're right,
it has very very little effect on my life. I'm
not anti. I'm just I don't care that much. Hey,
run twenty four for us. Michael little Andy Cooper here.
Speaker 6 (14:04):
Unlike many other popes over the last hundred years, he
will not be buried though in Vatican City. He's actually
going to be buried in Rome itself and another basilica,
the Basilica Saint Maria Margiore, which.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Is closer to the Colisseum.
Speaker 6 (14:20):
I apologize for my bad Italian is closer to the
Colisseum than it is to the Vatican.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
Nobody cares, do they know? Well, that's what exactly. And
I don't know how many newscasts I mean, we're in
the Fellow's going to be buried. I mean, well it's
more I don't know, it's less regal and more man
of the street. But yeah, I saw so many newscasts
lead with the you know, the minutia of this, and
then he'll be moved to here, and then vaugh and
then in three days, and I thought, really, are there
(14:48):
that many people that are into this? I also took
in a podcast where people were, you know, several of
them Catholics, pointing out that while mainstream media in America
loved this guy because he bad mouthed America all the
time and sort of treated him like he was this
new liberalizing, you know, lefty pope, he wasn't.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Really at all.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
I mean, he was hardcore life begins at conception, no
wiggle room whatsoever on abortion being a sin. I mean,
just all of the you know, the core things he
was solid on. Oh if somebody told me when he
was alive, i'd have been more fond of him than
I was. And remember, he used the term faggotry not
(15:32):
that long ago, some sort of hot mic moment. He
did not dig the gay community being involved.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
In the church. He wasn't.
Speaker 5 (15:40):
He wasn't liberal on any of those things at all.
But because he would occasionally bad mouth the United States
and capitalism, you know, the.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Mainstream media just thought it was fantastic.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
Yeah, he was more liberal on some issues, I know,
but I don't.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
I don't care, I really I don't.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
I'm you in your personal faith, my friends, we have
more than respect for and you practice it in whatever
way you say or feel as proper. I'm about the Constitution,
I'm about our individual rights and that sort of thing,
and I just I don't have much opinion on this stuff.
Well maybe this would get you more interested. National review
Their take is it was founded by William F. Buckley,
(16:20):
who is a lifelong, very strong Catholic person. But National
Reviews take is the Catholic Church is the most important
institution in Western civilization, has been forever and still is.
So if you look at it that way, and you
know why I want to give us a ten second version.
I guess because it's moral in wellnot, I guess. I
(16:42):
listened to them talk about it, and I read it's
moral leadership for all of Western civilization for you know,
hundreds and hundreds of years, centuries, and the constitution and
rights I cherish that I just mentioned are absolutely inseparable
from the Judea career tradition, sure, and moral precepts of
(17:02):
the world. Right, that's true, you know, I'm I have
an open mind about this stuff. That's an interesting perspective.
Dust for prints. Ask JD some questions, that's all. Oh, no,
any inappropriate retract that Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
Hey, how you doing?
Speaker 2 (17:19):
So?
Speaker 5 (17:19):
I was looking at video Jack just recommended I take
a look at that he tweeted over the weekend, and
it led me to another fascinating topic. But yeah, it
was the transactivist screeching like lunatics and a small group
of women who are just saying only women in women's sports,
a controversial stance with the wide eyed craziness of I
(17:46):
don't even know what the religious cultist right, the radical
you know, and some of them are older that you'd expect. Yeah,
this is a little old to be screeching like a
to take what's spit flying out of your mouth, claiming
that men can declare themselves to be women. So the
whole woke world, whether it's climate change, trands, or whatever
(18:08):
your aspect you're grabbing onto at the time, it really
is got a serious religious thing going to it. Oh yeah, yeah,
it has all the earmarks of religion, right.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
You know.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
It's the original sin of being white, for instance, and
the only way you can overcome that original sin is
by begging us on your knees to forgive you. Well,
as I was reading some of the commentaries to that
video by like learned people, and one person pointing out,
you can see a not very.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
Long step from those.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
People's level of anger to Muslim dudes chuck and rocks
at some chick to stoner to death because she committed adultery.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
It's not a giant leap.
Speaker 5 (18:55):
Oh no, no, not at all, not at all. Some
of those people looked capable of murder. Yeah, wild So
Interestingly enough, I saw subsequent to that on our Twitter feed,
you were got into a little well, you kind of
retweeted something from Tim Sandover, and Tim was reacting to
a tweet by a dude named David Cole, who was
(19:17):
talking about Harvard, for instance, and the other universities how
they are now fighting against Trump, and how admirable that is,
because if you give into a mob boss, that's the beginning,
not the end, of one's servitude. Why Harvard chose not
to appease Trump, and Tim pointed out that you give
into the mob boss when you accept money from him.
(19:40):
When the mob boss does that favor for you, that's
when you say no. Not when he comes back to
you later and it expects you to repay the favor,
then it's way, way, way too late. And obviously the
mob boss he's talking about is these universities getting huge
buckets of federal tax payer money, cash from the federal government,
(20:01):
various forms of support. And just real quickly, I thought
it was interesting the editorial board at the Wall Street
Journal was talking about the Harvard versus the Trump administration thing,
and specifically the tax exempt status question, and I found
their argument pretty strong that we're in a situation now
(20:21):
where and y'all may remember this, and we went crazy
over this when Obama and his people in effect declared
any tea party nonprofit to be not a charitable organization,
we denied them.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
There is that five oh one C.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Three.
Speaker 5 (20:40):
I can never remember the tax code. I'm not an
accountant near a tax attorney. But anyway, we started this
show together. You said you were an accountant. Well, and
that's why you did that short you know, a jail
term for your taxes.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
I'm sorry, I thought I could handle it.
Speaker 5 (20:55):
But anyway, So the fact that Congress has to get
involved in this, and you can't have the exact executive
branch declaring that, yeah, you were tax exempt last year,
but you're not now because I hate what you're doing,
uh huh, And that Congress has got to weigh in
on this because when President AOC gets in there, what
the hell is she going to revoke the tax exempt status?
