April 23, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 4 of A&G features...
- Retired Judge Larry Goodman talks to Joe Getty!
- The Biden decline & Russia is burning through soldiers
- Grooming curriculum in kindergarten
- Final Thoughts!
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, the George
Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty arm Strong and Getty and
he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Tesla announcing its profits have plunged a staggering seventy one
percent in the first quarter of this year since CEO
Elon Musk took a major role in the Trump administration.
Musk telling Tesla investors he will soon be spending a
lot more of his time focused on his business.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
The tribalism in so much of America, from car choices
to the way the legal system behaves, really troubling. Equal
treatment under the law seems to be gone, at least
for certain people, many of them on the left. That's
the topic I'd like to pursue with our guest in
One of those subtopics is at least somewhat Tesla related,
(01:02):
but Larry Goodman joins us. Larry's a retired judge for
the Superior Court in Elama, California, and also happily Katie's dad.
Speaker 5 (01:10):
Hello, Judge Larry, how are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I'm doing well.
Speaker 5 (01:13):
How are you good? Good?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
I assume you're happily Katie's dad maybe I made a
leap there that was inappropriate.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
No, it's been a total blessing. It's couldn't do better.
Speaker 5 (01:24):
At good answer, good answer. So he's on the record
is loving his daughter. You'll see. I'd like to get
a second witness anyway. Always great to talk.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
And there are a couple of excuses we had to
call you up today, and one of them is this
Democratic activist in Minnesota who committed over twenty one thousand
dollars in damage to Tesla's across Minneapolis. This guy happens
(01:56):
to be a state employees a fist policy analyst for
the state of Minnesota, long history of anti Trump, pro
Democratic posts on his social media. He was arrested and
quickly released, and the prosecutor said, now we're going to
put him in a diversion program and we will not
(02:16):
charge him with any crimes.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
What's your reaction of that.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Well, the prosecutor said, that way he'll make restitution, which
we know he'll never make. But it's what they do.
I mean, there's no it's a two tiered system of justice.
If you're on our side, you get prosecuted, and if
you're on their side, you don't. Depending on who the
DA is, although I think more and more people are
getting set up with that kind of lack of prosecution.
(02:43):
We just saw that in now Lameda County where they
recalled the DA saw it in Los Angeles where they
got rid of gascon. So maybe the tide is changing
a little bit.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Hennepin County, which is where Minneapolis is, has a long
history of this. It's a blue blot in a otherwise
fairly sane state. But like most of the violent George
Floyd BLM rioters, not just the you know, maybe not
just the loud, boisterous ones who may have shoved somebody
(03:13):
or I don't know, thrown some No, like the violent ones,
we're giving a free pass in Hennepin County. And you know,
you've seen enough of the the repercussions of if you
remove negative consequences for bad actions, you're just going to
get more bad actions. And this guy or this system
(03:36):
up there, man, they seem to be way to the
left end.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Well, they just sat around, if I remember correctly, while
they were burning down towns and everybody just said, well,
they have a right to express their frustration with what's
going on. But in this this guy that got off.
Did he actually worked for Walls? Didn't he at some
point or in the government up there? He was? I
saw his name connected with the almost to be Vice
(04:00):
president Tim Walls.
Speaker 5 (04:02):
Yeah, he was fairly high up in the Minnesota DHS.
I guess.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
But if you don't, if you don't punish behavior, then
behavior continues. I mean, that's that's how we raise Katie.
You know, if the bad behavior got punished. But if
the same thing applies to courts, if that's why they
went through the things in California where they made you
could steal up to a nine hundred and fifty dollars
and not be punished. So what did everybody do? They
(04:27):
went out and sold nine hundred and fifty dollars over
and over and over again. So if you don't prosecute
or punish somebody that destroys Tesla's, they're going to keep
destroying Teslas. I was. I'm curious to see whether Pam
BONDI might figure out some way to make this a
federal crime. I don't think it is, but it might
be kind of ironic if all of a sudden the
(04:47):
Feds came in and the rested him.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
Yeah, if I'm some young radical or not so young radical.
This guy's hold enough to know better. And I see
this guy did over twenty one thousand dollars in damages
to Tesla's across many amp He's on videotape multiple times.
He's it's utterly clear that it is him. It is
a slam dunk prosecution, and he is just completely turned loose.
Speaker 5 (05:08):
I'm going to start defacing Tesla's.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Absolutely, of course you are. And you know the question
will be if you if you do it the right
way and so you don't commit a federal crime, then
you can continue to you know, damage Tesla's. And yeah,
you're going to put you in a diversion program so
you can make restitution. But I know from personal experience
that most of the time restitution never gets paid. So
(05:34):
he's going to get a pass on this whole thing.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
How do people get away with not paying the restitution?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Nobody ever enforces it. I mean, we don't have debtors prisons, right,
So if you're ordered to pay one hundred thousand dollars
in restitution and you don't have a job, or you
have a job that can you can't afford to pay
that kind of money. You just don't pay it, you
be violated on your probation maybe, but you can't be
(06:02):
any consequences. You can't put somebody in jail because they
can't afford to pay a debt.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
So we have posited many times. We're talking to Larry
Goodman retired to Superior Court judge and elme to County, California.
We've posited many times that people need to pay serious
attention and bring serious energy to two things school board
elections and local prosecutors county whatever prosecutors.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Would you agree absolutely? I mean, that's how the other
side gets the foot in the door is normally my
experience has always been when I was actually on a
school board for eight years. But that's where people get
into politics, and that's where they get their foot in
the door, and that's where they make grassroots decisions that
(06:49):
affect people as they grow up. And then on the
other side is the prosecutors. If you don't have law
and order, you don't have a society. So you can
indoctrinate people through school board words, and then you can
can have a law and order or an effective society
by how people are prosecuting.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Final thing I wanted to ask you about Larry is
the question of due process.
Speaker 5 (07:10):
It's it's a phrase.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
It's been thrown a lot around a lot in discussing
various illegal immigrants, to getting heaved out of the country
in one form or another, whether it's shipped down to
that jail in El Salvador or Venezuelan gang members who
flooded into the country under some Biden policies we discuss
during our three I think it was anyway. Due process
(07:31):
obviously is a sacred notion for citizens in the United States.