(21:17):
For sure? I mean, it's it's a nightmare in the making.
So I thought that was a pretty balanced and reasonable
way to look at it, which leads me to one
of my favorite things that I've read recently, and Jack
obviously feel free to interject whenever you want, but the
always even killed Matt Tayebi. His headline is the Government,
the Harvard Government divorce is the feel good story of
(21:39):
the ages. When a couple should have never been together,
and they finally break up.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
It's a happy thing. What a funny analogy to use.
Speaker 5 (21:48):
Yeah, taking kind of a different tack than Tim's mob
boss thing. But and then there's a paragraph of a summary.
Harvard refused on Mondays to submit to the This from
the New York Times editorial Board. Harvard refused on Monday
to submit to the Trump administration's quest to command and
control America's higher education system.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Quote.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
No government, regardless of which parties in power, should dictate
what private universities can teach, whom they admit in higher
and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
Blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (22:15):
So Harvard is resisting, So Tayibi writes, Harvard's bold decision
to risk an unsubsidized future with a mere fifty three
billion dollars in reserve is a feel good story everyone
can chare. The federal government in corrupt higher education has
finally decided to divorce, and it's a beautiful thing. The
Trump administration's war on universities has been conducted with its
(22:36):
signature Japanese monster movie approach, full of smashed infrastructure, rivers
of screaming civilians and battle scenes so spellbinding, spellbinding questions
of right and wrong go out the window.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
Yeah, that's that's really good. Yeah, Tidee is so good.
Speaker 5 (22:53):
And when he thinks Trump is right, he's absolutely eloquent
in defending him. And when he thinks he's wrong, you
know the obvious. But this is good writing. You can
try it away. The administration's law flouting, maybe against the
university's appalling sense of entitlement, but I suspect many Americans
will abandon sides and just cheer the spectacle of intractably
self regarding freaks joined in aerial combat over the Constitution.
(23:16):
Harvard versus the Trump Monster should have been the next
entry in the Shin Godzilla series, and now it's here.
It's especially welcome if the battle has a happy ending,
which looks likely as of the week's end. It took
a bizarre series of events to bring us here. The
prelude to the Trump Harvard battle was the administration siege
of Columbia, taken with little struggle, and he gets into
how Columbia gave in pretty quickly, at least temporarily, the
(23:40):
ACLU suddenly rediscovering its love for campus speech freedom railed at.
Putting whole areas of study in the federal penalty box
was a comical violation of civil liberties. They cited a
nineteen fifty seven case from the McCarthy era. In it,
the New Hampshire Attorney General investigator a professor, and the
(24:00):
Supreme Court ruled when, and I'm summarizing this very quickly,
but when weighed against the grave harm resulting from the
government intrusion into the intellectual life of a university, such
justification for compelling a witness to discuss the content of
his lectures appears grossly inadequate. In other words, hands off,
let the universities run themselves. Let's not tramp on free
(24:20):
speech to get rid of one bad apple. Back to Taibi,
the issues in nineteen fifty seven an hour are not
that different.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
The High Court then was right.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
To conclude that there's more damage in putting the state
in charge of reviewing academic speech than there is an
allowing instruction that some might conclude to be not just
anti American but threatening in the context of the time.
That was a hard decision, but the right one.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
In this sense.
Speaker 5 (24:42):
The ACLU and other traditional speech defenders are probably right
that the Trump Columbia deal constituted a stunning intrusion.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Here's where it turns.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Though.
Speaker 5 (24:51):
Less convincing were commentators like historian Joan Scott, who said
Trump's actions were unheard of even during the Mcarthury year
of blah blah blah coverage can distantly ignored the fact
that Columbia has been a poster child for decades long
assault by most all universities on academic freedom, as well
as a serial violator of Title six of the Civil
(25:11):
Rights Act, which requires that public funds not be spent
quote in any fashion which encourages and trenches, subsidizes, or
results in racial color, national origin discrimination.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (25:22):
And he goes into more detail. But the idea that Harvard, Columbia,
any of these people would screech academic freedom when they're
being criticized, is it's vomit worthy, right, And remembering last
week that Harvard finished last out of two hundred and
fifty Oh yeah, universities in the free speech last well done.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Yeah, that's where we're heading.
Speaker 5 (25:47):
So it would be nice, he writes if the NYCLU
acknowledged that Columbia's record is replete with moronic civil liberties offenses.
It's deep platformed with gusto a loud or encouraged the
Heckler's veto shutdown of events, institutionalized compelled speech diversity statements
as part of its admissions process, including instructions on what
(26:09):
to write like when did your privilege result in different
treatment than others?
Speaker 3 (26:14):
Oh? I mean day? Oh my god.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
They are obscenely anti free speech these universities. It has
the same problem with the use of race and admissions
that Harvard tried to defend and lost at the Supreme Court,
and its DEI program still infect a curriculum with iron
race doctrine.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Tahiebeis is so good.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
The School of Social Work to this day is proudly
waiving the banner of the prop or power, race oppression
and Privilege framework. Okay, so Trump administration said no DEI,
so they renamed it. Now it's prop teaching the same
communist bull ass. And I'd love to use the word
which makes the department's guiding principle the idea that quote
(26:54):
anti black racism and white supremacy are endemic in our
systems and institutions. So it's precisely the same thing in
the same or with a slightly different label. Speech codes
are issued in a variety of forms of Barnard's circularayor
even missed the irony of the George Carlin routine, in
which it outlawed a bunch of different words. You remember,
(27:14):
the legendary Carlin seven deadly or seven dirty words or whatever.
These practices and more led Columbian twenty twenty two to
being named the worst campus in the country for free
speech by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who
we love, getting the country's sole abysmal rating. Ironically, Harvard
would soon earn a worse review.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
And then.
Speaker 5 (27:40):
So and then he gets into after October seventh, the
horrific anti Jewish stuff, the anti Semitic stuff, the locking
Jewish kids in library, not letting him go to class,
and the rest of it. But so and if you're
new to the show, and we have a number of
new stations who are listening, thank you very much for listening.