It is the idea that the government can't behave arbitrarily,
that they've got to go through the steps to prove
that what they're doing is okay, because the founding fathers
understood how power corrupts. But when you hear the phrase
due process thrown around in terms of like the immigration topic,
(07:53):
what do you wish people understood.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Well, the due process depends upon what the procedure is
the due process and a criminal trial is a lot
different than a due process on an immigration hearing or
presenting probable cause to an immigration judge whether somebody should
be deported or not. So people you throw that around,
but it's a job specific term. Due process means different
(08:20):
things depending upon the procedure that's being applied. So they
can set up and say, yeah, he didn't get due process,
Well maybe he did. Maybe it all takes is a
probable cause statement to an immigration judge to find that
he's a member of a gang. That's the due process
he got.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
So yeah, maybe the best way to illustrate it, illustrate
it is to flip it on its head and ask
what process is due here? I mean, like I would
have different due process for would you like to go
for coffee sometime?
Speaker 5 (08:51):
From will you marry me?
Speaker 4 (08:53):
There's different due process processing those two questions.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
There absolutely is, but it's the same because you have
protections against the arbitrary actions of the government, and depending
on what action the government's taking would determine how much
due process you're entitled to. I guess is the best
way of putting it. But right now it's just becoming
the catch. It's the phrase of the week, or the
(09:20):
phrase of the last two weeks. Do process due process?
Speaker 5 (09:23):
You know, right?
Speaker 4 (09:24):
And it kind of hurts my heart to hear it
misused because it's such a fundamental principle in the country.
But again, what processes do in this circumstance. It varies
case by case, in situation by situation. Larry Goodman retired
to Superior Court Judge, Alma County, California. Larry, it's always
great to talk. Don't be a stranger. Let's do it
again soon.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Thanks for having me, and I'm usually always available.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
I'm retired, all right, we will hit you up. Thanks
a lot more to come. Want to get into a
couple of other things that I was kind of hot
to trot for, including the Maryland parental rights opt out
policy case that the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments for.
You can't believe a the perverse stuff being taught to
(10:11):
the kids, and b how young they were in Maryland,
and the school district was saying to parents, no, we're
not going to tell you what you're teaching, and no
you don't get to opt out even for preschoolers.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
Stay with us, Armstrong, Hetty, do you regret saying that
President Biden had a mental acuity, He had a sharpness
to him. He said that up until July of last year,
I said what I believed to be true. And do
you think he was as sharp as you?
Speaker 1 (10:41):
I said, I had not seen decline and I hadn't
at that point.
Speaker 6 (10:47):
You did not see any decline from twenty twenty four
Joe Biden to twenty twenty one Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Oh, when I said that he does the thing is heap? Look,
he was sharp, he was on his feet. I saw
him live event, I had meetings with him.
Speaker 6 (11:06):
A couple of Tom Senator on his feet is not praise.
He can speak in sentences is not praise fair enough?
Speaker 5 (11:17):
So that sound I like Elizabeth Warren who's interviewing him.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Yes, Sam Fragoso, whose work I don't know, but Sam
was frank and fair and also damn right.
Speaker 5 (11:27):
Well she lives.
Speaker 7 (11:28):
You're making a jackass yourself. Yeah, she and everybody else
is in a tough position. You're either going to have
to go full. I thought it was best for the
country that Biden wins, So I misled people about how
sharp he was because I thought the most important thing
was defeating Trump. That actually is not I think a
(11:49):
lot of Democrats would.
Speaker 5 (11:52):
Forgive you for that.
Speaker 7 (11:53):
The pretending you didn't notice is just nonsensical.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
Yeah, which it really? Which is the more damaging tack
to take? I think the first one's way better.
Speaker 7 (12:04):
Well, the truth is generally better almost in every situation
in life, with very few exceptions. But I think also politically,
I think he'd be better off. Look, I thought Trump
was such a danger, and I thought he was okay
enough at least for the time being.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
That I was okay with it.
Speaker 4 (12:24):
And if I was going to spin it, if I
was a Democrat consultant, I'd say and say this, and
then I believed he would quickly give way to the
Vice President Kamala Harris, who almost won the last election.
Speaker 7 (12:36):
Yes, that's way better than claiming you didn't notice.
Speaker 5 (12:40):
I mean, that's just hilarious. Yeah, that's aw unless you
want to get he's got to stutter, Michael, you make
fun of people with stutters. He's got dementia. It's not
a stutter. Coming up.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
Wild chumps indulged in not chumps. Can I have a
second take, Michael? Do we have enough tape? Yeah, go ahead,
take two. Wild chimps indulge in booze fueled feasts rare
video shows, stay with us.
Speaker 7 (13:10):
Wild chimps indulge in booze fueled feasts is a.
Speaker 5 (13:14):
Tough sentence and intriguing.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
Yes, yes both, Yeah, Yeah, Drunk chimps on a rampage
stay with US live team coverage, plus the Maryland opt
out of perverse sex education case.
Speaker 5 (13:28):
Want to go big on that got start of breaking news.
Speaker 7 (13:31):
So Rubio, the Secretary of State, said the other day
that he is pulling out of the Ukraine Russia talks
because it doesn't seem like anything seriously is happening. Jd
Vance with more today standing in front of a plane
on a tarmac before he has going somewhere. Vice President
jad Vance, who may have killed the Pope, threatened to
abandon Russia and Ukraine peace negotiations ahead of the high
(13:55):
stakes meeting in London where the two warring nations are
to discuss Trump's final awe, which is what they're calling it.
They're calling this the final offer, which is you know,
that's straight out art of the deal. But we've issued
a very we've issued a very explicit proposal to both
the Russians and Ukrainians, and it's time for them to
(14:16):
either say yes or for the US to walk away
from this process. Events told reporters we've engaged in an
extraordinary amount of diplomacy. Yeah, all completely one sided. Hey, Ukraine,
you need to give away everything they've taken and continue
to have them on your border with the threat that
they can come back anytime, with no assurances from the
(14:36):
rest of the world that we could stop them if
they did. Russia, you get to keep everything you took,
but we'd like.
Speaker 5 (14:43):
To stop public facing stance. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
Well, I've always thought that. I've always hoped there was
something going on behind the scenes that was tougher on
Russia is part of Ukraine.
Speaker 7 (14:57):
But if there is, certainly has been reported yet, and
so what it looks to me like is going to happen.
So we've been saying for a long time is Putin's
got no reason to quit now. There was a report
that came out the other day that Russia has maybe
six months more that they can do this financially and
in terms of manpower.
Speaker 5 (15:13):
Then they're just.
Speaker 7 (15:14):
Out of gas because they're burning through between the two sides.
What did I read the other day thousand and a
week deaths or something like that, just unimaginable numbers. I mean,
you know, we were in a rack for fifteen years,
we were in Afghanistan for twenty years. We didn't get
the kind of numbers they get in a month in
(15:35):
terms of casualties. But anyway, if that's true, then maybe
Russia's not in the position we think of it. But
it sure looks like Russia's got no reason to quit,
and so they aren't going to And so our stance
is going to be this was our last deal or
walking away working out amongst yourselves.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
I don't know, because uh Trump, it seemed to me
was going easy on and flattering Putin to get him
to the table and try to cut the best deal
that he could. But Trump also has a long history
of if you give me the middle finger after I've
given you that treatment, brace yourself because I'm going to
bring the hate. So do we just abandon Ukraine in
(16:20):
a way that you've more or less described here, or
does it go the other way and Trump decides to
lower the the the boom on Putin?
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Well, I think we'll know if in weeks, if not days,
which direction that is? Yeah, yeah, probably so.
Speaker 7 (16:35):
And will we continue to arm Ukraine the way we
have in the past or more or not at all?
Speaker 4 (16:42):
Did I mention the wild chumps indulging in booze fueled
feasts that's coming up next half hour. The actual interesting
scientific aspect to this groundbreaking and shocking new video. And
there actually is kind of a scientific insight to.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
Be had here.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
And also the the Maryland school opt out case, what
was said the Supreme Court really interesting and so perverse.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
Don't be so specific?
Speaker 7 (17:10):
Do you take the fun out of booze fuel, chip feasts,
Armstrong and getty.
Speaker 8 (17:17):
We will prevail in a fight over parental and religious rights.
The ninth Supreme Court justices waded into the classroom at
issue whether Montgomery County, Maryland should reinstate an opt out
policy for parents who don't want their children, some as
young as kindergarten learning from books containing LGBTQ and other
controversial themes.
Speaker 9 (17:38):
There wasn't coercion here, that it was mere exposure. I
understood from the record that all that was required is
that the books be put on the bookshelf.
Speaker 10 (17:49):
It has a clear moral message, and it may be
a good message.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
It's just a message that a lot of religious people
disagree with.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
We're talking about a Supreme Court case. The oral arguments
were heard yesterday Montgomery County, Maryland schools, saying parents do
not have the right to know about the sexually explicit
gender ideology lessons in public schools, and they do not
have the right to opt their children out for any reason,
(18:17):
including religious reasons. Now, of course, well here's here's the
other side, with typical rhetoric eighty two.
Speaker 8 (18:26):
Michael, the opposing side also at the court today, we know.
Speaker 11 (18:32):
That a number of our kids are LGBTQ plus and
the reality that we're talking about today is people want
to erase us from books, they want to erase us
from existing.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
Right, and all the kids will commit suicide. Yeah, we've
heard it before. Here is what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Jack.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
Imagine if you're four year old was given a book
with a fine the word list like a puzzle, and
your four year old is supposed to find the words intersex, flag, drag, queen, underwear, leather,
xo xo, and more from their preschool teacher.
Speaker 5 (19:18):
Okay, I don't want that. That's from my fourteen year old.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
This is kids as young as three, and again, parents
have no right to hear about this and no right
to opt out the kids. Erase the gay community, right,
and they'll all commit suicide. Yes, and mock Moon versus Taylor.
Religious parents are asking the highest court to roll rule
the Montgomery School Systems policy unconstitutional for obvious reasons of
(19:43):
faith and that sort of thing. They are not asking
the school district to remove the books from the classroom,
or even the removal of the ideological sexual material from.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
Instruction, which I would like them to do. They are
merely asking for the right to be notified in the school.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
No, No, they shouldn't be teaching radical gender theory to kids.
Speaker 5 (20:06):
Good lord. And there's a long.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Standing precedent, so many of us have dealt with this
through the years of you can opt out of various
aspects of sex education through the years.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
You've actually looked into that fairly recently, right.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Yeah, okay, so this is what Also, it's very hard
to have a handle on what you're opting out of
and what will still be in Yes, I mean, unless
you're going to go sit in the class every day.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
The activists are absolutely shameless in lying or hiding, lying
about or hiding what they're teaching.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
So Ashley maguire.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Wrote this piece for the National Review, and obviously from
context you can figure out that she lives here there
in that county, she says, but my home county is.
Speaker 5 (20:54):
Bizarrely dug in.
Speaker 4 (20:56):
The booklist is part of a broader initiative in MCPS
that Schooled is focused on pre K pre K through
fifth grade titled building Community with LGBTQ plus affirming picture
books for kids who are so young they can't really
read about it. It's picture books, According to slides from
(21:16):
the initiative, which were presented to teachers and obtained by
one news outlet, because they had to dig and find
this secret stuff because it was being hidden from the community.
Teachers have been given a certain quote of these books
to use in the classroom and can expect these lessons
to be quote embedded throughout.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
And when why don't.
Speaker 7 (21:37):
More teachers come forward and say, look at this crap
that they're making me teach.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
Because they see that the administration, their fellow teachers are
arrayed against them, they go along to get along and be.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
Risking your career, which is easier said than done.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Yeah, let's see quote. As with all curriculum resources, there
is an expectation that teachers utilize these inclusive texts and
lessons with all students. Parents were told when parents sued
one group of activists supporting the initiative actually docks the
names of the families on Twitter. They wrote, if these
are your children's classmates. You have a duty to shun them.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
So again, so you understand what we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
The curriculum resources include books such as Pride Puppy. Oh,
literally luring the kids into the van of this ideology
with a puppy Wow Cromer.
Speaker 5 (22:29):
Right, you're right. Oh my god, I will call you wow. Oh.