(28:01):
I hope you get used to it and you like it,
stick around for a while. Not always sick, well no, no,
For instance, Jack is not always sick. It's a little
different approach than a lot of talk radio these days.
And we are staunchly conservative. But like Tayibe, we can
handle the idea that, Okay, maybe revoking Harvard's stats tax
(28:21):
exempt status, maybe it's legit, maybe it's not. We need
to take a look at it and think about it,
think about the ramifications of it. But I am ready
to die on the hill of these universities claiming academic
freedom is precious and we must protect it. I want
to strangle them with both my hands. Go good Lord,
that's some of the most towering, naked hypocrisy I have
(28:43):
ever witnessed in my life, and I've witnessed a bit
of it, so I'm I've always been confused by this.
So Harvard has famously now fifty some billion dollars and
they're endowment. Why don't they just sell fun to everything
and just not answer to anyone ever.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
Because they've got the double gravy train going.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
I guess well, and nobody's asked them to answer to them. True,
they were able to be the worst example of free
speech of any college campus in America and still get
what was it, half a billion dollars a year or
whatever we're getting in oh, at least it was tremendous
amounts of money yeah, final note for fans of Goodfellas.
(29:26):
Actually hard it was two billion. It was more like
a half a billion over at Columbia.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Correct.
Speaker 5 (29:30):
Yeah, So I guess if somebody's given you two billion
and you still get to do whatever you want, why
would you want to end that? So he uses the
sword here. I'll just say poop. The Trump administration would
have been right to simply demand that Columbia cut the
recent poop and all their other poop. These things are
usually resolved on the sly and he quotes somebody hysterically. Historically,
(29:50):
no higher education institution has ever lost all its federal funding,
blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
But Trump is a different animal.
Speaker 5 (29:56):
He's dragging these dramas in the open, making the ivs
dance for their federal crumbs in the most humiliating conceivable manner,
like Joe Peshi shooting at the feet of Michael imperially in.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
The Good Fellas.
Speaker 5 (30:08):
No I thought you said, I'm all right, spider in one.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
Way, am I funny?
Speaker 5 (30:12):
He's making them dance, which is more or less what
he's doing. So because he's Matt Tybe goes on for
par after paragraph, but you get the idea.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Well, and where do you think most of the public
is on this.
Speaker 5 (30:25):
I think the awareness of how utterly corrupt and ideologically
sick the universities are.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
I think the awareness is growing well, and I think
doesn't the Maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
I feel like the average American has a bad attitude
toward Harvard.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
Maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 5 (30:42):
Yeah, I saw some Do you trust in colleges in universities?
Speaker 3 (30:45):
As part of that whole?
Speaker 5 (30:46):
Do you trust in the media, law enforcement, the army,
blah blah blah, and their numbers are historically low, which
is very encouraging. First step of solving a problem is
being aware of it. So it reminds me of you
talking about a poll. There was a poll came out
over the weekend from Gallop, which is one of your
better polling organizations. Our economic attitude is not good right now.
(31:11):
I know you started the show with some good news,
but there is some bad feelings out there. Maybe we'll
get to that and other stuff coming upstair here.
Speaker 7 (31:21):
The market is also in general rendering harsh judgments. Since
April Second Liberation Day, the Dow has stumbled more than
nine percent over the first three weeks of April, putting
it on track to mark it's worst April since the
Great Depression. The Dow falling one thousand points are more.
That's only happened nineteen times in modern history, and three
(31:43):
of those massive drops have happened since Liberation Day.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
I don't want to be pedantic, but that.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
I could find it that stat they keep throwing around
worst April since the Great Depression is highly misleading, but
it doesn't obscure the fact that clearly.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
The markets have had a bad month or so.
Speaker 5 (32:03):
I don't think it's being overly pedantic to point out
that Jake Tapper is full of crap. Yeah, everybody's saying
that because you can use a statistic where that is true.
So Gallup has been asking this whole century, since two thousand,
how you feel about your personal financial situation? Very broad question,
do you think it's getting better, getting worse, or staying
(32:25):
the same. And since they started asking the question, it's
never crossed fifty percent.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
It's usually hanging around in the.
Speaker 5 (32:34):
Mid thirties of people who say that their financial situation
is getting worse. It almost hit fifty in two thousand
and eight. It almost hit fifty at the beginning of
the COVID, but then it would go back down to
the thirties or forties or whatever it is. Now for
the first time this century or since they've been asking
the question, at fifty three percent of Americans think their
(32:56):
financial situation.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Is getting worse.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
Yeah, well, Jake Tapper's little screen there, as misleading as
it might be, and the poll numbers all indicative of
people's uncertainty and worry over Number one, the firing of
Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Fed, and also the
(33:19):
trade war with China and other countries. Well, the president
came out the other day forty two.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
Michael, never whatsoever, never did the press runs away with
things now.
Speaker 3 (33:29):
I have no intention of firing him.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
I would like to see him be a little more
active in terms of his idea to lower interest Rate's
just a perfect time to lower interest rates. If he
doesn't is at the end to know it's not, but
it would be good timing which could have taken place earlier.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
But no, I have no intention to fire him.
Speaker 5 (33:52):
Didn't he just like truth out guy, can't be fired
soon enough? Okay, Well, no, evidently he's not going to
so buy some stocks.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Not only that, but this I'm.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Not gonna say.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
Oh, I'm gonna play hardball with China. I'm gonna play
hardball with you, Prision and she no, Now, we're gonna
be very nice. They're gonna be very nice and we'll
see what happens. But ultimately they have to make a deal.
One hundred and forty five percent is very high, and
it won't be that high. It's not gonna be that high,
so it don't come to n substantially, but it won't
be zero. He used to be zero. We were just destroyed.
(34:27):
China was taking us for a ride and just not
gonna have It's not gonna happen. We're gonna be very
good to China.
Speaker 5 (34:36):
So Powell stays, and the trade war war is going
to be a trade negotiation. Well, I was trying to
find what was the actual term he used for Powell
the other day, called him an idiot or I mean
it was pretty hard. Oh, just like three days ago,
he called Powell a major loser and he cannot come
fast enough that he leaves the press runs away with
(34:57):
these things. I never had any intention, and I I
wouldn't mind if he was a little faster on the whole.