It's worse than that.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
The curriculum resources include books such as Pride Puppy, which
feature illustrated pictures of men in drag furries and words
such as queer and intersectional, and Born Ready, a story
about a five year old girl named Penelope who decides
that she really is a he and the response to
(22:59):
parents who opt to, who want to opt their children
out go to a private school and this author right, well,
that's what That's what I did with my kids. But
not everyone can afford a five figure opt out, even
if there is an alternative nearby. The result is a
kind of socioeconomic religious discrimination, religious freedom for rich people's.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
Bill Barr is one of the more even handed commentators
I think around. In this autobiography called quote a constitutional
double standard. In America's educational system, public school students are
subjected to militant secular progressivism, which is quote given the
protections of the free exercise clause, but is quote not
subject to the prohibitions of the establishment clause. The problem
(23:43):
today is not that religion is being forced on others.
The problem is that secular values are being forced on
people of faith. Progressives claim to not like the law
being used to force certain moral views on them, but
now they want to use the law to force their
moral views on others. And it's unequestionably it's quasi religious. Yeah,
I mean, and that's a good way to argue it
as a lawyer. But it's not because of.
Speaker 7 (24:05):
My faith that I don't want using the book Pride
Puppy to teach my kid.
Speaker 4 (24:10):
Oh my God about furries my five year old. Good lord. Now,
this is a longish clip, but I geek out on
this stuff, and I hope you will to, at least
to some extent.
Speaker 5 (24:20):
This is Justice Gorsha. Gorsa's talking to the.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
School board attorney Alan Schoenfeld Safety five.
Speaker 12 (24:29):
Michael, I just want to make sure I understand a
few fact things and then a law question. What age
do you in Montgomery County teach students normally about human sexuality?
Speaker 10 (24:43):
I think that it begins in either fourth or fifth grade.
Speaker 12 (24:46):
The human sexuality class.
Speaker 10 (24:48):
That family life in human sexuality curriculum. I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 12 (24:52):
It starts in fourth or fifth grade. I think is
there anything you can point us to in the record
on that.
Speaker 10 (24:57):
I don't think so?
Speaker 2 (24:59):
Okay.
Speaker 12 (25:00):
And second, these books are being used in English class.
Speaker 10 (25:04):
The division between English class and other things in a
second grade classroom doesn't really exist. You're sort of in
a room with a teacher.
Speaker 12 (25:11):
And sometimes I appreciate that I went to second grade too,
but it's it's part of the English curriculum that these
books are being used in.
Speaker 5 (25:20):
That's I thought that was.
Speaker 10 (25:21):
Yeah, I'm not I'm not fighting the premise. I'm just saying,
it's not the math class.
Speaker 12 (25:24):
It's it's not the human sexuality class.
Speaker 5 (25:27):
It's it is certainly not.
Speaker 10 (25:28):
The human sexuality class. I'm just sort of fighting the
premise that there's a neat discisin.
Speaker 12 (25:33):
And they're being used in English language instruction at age three,
some of them.
Speaker 10 (25:40):
So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for
the pre kindergarten curriculum that's no longer in the curriculum.
Speaker 12 (25:45):
That's the one where they are supposed to look for
the leather and things and bondage things like that.
Speaker 10 (25:50):
It's not bond sex a woman and a leather.
Speaker 12 (25:52):
Sex worker, right, No, no, it's not correct.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
No, gosh, I read it.
Speaker 12 (26:00):
In Great Dragon.
Speaker 10 (26:01):
The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in
a leather jacket and one of the words is drag.
Speaker 5 (26:05):
Queen and and they're supposed to look for those.
Speaker 10 (26:08):
It is an option at the end of the book.
Speaker 12 (26:09):
Correct, Yeah, okay, And you've included these in the English
language curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum to influence students.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Is that fair?
Speaker 5 (26:23):
That's what the district court found.
Speaker 10 (26:26):
I think to the extent the district court found that
it was to influence. It was to influence them towards
civility then natural consequence of being exposed whatever, but to
influence them in the manner that I just mentioned, Yes.
Speaker 12 (26:40):
And responding to parents who were concerned. You agree that
there was some intemperate language used.
Speaker 10 (26:48):
I don't know that those were responding to parents who
were concerned. This was after the fact for most of
these comments, and this was in a very public setting
which obviously got heated, and some intemperate convents were used.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
Certainly, you know what, they're perverts, they're sikos.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (27:05):
What this reminds me of is I never like the
people making all the arguments about marijuana where it's cancer
victims need to be able to smoke marijuana because they
don't have any hunger because of gamotherapy or anything like that.
And I thought, all along, you just want people to
be able to get high legally, which turns out it
was the case for like ninety nine percent of the
people were marching for this stuff. And I've never really
(27:27):
liked sex education in school because I've always just saw it,
what is this here? And I think that for most
of the people that were trying to jam it into school,
it was a camel's nose under the tent.
Speaker 5 (27:37):
You start with like the really easy.
Speaker 7 (27:39):
To defend, you know how bait where babies come from,
and you get this crap in there.
Speaker 4 (27:46):
I've got to I think the human biology is perfectly defensible,
perfectly defensive.
Speaker 5 (27:51):
Yeah, but it went beyond that very quickly.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Yes, yes, beyond the biological part, it's utterly indefensible. I
don't find difficult to draw a bright line. Well, how
about like gay sex and how about like furries and
and and leather or dry clean. Yeah, the importance of
needing to know how to please your partner, how specifically
(28:15):
whatever partner of whatever sex. Yeah, no, no, I don't
find it difficult to draw that line at all. Call me,
I'll spend an hour on it and we'll have our answer.
The idea that it's it's too hard to draw that
line is ridiculous.
Speaker 7 (28:29):
The whole the whole premise of Matt and Bailey, which
we won't go through the whole thing again, is so
worth knowing because it makes sense, because it is it's
exactly the Oh you're saying cancer victims shouldn't be able
to get marijuana, and you're and your argument, oh you
don't want biological side, but that's your that's what you
retreat to, right whenever you're trying to push in the
other stuff.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
Right Exactly, you start with a very reasonable premise that
most people agree with.
Speaker 5 (28:54):
And then you float a crazy, out there radical.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
Premise and then somebody says, WHOA, I ambject to that,
and you say, you object to the very reasonable premise
I started with. It's a very very common technique, and
the reason it's ancient is it works, Yeah, doesn't effing
work around here?
Speaker 7 (29:12):
God, that is something I'd love to hear all of
that Supreme Court argument. I heard some different Gorset stuff
on the news yesterday that I thought was good. Also,
I mean the idea that drag Queen is in a
word search, give me preschooler for any age? Why would
that be at any age in your school?
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Well?
Speaker 5 (29:32):
See that? Yeah, I agree one hundred percent. But that
shows the depth of their depravity.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
It's a concept that a little kid like that can't
even comprehend and has never come in contact with. They
are introducing the very concept of this. As the guy admitted,
you had to influence. Good Lord, our government schools are
so diseased.
Speaker 7 (29:53):
So I didn't ask for this clip because I've been sick.
We'll have to dig it up for tomorrow. Did you
hear the thing where Martha McCollum was interviewed doing the
leader of the biggest teachers union in America about the
point of education.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
We actually have a clip.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Maybe we have that clip that. Maybe we have that clip.
Go ahead, hit eighty nine. We'll see if it's what
Jack's describing.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Teachers times and classrooms are about how we engage kids
to actually be their full selves.
Speaker 5 (30:21):
How we make sure that kids actually.
Speaker 10 (30:24):
I mean, let's concern with them being their full self
than I am with them being.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Able to read and write and do math. And that
is the biggest problem that we faced in our school today.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
Yeah, that's the same time destination.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
The conversation was about what the point of public school is,
and the leader of the biggest teachers union in America
was saying, ninety percent of our classroom time is engaging
in how the children can evaluate their full self, either
the full cells or whatever.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
Yeah, as opposed to.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
Reading, writing, math in what are you talking about? Guys,
let's tick up that whole interview. Let's have it for tomorrow.
I want to go through that bit by.
Speaker 7 (31:02):
Bet who sends their kid to school in first grade, thinking, boy,
I share hope they learned to be their full selves today?
Speaker 4 (31:09):
How many people were the gauge applied for college and said, boy,
I did real well on the Act Becoming my full
Self test, And so I'll bet I'll get into Yale.
Speaker 5 (31:21):
What are you talking about?
Speaker 7 (31:23):
We'll finish strong next or.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
The One More Thing podcast.
Speaker 7 (31:29):
I want to talk about some things that were different
flying Southwest over my little vacation than I'd ever seen before.
Speaker 5 (31:36):
So stay doing for that excellent looking forward to it.
Speaker 4 (31:39):
Boy, I really enjoyed that listening to the oral arguments
corsicch and that attorney. I'm going to dig up the
rest of that and geek out on it today. More importantly, perhaps, Jack,
is that wild chimps have been seen in the wild
indulging in.
Speaker 5 (31:53):
Booze fueled feasts.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
According to a rare video, for the first time, wild
chimps have been cordate indulging in alcohol together.
Speaker 5 (32:02):
Interestingly enough, they were drinking rose.
Speaker 7 (32:06):
So do they stand outside of a convenience store and
wait till like a shifty adult is going in and say, hey,
we'll give you twenty bucks if you buys a sad.
Speaker 5 (32:16):
Because chimps are under eight.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
No.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
Actually, they were eating and drinking from a volleyball sized
fermented breadfruit.
Speaker 5 (32:25):
And what's interesting is that they seem to be.
Speaker 4 (32:30):
Sharing it and bonding together, in effect, getting together for
a drink of the intoxicating fermented bread fruit. And scientists
who observed this say, look, the possibility is that these primates,
which are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, could
also use booze as a social bonding tool, and they
(32:52):
believe the sharing of boozy food is likely widespread among chimps.
Speaker 5 (32:56):
Well they're ninety nine percent are genetics more than that.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
So the pure reviewed bindings offer a clue to another mystery.
Speaker 5 (33:05):
The origins of alcohol fueled feasting and humans could be
goes back.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Millions of years down Strong, It's.
Speaker 5 (33:18):
Battle, Strong, get Ready, Katie.
Speaker 10 (33:21):
Green and.
Speaker 5 (33:24):
Strong Monkey Happy Hours.
Speaker 4 (33:28):
Researchers have long suspected that human's ability to metabolize alcohol
could serve an evolutionary purpose, a theory known as the
drunken monkey hypothesis, which might be my favorite hypothesis.
Speaker 7 (33:38):
You don't have to stop throwing your feces here, but
you can't.
Speaker 5 (33:42):
You have to throw it at home or something like
them something something.
Speaker 4 (33:45):
Hey, let's get a final thought from everybody on the crew,
beginning with our technical director Michael hit.
Speaker 5 (33:49):
It Jack, do whatever it takes to get yourself well,
use whatever drug you need.
Speaker 6 (33:54):
If you have to drive to Tijuana and get something illegal,
go for it, right.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
That's right, takes her hih Katie in our Steam Muswoman final.
Speaker 5 (34:01):
Thought, I think you should just go get drunk with
some monkeys. You'll feel a lot better.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (34:06):
Maybe, how drunk did you get last night? Monkey?
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Drunk?
Speaker 5 (34:09):
Monkey drunk? It's for you Jack.
Speaker 7 (34:11):
A final thought for us, I wish it was some
easy test for the whole. This is gonna require an antibiotic,
so you don't have to be like miserable for.
Speaker 5 (34:20):
Like a week and a half.
Speaker 7 (34:22):
Before they can give you the drug that will get
you over at like forty eight hours.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
All right, can you test me for a micro My
final thought enjoyed having a couple of extra days off,
various kids on spring break and that sort of thing.
I'm very good at, not working, very very good at it.
Speaker 7 (34:38):
Armstrong and Giddy wrapping up another grueling four hour workday.
Speaker 4 (34:41):
So many people, thanks so little time, Thank you for
being here, good Armstrong and giddy dot com we have
the story about the drunken champs, for instance under hotlinks
cool we.
Speaker 5 (34:50):
Will see you tomorrow. God bless America. I'm strong and gatty.
How many more hours am I doing this huge go
away here? That's ludicrous? Right, I'm so.