I guess asking for more disciplined messaging from Trump at
this point is like asking for a pony for Christmas.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
But uh boy, that'd be great, wouldn't it Anyway?
Speaker 5 (35:14):
Interesting I'm not so it'll be interesting to see if
people's negative attitudes stay this way for a long time.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Great interview, Next Hour.
Speaker 5 (35:21):
If you don't get Next Hour, grab it via podcast
Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio of the
George Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
We're getting them out.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
And a judge can't say, no, you have to have
a child, that the trial is going to take two years,
and no, we're going to have a very We're going
to have a very dangerous country if we're not allowed
to do what we're entitled to do.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
And I want an.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Election based on the fact that we get him.
Speaker 5 (00:40):
Out rampant uncontrolled immigration four years, particularly as we're going
to discuss now from Venezuela, the effort to get these
people out of the country as quickly and efficiently as possible,
running into a recent Supreme Court ruling to discuss all
of this, Please welcome Art Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law
(01:02):
and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Art, how are you, sir, Joe?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I'm doing great and my best to all of your listeners.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Oh, thank you, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 5 (01:14):
I see this as a great example of if you
do the wrong thing long enough, doing the right thing
becomes more and more difficult, and that is the challenge
before us.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Now, Yeah, no, that's absolutely correct, and in fact, you know,
that was one of the things that you know, the
Center and I were warning about as we went through
the Biden Border of fiasco is you know, millions millions
of unvetted migrants poured into the United States that the
you know, it was setting up a perfect storm in
(01:49):
which removing those individuals from this country and identifying the
ones who were truly bad was going to require an
all of government effort. And it is that all of
an effort that the Trump administration is now implementing.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
But you know, this is going to be a.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Long slog and it's going to take years for us
to undo all the damage that was done over the
past four years.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
Yeah, one is reminded of the Cloward pivot radical left
strategy of overwhelming the system to break it. But how
let's just do a minute on how we ended up
with Sadam many Venezuelans, in particular trendy Uragua gang members
in the country.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Yeah, and you know, that's great question. They'll give you
the thirty second explanation. Up until the Biden administration, we
really didn't get that many illegal Venezuelans. There's a diaspora
of Venezuelans who have left the country ever since it
was turned into a socialist basket case by Hugo Chavez
and then by his successor, Nicholas Maduro. Once the Biden
(02:54):
administration took off, it's one of the first things that
it did was it gave temporary protected status to Thenalans
who were here.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
That meant we couldn't deport them.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
But you know, the smugglers and the migrants don't read
the fine print of that, may assume that everybody who
came here would be protected from removal, and so consequently
we ended up with four hundred thousand plus brand new
Venezuelans who came into the United States. The Biden administration
you flailed around with how it was going to deal
with them, and it decided that the best way to
(03:24):
deal with them, to keep people from entering illegally from Venezuela,
was to open our airports to Venezuelans who didn't have
any visas, who hadn't been vetted. And that really gets
to the point, Joe, none of these individuals have been
vetted before they come to the United States. If you
get a legal visa. You have to show that you're
not a criminal. You've got to get a letter from
your local police department back home show and you don't
(03:45):
have any crimes. We don't have diplomatic relations with Venezuelan,
and so consequently, Venezuela has no interest whatsoever in telling
us who amongst this population of four hundred thousand plus
who have poured in are good people.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
And who aren't.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
And so unfortunately it's local police departments and now the
FBI that's having to uncover all the activities of those individuals,
Frende Aragua members and other criminals who have come from
Venezuela into the United States. To remember, Joe Donald Trump
was derided, criticized, you know, mocked when he said that
Venezuela was opening its jails and.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Its mental institutions.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Well, Nicholas Maduro is an acolyte of Fidel Castro, and
that's exactly if you remember what Fidel Castro did during
the Mariel Bog crisis. So the apple didn't fall far
from the trade in this particular instance.
Speaker 5 (04:37):
Yeah, So we around here cherish the idea of due process.
It's the idea that our country is based on that
if the government can trample on your rights, eventually they will.
And so the whole system is based around making sure
that the government has to prove it's doing what it's
doing in a way that is legal and respect people's rights.
(05:00):
On the other hand, if you allow the country to
be flooded with many millions of people, including what do
you figure the number is from.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Venezuela, just so I'm semi accurate, Do you have any idea?
Speaker 1 (05:10):
So we know that more than seven hundred thousand, I
think with seven hundred and thirty one thousand, Venezuelan's work
eligible for temporary protected status at the time that all
Jundra New York has issued his second designation of the
group in twenty twenty four. So you're talking about, you know,
seven hundred and fifty thousand people.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
Okay, that's a hell of a lot of people. So,
having said what I said about due process, what would
quote unquote due process look like in this situation because
the phrase can mean different things. If it means a
criminal prosecution, it's beyond a reasonable doubt as a judge
by a jury of my peers, if I've walked across
the border and forty seconds later, I'm apprehended by the
(05:51):
Customs and Border Patrol quote unquote, due process is a
very different thing. So what did the Scotis say the
other day because they had like a late night ruling,
and what should do process look like to deal with
all these gang members?
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:09):
No, I mean you make so many really important points
that your listeners really need to listen very carefully to
that adjective do in due process?
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Is there for a reason.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Due process means different things in different situations.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
And when it comes to an individual.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
At the border or at the ports, those individuals court
to the Supreme Court only have the process rights that
Congress has given them, and in that context, Congress hasn't
given them many. With respect to the individuals who have
been released into the United States, they have slightly more
due process rights, but not the full you know, rights
that are guaranteed under the Constitution to United States citizens.