Speaker 6 (35:02):
Good, says I do think it risks escalating tensions? Well,
don't smoke crack.
Speaker 5 (35:07):
Do you understand?
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Can I understand the word you're sharing.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
Okay, so let's go with a fine man. I can
jam some ambrosia and sing to it in my car.
Just jam the ambrosia. Are you sure of that?
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Dude?
Speaker 5 (35:18):
That high note? I still have this stuff, baby, Thank
you Warmstorm.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
I'm getting it.
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty arm Strong and Getty and
he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Tesla announcing its profits have plunged a staggering seventy one
percent in the first quarter of this year since CEO
Elon Musk took a major role in the Trump administration.
Musk telling Tesla investors he will soon be spending a
lot more of his time focused on his business.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
The tribalism in so much of America, from car choices
to the way the legal system behaves, really troubling. Equal
treatment under the law seems to be gone, at least
for certain people, many of them on the left. That's
the topic I'd like to pursue with our guest in
One of those subtopics is at least somewhat Tesla related,
(01:02):
but Larry Goodman joins us. Larry's a retired judge for
the Superior Court in Elama, California, and also happily Katie's dad.
Speaker 5 (01:10):
Hello, Judge Larry, how are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I'm doing well.
Speaker 5 (01:13):
How are you good? Good?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
I assume you're happily Katie's dad maybe I made a
leap there that was inappropriate.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
No, it's been a total blessing. It's couldn't do better.
Speaker 5 (01:24):
At good answer, good answer. So he's on the record
is loving his daughter. You'll see. I'd like to get
a second witness anyway. Always great to talk.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
And there are a couple of excuses we had to
call you up today, and one of them is this
Democratic activist in Minnesota who committed over twenty one thousand
dollars in damage to Tesla's across Minneapolis. This guy happens
(01:56):
to be a state employees a fist policy analyst for
the state of Minnesota, long history of anti Trump, pro
Democratic posts on his social media. He was arrested and
quickly released, and the prosecutor said, now we're going to
put him in a diversion program and we will not
(02:16):
charge him with any crimes.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
What's your reaction of that.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Well, the prosecutor said, that way he'll make restitution, which
we know he'll never make. But it's what they do.
I mean, there's no it's a two tiered system of justice.
If you're on our side, you get prosecuted, and if
you're on their side, you don't. Depending on who the
DA is, although I think more and more people are
getting set up with that kind of lack of prosecution.
(02:43):
We just saw that in now Lameda County where they
recalled the DA saw it in Los Angeles where they
got rid of gascon. So maybe the tide is changing
a little bit.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Hennepin County, which is where Minneapolis is, has a long
history of this. It's a blue blot in a otherwise
fairly sane state. But like most of the violent George
Floyd BLM rioters, not just the you know, maybe not
just the loud, boisterous ones who may have shoved somebody
(03:13):
or I don't know, thrown some No, like the violent ones,
we're giving a free pass in Hennepin County. And you know,
you've seen enough of the the repercussions of if you
remove negative consequences for bad actions, you're just going to
get more bad actions. And this guy or this system
(03:36):
up there, man, they seem to be way to the
left end.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Well, they just sat around, if I remember correctly, while
they were burning down towns and everybody just said, well,
they have a right to express their frustration with what's
going on. But in this this guy that got off.
Did he actually worked for Walls? Didn't he at some
point or in the government up there? He was? I
saw his name connected with the almost to be Vice
(04:00):
president Tim Walls.
Speaker 5 (04:02):
Yeah, he was fairly high up in the Minnesota DHS.
I guess.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
But if you don't, if you don't punish behavior, then
behavior continues. I mean, that's that's how we raise Katie.
You know, if the bad behavior got punished. But if
the same thing applies to courts, if that's why they
went through the things in California where they made you
could steal up to a nine hundred and fifty dollars
and not be punished. So what did everybody do? They
(04:27):
went out and sold nine hundred and fifty dollars over
and over and over again. So if you don't prosecute
or punish somebody that destroys Tesla's, they're going to keep
destroying Teslas. I was. I'm curious to see whether Pam
BONDI might figure out some way to make this a
federal crime. I don't think it is, but it might
be kind of ironic if all of a sudden the
(04:47):
Feds came in and the rested him.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
Yeah, if I'm some young radical or not so young radical.
This guy's hold enough to know better. And I see
this guy did over twenty one thousand dollars in damages
to Tesla's across many amp He's on videotape multiple times.
He's it's utterly clear that it is him. It is
a slam dunk prosecution, and he is just completely turned loose.
Speaker 5 (05:08):
I'm going to start defacing Tesla's.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Absolutely, of course you are. And you know the question
will be if you if you do it the right
way and so you don't commit a federal crime, then
you can continue to you know, damage Tesla's. And yeah,
you're going to put you in a diversion program so
you can make restitution. But I know from personal experience
that most of the time restitution never gets paid. So
(05:34):
he's going to get a pass on this whole thing.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
How do people get away with not paying the restitution?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Nobody ever enforces it. I mean, we don't have debtors prisons, right,
So if you're ordered to pay one hundred thousand dollars
in restitution and you don't have a job, or you
have a job that can you can't afford to pay
that kind of money. You just don't pay it, you
be violated on your probation maybe, but you can't be
(06:02):
any consequences. You can't put somebody in jail because they
can't afford to pay a debt.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
So we have posited many times. We're talking to Larry
Goodman retired to Superior Court judge and elme to County, California.
We've posited many times that people need to pay serious
attention and bring serious energy to two things school board
elections and local prosecutors county whatever prosecutors.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Would you agree absolutely? I mean, that's how the other
side gets the foot in the door is normally my
experience has always been when I was actually on a
school board for eight years. But that's where people get
into politics, and that's where they get their foot in
the door, and that's where they make grassroots decisions that
(06:49):
affect people as they grow up. And then on the
other side is the prosecutors. If you don't have law
and order, you don't have a society. So you can
indoctrinate people through school board words, and then you can
can have a law and order or an effective society
by how people are prosecuting.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Final thing I wanted to ask you about Larry is
the question of due process.
Speaker 5 (07:10):
It's it's a phrase.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
It's been thrown a lot around a lot in discussing
various illegal immigrants, to getting heaved out of the country
in one form or another, whether it's shipped down to
that jail in El Salvador or Venezuelan gang members who
flooded into the country under some Biden policies we discuss
during our three I think it was anyway. Due process
(07:31):
obviously is a sacred notion for citizens in the United States.
It is the idea that the government can't behave arbitrarily,
that they've got to go through the steps to prove
that what they're doing is okay, because the founding fathers
understood how power corrupts. But when you hear the phrase
due process thrown around in terms of like the immigration topic,
(07:53):
what do you wish people understood.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Well, the due process depends upon what the procedure is
the due process and a criminal trial is a lot
different than a due process on an immigration hearing or
presenting probable cause to an immigration judge whether somebody should
be deported or not. So people you throw that around,
but it's a job specific term. Due process means different
(08:20):
things depending upon the procedure that's being applied. So they
can set up and say, yeah, he didn't get due process,
Well maybe he did. Maybe it all takes is a
probable cause statement to an immigration judge to find that
he's a member of a gang. That's the due process
he got.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
So yeah, maybe the best way to illustrate it, illustrate
it is to flip it on its head and ask
what process is due here? I mean, like I would
have different due process for would you like to go
for coffee sometime?
Speaker 5 (08:51):
From will you marry me?
Speaker 4 (08:53):
There's different due process processing those two questions.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
There absolutely is, but it's the same because you have
protections against the arbitrary actions of the government, and depending
on what action the government's taking would determine how much
due process you're entitled to. I guess is the best
way of putting it. But right now it's just becoming
the catch. It's the phrase of the week, or the
(09:20):
phrase of the last two weeks. Do process due process?
Speaker 5 (09:23):
You know, right?
Speaker 4 (09:24):
And it kind of hurts my heart to hear it
misused because it's such a fundamental principle in the country.
But again, what processes do in this circumstance. It varies
case by case, in situation by situation. Larry Goodman retired
to Superior Court Judge, Alma County, California. Larry, it's always
great to talk. Don't be a stranger. Let's do it
again soon.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Thanks for having me, and I'm usually always available.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
I'm retired, all right, we will hit you up. Thanks
a lot more to come. Want to get into a
couple of other things that I was kind of hot
to trot for, including the Maryland parental rights opt out
policy case that the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments for.
You can't believe a the perverse stuff being taught to
(10:11):
the kids, and b how young they were in Maryland,
and the school district was saying to parents, no, we're
not going to tell you what you're teaching, and no
you don't get to opt out even for preschoolers.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
Stay with us, Armstrong, Hetty, do you regret saying that
President Biden had a mental acuity, He had a sharpness
to him. He said that up until July of last year,
I said what I believed to be true. And do
you think he was as sharp as you?
Speaker 1 (10:41):
I said, I had not seen decline and I hadn't
at that point.
Speaker 6 (10:47):
You did not see any decline from twenty twenty four
Joe Biden to twenty twenty one Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Oh, when I said that he does the thing is heap? Look,
he was sharp, he was on his feet. I saw
him live event, I had meetings with him.
Speaker 6 (11:06):
A couple of Tom Senator on his feet is not praise.
He can speak in sentences is not praise fair enough?
Speaker 5 (11:17):
So that sound I like Elizabeth Warren who's interviewing him.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Yes, Sam Fragoso, whose work I don't know, but Sam
was frank and fair and also damn right.
Speaker 5 (11:27):
Well she lives.
Speaker 7 (11:28):
You're making a jackass yourself. Yeah, she and everybody else
is in a tough position. You're either going to have
to go full. I thought it was best for the
country that Biden wins, So I misled people about how
sharp he was because I thought the most important thing
was defeating Trump. That actually is not I think a
(11:49):
lot of Democrats would.
Speaker 5 (11:52):
Forgive you for that.
Speaker 7 (11:53):
The pretending you didn't notice is just nonsensical.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
Yeah, which it really? Which is the more damaging tack
to take? I think the first one's way better.
Speaker 7 (12:04):
Well, the truth is generally better almost in every situation
in life, with very few exceptions. But I think also politically,
I think he'd be better off. Look, I thought Trump
was such a danger, and I thought he was okay
enough at least for the time being.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
That I was okay with it.
Speaker 4 (12:24):
And if I was going to spin it, if I
was a Democrat consultant, I'd say and say this, and
then I believed he would quickly give way to the
Vice President Kamala Harris, who almost won the last election.
Speaker 7 (12:36):
Yes, that's way better than claiming you didn't notice.
Speaker 5 (12:40):
I mean, that's just hilarious. Yeah, that's aw unless you
want to get he's got to stutter, Michael, you make
fun of people with stutters. He's got dementia. It's not
a stutter. Coming up.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
Wild chumps indulged in not chumps. Can I have a
second take, Michael? Do we have enough tape? Yeah, go ahead,
take two. Wild chimps indulge in booze fueled feasts rare
video shows, stay with us.
Speaker 7 (13:10):
Wild chimps indulge in booze fueled feasts is a.
Speaker 5 (13:14):
Tough sentence and intriguing.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
Yes, yes both, Yeah, Yeah, Drunk chimps on a rampage
stay with US live team coverage, plus the Maryland opt
out of perverse sex education case.
Speaker 5 (13:28):
Want to go big on that got start of breaking news.
Speaker 7 (13:31):
So Rubio, the Secretary of State, said the other day
that he is pulling out of the Ukraine Russia talks
because it doesn't seem like anything seriously is happening. Jd
Vance with more today standing in front of a plane
on a tarmac before he has going somewhere. Vice President
jad Vance, who may have killed the Pope, threatened to
abandon Russia and Ukraine peace negotiations ahead of the high
(13:55):
stakes meeting in London where the two warring nations are
to discuss Trump's final awe, which is what they're calling it.
They're calling this the final offer, which is you know,
that's straight out art of the deal. But we've issued
a very we've issued a very explicit proposal to both
the Russians and Ukrainians, and it's time for them to
(14:16):
either say yes or for the US to walk away
from this process. Events told reporters we've engaged in an
extraordinary amount of diplomacy. Yeah, all completely one sided. Hey, Ukraine,
you need to give away everything they've taken and continue
to have them on your border with the threat that
they can come back anytime, with no assurances from the
(14:36):
rest of the world that we could stop them if
they did. Russia, you get to keep everything you took,
but we'd like.