(06:50):
So what President Trump is attempting to do here is
to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. And people say, oh,
it's from seventeen ninety eight. Yeah it is, but it's
also codified. It's fifty US Code, Section twenty one, and
it permits the president in the face of an invasion
or predatory incursion to remove individuals under you know, his
(07:12):
constitutional powers from the United States who were viewed as
having participated in that invasion or that incursion. In this context,
it's trend Aragua members who followed that migrant flow.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
To the United States.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
And you know, in its first order in with respect
to trend Aragua, in response to in order that have
been issued by Judge Boseburg, James Boseburg, the District Court
in d C. The you know, court said, you know,
they're entitled to some process they get notice of, you know,
that they've been charged or that they're going to be
(07:47):
removed under this provision. But the court also made clear
that you know, by and large it's the lower courts,
the district courts have to defer to the Execus to
branch in that determination. This is foreign policy, Joe, and
this is something that the court doesn't have any competence in,
let alone jurisdiction. They can't say whether this is necessary
(08:11):
for the foreign policy the United States or not. So
they're entitled to notice and probably an opportunity to say
I'm not a trend.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
To iron Will member.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
But by and large those district court judges who are
hearing those cases in Habeas are going to have to
largely defer to the determinations of the executive branch, specifically
the FBI, DHS, and the State Department.
Speaker 5 (08:37):
Yeah, it seems a little ridiculous the idea that if
Maduro said, you know what I'll do, and he did
this intentionally, it is clearly an invasion, clearly a hostile
active of foreign power. But if he kind of only
semi accidentally did it, then we've got to give these
guys hearings for years. That just seems absurd to me.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Yeah, and you know, the Trump administration, the second one,
learned a lot from the first Trump administration. And if
you actually go back and you read the Foreign Terrorist
Organization designation from the State Department on February twenty and
you look at President Trump's proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies
Act that he issued on March the eleventh, they actually
(09:17):
go into the political activities of Trende Aragua and they
say in essence that it operates in conjunction with the
Maduro regime and that it supports the Maduro regime's goal
of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.
You know, Nicholas Maduro, the Marxist strong man in Venezuela,
(09:41):
is a bitter opponent of the United States, and we
don't like him either. Even the Biden administration wouldn't admit
that he was a legitimate leader of the country. And
you know, the argument of the government that the President
is making, in fact, it's not even an argument. It's
what he's found is that this is part of an
attempt to undermine the United States, that these crimes that
they participate in, you know, in the United States and
(10:02):
throughout the Americans.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Are part of a plan.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
And you know, with that in mind, this appears to
be on pretty strong legal ground for me. And you know,
even Bill Barr, you know, former Trump administration Attorney general
but no fan of the President today, said yeah, no,
this is perfectly permissible for them to do. We need
to get to the point in which the court's one court,
actually makes that determination that's going to become the law,
(10:28):
and then all of this it's going to become very easy.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
And as always, it'd sure be helpful if Congress would
stand up and do their jobs and get good and
specific about this stuff. Art Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law
and Policy Center for Immigration Studies, aren't we sure appreciate
the time. Thanks for helping to clarify some fairly complicated
stuff for us.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Thank you so much, Joe. It's always an honor and
a pleasure.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Thank you. Likewise, thanks very much more to come stay
with us. The other thing about Kawhi is right, big
fell Yeah, I know, go ahead, keep talking joke. Yeah,
we on TV know what we're doing. Yeah, that's that,
olive all you've been drinking.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Hey, you take some matches with.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
You, Hey, listen, he could hold it after forty you
can hold it.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
What's it first you killed? I've been drink.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
I didn't well the cleaning. Hey listen, I just hope
we got enough matches around it. He's turned his mic off, that's.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
All I got.
Speaker 5 (11:33):
Wow, that was a lot of toilet talk on the
NBA today tonight or whatever.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
That's older men. That show gets huge ratings and makes
huge money. It's very amusing. He's very entertaining.
Speaker 5 (11:46):
So so did did jd Vance kill the Pope? That's
not my understanding of it. I mean I've watched a
lot of crime dramas. He says negative things about a guy.
He goes and meets with the guy for like three minutes.
He walks out of the room. A couple of minutes later,
that guy's dead. I know how these things work. I
(12:06):
know where i'd start the investigation. You bring in a
detective the pope'es what are you doing with that hammerher?
Jd oh, good lord, that's so for the line you're sick.
I'm gonna claim it was the medication or something.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
But so, I've not.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
Liked this pope for much of his poping. I know,
I wasn't hoping for his death or anything.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
I am.
Speaker 5 (12:29):
I am always amazed at how much attention the whole
pope thing gets. I mean, it's the it's the biggest
religion in the world. I mean, if you even if
you separate it from you know, Protestants, I mean, it's
bigger than Baptist anything. It's bigger than Islam. It's it's
the biggest because also the biggest. There's one point five
(12:50):
billion Catholics on Earth.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
It's amazing.
Speaker 5 (12:52):
But even with that, and I think there are eighty
million Catholics in the United I'm surprised how much attention
the selection of the pulpe gets. I think a lot
of it has to do with the whole it's white
people follow the royal family. We like royalty, We like
the pageantry. We're built for that, even though it's anathetical to,
(13:17):
you know, the way we structure our society and our
government in theory.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
We just we like that sort of thing, the pageantry,
the robes, the slippers.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
Yeah, those are somebody is all powerful and that thing.
I think Catholics are clustered disproportionately in the northeast of
the US two now and also in the southwest, certainly
with the Hispanic folks who've joined us recently welcome. So
the mainstream media tends to be like extra serious about it,
(13:49):
even if they're not Catholic, because there's somebody next to
them in the newsroom who is. But yeah, you're right,
it has very very little effect on my life. I'm
not anti. I'm just I don't care that much. Hey,
run twenty four for us. Michael little Andy Cooper here.
Speaker 6 (14:04):
Unlike many other popes over the last hundred years, he
will not be buried though in Vatican City. He's actually
going to be buried in Rome itself and another basilica,
the Basilica Saint Maria Margiore, which.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Is closer to the Colisseum.
Speaker 6 (14:20):
I apologize for my bad Italian is closer to the
Colisseum than it is to the Vatican.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
Nobody cares, do they know? Well, that's what exactly. And
I don't know how many newscasts I mean, we're in
the Fellow's going to be buried. I mean, well it's
more I don't know, it's less regal and more man
of the street. But yeah, I saw so many newscasts
lead with the you know, the minutia of this, and
then he'll be moved to here, and then vaugh and
then in three days, and I thought, really, are there
(14:48):
that many people that are into this? I also took
in a podcast where people were, you know, several of
them Catholics, pointing out that while mainstream media in America
loved this guy because he bad mouthed America all the
time and sort of treated him like he was this
new liberalizing, you know, lefty pope, he wasn't.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Really at all.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
I mean, he was hardcore life begins at conception, no
wiggle room whatsoever on abortion being a sin. I mean,
just all of the you know, the core things he
was solid on. Oh if somebody told me when he
was alive, i'd have been more fond of him than
I was. And remember, he used the term faggotry not
(15:32):
that long ago, some sort of hot mic moment. He
did not dig the gay community being involved.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
In the church. He wasn't.
Speaker 5 (15:40):
He wasn't liberal on any of those things at all.
But because he would occasionally bad mouth the United States
and capitalism, you know, the.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Mainstream media just thought it was fantastic.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
Yeah, he was more liberal on some issues, I know,
but I don't.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
I don't care, I really I don't.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
I'm you in your personal faith, my friends, we have
more than respect for and you practice it in whatever
way you say or feel as proper. I'm about the Constitution,
I'm about our individual rights and that sort of thing,
and I just I don't have much opinion on this stuff.
Well maybe this would get you more interested. National review
Their take is it was founded by William F. Buckley,
(16:20):
who is a lifelong, very strong Catholic person. But National
Reviews take is the Catholic Church is the most important
institution in Western civilization, has been forever and still is.
So if you look at it that way, and you
know why I want to give us a ten second version.
I guess because it's moral in wellnot, I guess. I
(16:42):
listened to them talk about it, and I read it's
moral leadership for all of Western civilization for you know,
hundreds and hundreds of years, centuries, and the constitution and
rights I cherish that I just mentioned are absolutely inseparable
from the Judea career tradition, sure, and moral precepts of
(17:02):
the world. Right, that's true, you know, I'm I have
an open mind about this stuff. That's an interesting perspective.
Dust for prints. Ask JD some questions, that's all. Oh, no,
any inappropriate retract that Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
Hey, how you doing?
Speaker 2 (17:19):
So?
Speaker 5 (17:19):
I was looking at video Jack just recommended I take
a look at that he tweeted over the weekend, and
it led me to another fascinating topic. But yeah, it
was the transactivist screeching like lunatics and a small group
of women who are just saying only women in women's sports,
a controversial stance with the wide eyed craziness of I
(17:46):
don't even know what the religious cultist right, the radical
you know, and some of them are older that you'd expect. Yeah,
this is a little old to be screeching like a
to take what's spit flying out of your mouth, claiming
that men can declare themselves to be women. So the
whole woke world, whether it's climate change, trands, or whatever
(18:08):
your aspect you're grabbing onto at the time, it really
is got a serious religious thing going to it. Oh yeah, yeah,
it has all the earmarks of religion, right.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
You know.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
It's the original sin of being white, for instance, and
the only way you can overcome that original sin is
by begging us on your knees to forgive you. Well,
as I was reading some of the commentaries to that
video by like learned people, and one person pointing out,
you can see a not very.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
Long step from those.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
People's level of anger to Muslim dudes chuck and rocks
at some chick to stoner to death because she committed adultery.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
It's not a giant leap.
Speaker 5 (18:55):
Oh no, no, not at all, not at all. Some
of those people looked capable of murder. Yeah, wild So
Interestingly enough, I saw subsequent to that on our Twitter feed,
you were got into a little well, you kind of
retweeted something from Tim Sandover, and Tim was reacting to
a tweet by a dude named David Cole, who was
(19:17):
talking about Harvard, for instance, and the other universities how
they are now fighting against Trump, and how admirable that is,
because if you give into a mob boss, that's the beginning,
not the end, of one's servitude. Why Harvard chose not
to appease Trump, and Tim pointed out that you give
into the mob boss when you accept money from him.
(19:40):
When the mob boss does that favor for you, that's
when you say no. Not when he comes back to
you later and it expects you to repay the favor,
then it's way, way, way too late. And obviously the
mob boss he's talking about is these universities getting huge
buckets of federal tax payer money, cash from the federal government,
(20:01):
various forms of support. And just real quickly, I thought
it was interesting the editorial board at the Wall Street
Journal was talking about the Harvard versus the Trump administration thing,
and specifically the tax exempt status question, and I found
their argument pretty strong that we're in a situation now
(20:21):
where and y'all may remember this, and we went crazy
over this when Obama and his people in effect declared
any tea party nonprofit to be not a charitable organization,
we denied them.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
There is that five oh one C.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Three.
Speaker 5 (20:40):
I can never remember the tax code. I'm not an
accountant near a tax attorney. But anyway, we started this
show together. You said you were an accountant. Well, and
that's why you did that short you know, a jail
term for your taxes.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
I'm sorry, I thought I could handle it.
Speaker 5 (20:55):
But anyway, So the fact that Congress has to get
involved in this, and you can't have the exact executive
branch declaring that, yeah, you were tax exempt last year,
but you're not now because I hate what you're doing,
uh huh, And that Congress has got to weigh in
on this because when President AOC gets in there, what
the hell is she going to revoke the tax exempt status?
(21:17):
For sure? I mean, it's it's a nightmare in the making.
So I thought that was a pretty balanced and reasonable
way to look at it, which leads me to one
of my favorite things that I've read recently, and Jack
obviously feel free to interject whenever you want, but the
always even killed Matt Tayebi. His headline is the Government,
the Harvard Government divorce is the feel good story of
(21:39):
the ages. When a couple should have never been together,
and they finally break up.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
It's a happy thing. What a funny analogy to use.
Speaker 5 (21:48):
Yeah, taking kind of a different tack than Tim's mob
boss thing. But and then there's a paragraph of a summary.
Harvard refused on Mondays to submit to the This from
the New York Times editorial Board. Harvard refused on Monday
to submit to the Trump administration's quest to command and
control America's higher education system.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Quote.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
No government, regardless of which parties in power, should dictate
what private universities can teach, whom they admit in higher
and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
Blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (22:15):
So Harvard is resisting, So Tayibi writes, Harvard's bold decision
to risk an unsubsidized future with a mere fifty three
billion dollars in reserve is a feel good story everyone
can chare. The federal government in corrupt higher education has
finally decided to divorce, and it's a beautiful thing. The
Trump administration's war on universities has been conducted with its
(22:36):
signature Japanese monster movie approach, full of smashed infrastructure, rivers
of screaming civilians and battle scenes so spellbinding, spellbinding questions
of right and wrong go out the window.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
Yeah, that's that's really good. Yeah, Tidee is so good.
Speaker 5 (22:53):
And when he thinks Trump is right, he's absolutely eloquent
in defending him. And when he thinks he's wrong, you
know the obvious. But this is good writing. You can
try it away. The administration's law flouting, maybe against the
university's appalling sense of entitlement, but I suspect many Americans
will abandon sides and just cheer the spectacle of intractably
self regarding freaks joined in aerial combat over the Constitution.
(23:16):
Harvard versus the Trump Monster should have been the next
entry in the Shin Godzilla series, and now it's here.
It's especially welcome if the battle has a happy ending,
which looks likely as of the week's end. It took
a bizarre series of events to bring us here. The
prelude to the Trump Harvard battle was the administration siege
of Columbia, taken with little struggle, and he gets into
how Columbia gave in pretty quickly, at least temporarily, the
(23:40):
ACLU suddenly rediscovering its love for campus speech freedom railed at.
Putting whole areas of study in the federal penalty box
was a comical violation of civil liberties. They cited a
nineteen fifty seven case from the McCarthy era. In it,
the New Hampshire Attorney General investigator a professor, and the
(24:00):
Supreme Court ruled when, and I'm summarizing this very quickly,
but when weighed against the grave harm resulting from the
government intrusion into the intellectual life of a university, such
justification for compelling a witness to discuss the content of
his lectures appears grossly inadequate. In other words, hands off,
let the universities run themselves. Let's not tramp on free
(24:20):
speech to get rid of one bad apple. Back to Taibi,
the issues in nineteen fifty seven an hour are not
that different.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
The High Court then was right.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
To conclude that there's more damage in putting the state
in charge of reviewing academic speech than there is an
allowing instruction that some might conclude to be not just
anti American but threatening in the context of the time.
That was a hard decision, but the right one.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
In this sense.
Speaker 5 (24:42):
The ACLU and other traditional speech defenders are probably right
that the Trump Columbia deal constituted a stunning intrusion.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Here's where it turns.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Though.
Speaker 5 (24:51):
Less convincing were commentators like historian Joan Scott, who said
Trump's actions were unheard of even during the Mcarthury year
of blah blah blah coverage can distantly ignored the fact
that Columbia has been a poster child for decades long
assault by most all universities on academic freedom, as well
as a serial violator of Title six of the Civil
(25:11):
Rights Act, which requires that public funds not be spent
quote in any fashion which encourages and trenches, subsidizes, or
results in racial color, national origin discrimination.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (25:22):
And he goes into more detail. But the idea that Harvard, Columbia,
any of these people would screech academic freedom when they're
being criticized, is it's vomit worthy, right, And remembering last
week that Harvard finished last out of two hundred and
fifty Oh yeah, universities in the free speech last well done.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Yeah, that's where we're heading.
Speaker 5 (25:47):
So it would be nice, he writes if the NYCLU
acknowledged that Columbia's record is replete with moronic civil liberties offenses.
It's deep platformed with gusto a loud or encouraged the
Heckler's veto shutdown of events, institutionalized compelled speech diversity statements
as part of its admissions process, including instructions on what
(26:09):
to write like when did your privilege result in different
treatment than others?
Speaker 3 (26:14):
Oh? I mean day? Oh my god.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
They are obscenely anti free speech these universities. It has
the same problem with the use of race and admissions
that Harvard tried to defend and lost at the Supreme Court,
and its DEI program still infect a curriculum with iron
race doctrine.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Tahiebeis is so good.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
The School of Social Work to this day is proudly
waiving the banner of the prop or power, race oppression
and Privilege framework. Okay, so Trump administration said no DEI,
so they renamed it. Now it's prop teaching the same
communist bull ass. And I'd love to use the word
which makes the department's guiding principle the idea that quote
(26:54):
anti black racism and white supremacy are endemic in our
systems and institutions. So it's precisely the same thing in
the same or with a slightly different label. Speech codes
are issued in a variety of forms of Barnard's circularayor
even missed the irony of the George Carlin routine, in
which it outlawed a bunch of different words. You remember,
(27:14):
the legendary Carlin seven deadly or seven dirty words or whatever.
These practices and more led Columbian twenty twenty two to
being named the worst campus in the country for free
speech by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who
we love, getting the country's sole abysmal rating. Ironically, Harvard
would soon earn a worse review.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
And then.
Speaker 5 (27:40):
So and then he gets into after October seventh, the
horrific anti Jewish stuff, the anti Semitic stuff, the locking
Jewish kids in library, not letting him go to class,
and the rest of it. But so and if you're
new to the show, and we have a number of
new stations who are listening, thank you very much for listening.
(28:01):
I hope you get used to it and you like it,
stick around for a while. Not always sick, well no, no,
For instance, Jack is not always sick. It's a little
different approach than a lot of talk radio these days.
And we are staunchly conservative. But like Tayibe, we can
handle the idea that, Okay, maybe revoking Harvard's stats tax
(28:21):
exempt status, maybe it's legit, maybe it's not. We need
to take a look at it and think about it,
think about the ramifications of it. But I am ready
to die on the hill of these universities claiming academic
freedom is precious and we must protect it. I want
to strangle them with both my hands. Go good Lord,
that's some of the most towering, naked hypocrisy I have
(28:43):
ever witnessed in my life, and I've witnessed a bit
of it, so I'm I've always been confused by this.
So Harvard has famously now fifty some billion dollars and
they're endowment. Why don't they just sell fun to everything
and just not answer to anyone ever.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
Because they've got the double gravy train going.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
I guess well, and nobody's asked them to answer to them. True,
they were able to be the worst example of free
speech of any college campus in America and still get
what was it, half a billion dollars a year or
whatever we're getting in oh, at least it was tremendous
amounts of money yeah, final note for fans of Goodfellas.
(29:26):
Actually hard it was two billion. It was more like
a half a billion over at Columbia.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Correct.
Speaker 5 (29:30):
Yeah, So I guess if somebody's given you two billion
and you still get to do whatever you want, why
would you want to end that? So he uses the
sword here. I'll just say poop. The Trump administration would
have been right to simply demand that Columbia cut the
recent poop and all their other poop. These things are
usually resolved on the sly and he quotes somebody hysterically. Historically,
(29:50):
no higher education institution has ever lost all its federal funding,
blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
But Trump is a different animal.
Speaker 5 (29:56):
He's dragging these dramas in the open, making the ivs
dance for their federal crumbs in the most humiliating conceivable manner,
like Joe Peshi shooting at the feet of Michael imperially in.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
The Good Fellas.
Speaker 5 (30:08):
No I thought you said, I'm all right, spider in one.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
Way, am I funny?
Speaker 5 (30:12):
He's making them dance, which is more or less what
he's doing. So because he's Matt Tybe goes on for
par after paragraph, but you get the idea.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Well, and where do you think most of the public
is on this.
Speaker 5 (30:25):
I think the awareness of how utterly corrupt and ideologically
sick the universities are.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
I think the awareness is growing well, and I think
doesn't the Maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
I feel like the average American has a bad attitude
toward Harvard.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
Maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 5 (30:42):
Yeah, I saw some Do you trust in colleges in universities?
Speaker 3 (30:45):
As part of that whole?
Speaker 5 (30:46):
Do you trust in the media, law enforcement, the army,
blah blah blah, and their numbers are historically low, which
is very encouraging. First step of solving a problem is
being aware of it. So it reminds me of you
talking about a poll. There was a poll came out
over the weekend from Gallop, which is one of your
better polling organizations. Our economic attitude is not good right now.
(31:11):
I know you started the show with some good news,
but there is some bad feelings out there. Maybe we'll
get to that and other stuff coming upstair here.
Speaker 7 (31:21):
The market is also in general rendering harsh judgments. Since
April Second Liberation Day, the Dow has stumbled more than
nine percent over the first three weeks of April, putting
it on track to mark it's worst April since the
Great Depression. The Dow falling one thousand points are more.
That's only happened nineteen times in modern history, and three
(31:43):
of those massive drops have happened since Liberation Day.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
I don't want to be pedantic, but that.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
I could find it that stat they keep throwing around
worst April since the Great Depression is highly misleading, but
it doesn't obscure the fact that clearly.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
The markets have had a bad month or so.
Speaker 5 (32:03):
I don't think it's being overly pedantic to point out
that Jake Tapper is full of crap. Yeah, everybody's saying
that because you can use a statistic where that is true.
So Gallup has been asking this whole century, since two thousand,
how you feel about your personal financial situation? Very broad question,
do you think it's getting better, getting worse, or staying
(32:25):
the same. And since they started asking the question, it's
never crossed fifty percent.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
It's usually hanging around in the.
Speaker 5 (32:34):
Mid thirties of people who say that their financial situation
is getting worse. It almost hit fifty in two thousand
and eight. It almost hit fifty at the beginning of
the COVID, but then it would go back down to
the thirties or forties or whatever it is. Now for
the first time this century or since they've been asking
the question, at fifty three percent of Americans think their
(32:56):
financial situation.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Is getting worse.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
Yeah, well, Jake Tapper's little screen there, as misleading as
it might be, and the poll numbers all indicative of
people's uncertainty and worry over Number one, the firing of
Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Fed, and also the
(33:19):
trade war with China and other countries. Well, the president
came out the other day forty two.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
Michael, never whatsoever, never did the press runs away with
things now.
Speaker 3 (33:29):
I have no intention of firing him.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
I would like to see him be a little more
active in terms of his idea to lower interest Rate's
just a perfect time to lower interest rates. If he
doesn't is at the end to know it's not, but
it would be good timing which could have taken place earlier.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
But no, I have no intention to fire him.
Speaker 5 (33:52):
Didn't he just like truth out guy, can't be fired
soon enough? Okay, Well, no, evidently he's not going to
so buy some stocks.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Not only that, but this I'm.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Not gonna say.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
Oh, I'm gonna play hardball with China. I'm gonna play
hardball with you, Prision and she no, Now, we're gonna
be very nice. They're gonna be very nice and we'll
see what happens. But ultimately they have to make a deal.
One hundred and forty five percent is very high, and
it won't be that high. It's not gonna be that high,
so it don't come to n substantially, but it won't
be zero. He used to be zero. We were just destroyed.
(34:27):
China was taking us for a ride and just not
gonna have It's not gonna happen. We're gonna be very
good to China.
Speaker 5 (34:36):
So Powell stays, and the trade war war is going
to be a trade negotiation. Well, I was trying to
find what was the actual term he used for Powell
the other day, called him an idiot or I mean
it was pretty hard. Oh, just like three days ago,
he called Powell a major loser and he cannot come
fast enough that he leaves the press runs away with
(34:57):
these things. I never had any intention, and I I
wouldn't mind if he was a little faster on the whole.
I guess asking for more disciplined messaging from Trump at
this point is like asking for a pony for Christmas.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
But uh boy, that'd be great, wouldn't it Anyway?
Speaker 5 (35:14):
Interesting I'm not so it'll be interesting to see if
people's negative attitudes stay this way for a long time.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Great interview, Next Hour.
Speaker 5 (35:21):
If you don't get Next Hour, grab it via podcast
Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!