Speaker 5 (14:43):
To stop public facing stance. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
Well, I've always thought that. I've always hoped there was
something going on behind the scenes that was tougher on
Russia is part of Ukraine.
Speaker 7 (14:57):
But if there is, certainly has been reported yet, and
so what it looks to me like is going to happen.
So we've been saying for a long time is Putin's
got no reason to quit now. There was a report
that came out the other day that Russia has maybe
six months more that they can do this financially and
in terms of manpower.
Speaker 5 (15:13):
Then they're just.
Speaker 7 (15:14):
Out of gas because they're burning through between the two sides.
What did I read the other day thousand and a
week deaths or something like that, just unimaginable numbers. I mean,
you know, we were in a rack for fifteen years,
we were in Afghanistan for twenty years. We didn't get
the kind of numbers they get in a month in
(15:35):
terms of casualties. But anyway, if that's true, then maybe
Russia's not in the position we think of it. But
it sure looks like Russia's got no reason to quit,
and so they aren't going to And so our stance
is going to be this was our last deal or
walking away working out amongst yourselves.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
I don't know, because uh Trump, it seemed to me
was going easy on and flattering Putin to get him
to the table and try to cut the best deal
that he could. But Trump also has a long history
of if you give me the middle finger after I've
given you that treatment, brace yourself because I'm going to
bring the hate. So do we just abandon Ukraine in
(16:20):
a way that you've more or less described here, or
does it go the other way and Trump decides to
lower the the the boom on Putin?
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Well, I think we'll know if in weeks, if not days,
which direction that is? Yeah, yeah, probably so.
Speaker 7 (16:35):
And will we continue to arm Ukraine the way we
have in the past or more or not at all?
Speaker 4 (16:42):
Did I mention the wild chumps indulging in booze fueled
feasts that's coming up next half hour. The actual interesting
scientific aspect to this groundbreaking and shocking new video. And
there actually is kind of a scientific insight to.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
Be had here.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
And also the the Maryland school opt out case, what
was said the Supreme Court really interesting and so perverse.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
Don't be so specific?
Speaker 7 (17:10):
Do you take the fun out of booze fuel, chip feasts,
Armstrong and getty.
Speaker 8 (17:17):
We will prevail in a fight over parental and religious rights.
The ninth Supreme Court justices waded into the classroom at
issue whether Montgomery County, Maryland should reinstate an opt out
policy for parents who don't want their children, some as
young as kindergarten learning from books containing LGBTQ and other
controversial themes.
Speaker 9 (17:38):
There wasn't coercion here, that it was mere exposure. I
understood from the record that all that was required is
that the books be put on the bookshelf.
Speaker 10 (17:49):
It has a clear moral message, and it may be
a good message.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
It's just a message that a lot of religious people
disagree with.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
We're talking about a Supreme Court case. The oral arguments
were heard yesterday Montgomery County, Maryland schools, saying parents do
not have the right to know about the sexually explicit
gender ideology lessons in public schools, and they do not
have the right to opt their children out for any reason,
(18:17):
including religious reasons. Now, of course, well here's here's the
other side, with typical rhetoric eighty two.
Speaker 8 (18:26):
Michael, the opposing side also at the court today, we know.
Speaker 11 (18:32):
That a number of our kids are LGBTQ plus and
the reality that we're talking about today is people want
to erase us from books, they want to erase us
from existing.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
Right, and all the kids will commit suicide. Yeah, we've
heard it before. Here is what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Jack.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
Imagine if you're four year old was given a book
with a fine the word list like a puzzle, and
your four year old is supposed to find the words intersex, flag, drag, queen, underwear, leather,
xo xo, and more from their preschool teacher.
Speaker 5 (19:18):
Okay, I don't want that. That's from my fourteen year old.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
This is kids as young as three, and again, parents
have no right to hear about this and no right
to opt out the kids. Erase the gay community, right,
and they'll all commit suicide. Yes, and mock Moon versus Taylor.
Religious parents are asking the highest court to roll rule
the Montgomery School Systems policy unconstitutional for obvious reasons of
(19:43):
faith and that sort of thing. They are not asking
the school district to remove the books from the classroom,
or even the removal of the ideological sexual material from.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
Instruction, which I would like them to do. They are
merely asking for the right to be notified in the school.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
No, No, they shouldn't be teaching radical gender theory to kids.
Speaker 5 (20:06):
Good lord. And there's a long.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Standing precedent, so many of us have dealt with this
through the years of you can opt out of various
aspects of sex education through the years.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
You've actually looked into that fairly recently, right.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Yeah, okay, so this is what Also, it's very hard
to have a handle on what you're opting out of
and what will still be in Yes, I mean, unless
you're going to go sit in the class every day.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
The activists are absolutely shameless in lying or hiding, lying
about or hiding what they're teaching.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
So Ashley maguire.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Wrote this piece for the National Review, and obviously from
context you can figure out that she lives here there
in that county, she says, but my home county is.
Speaker 5 (20:54):
Bizarrely dug in.
Speaker 4 (20:56):
The booklist is part of a broader initiative in MCPS
that Schooled is focused on pre K pre K through
fifth grade titled building Community with LGBTQ plus affirming picture
books for kids who are so young they can't really
read about it. It's picture books, According to slides from
(21:16):
the initiative, which were presented to teachers and obtained by
one news outlet, because they had to dig and find
this secret stuff because it was being hidden from the community.
Teachers have been given a certain quote of these books
to use in the classroom and can expect these lessons
to be quote embedded throughout.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
And when why don't.
Speaker 7 (21:37):
More teachers come forward and say, look at this crap
that they're making me teach.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
Because they see that the administration, their fellow teachers are
arrayed against them, they go along to get along and be.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
Risking your career, which is easier said than done.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Yeah, let's see quote. As with all curriculum resources, there
is an expectation that teachers utilize these inclusive texts and
lessons with all students. Parents were told when parents sued
one group of activists supporting the initiative actually docks the
names of the families on Twitter. They wrote, if these
are your children's classmates. You have a duty to shun them.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
So again, so you understand what we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
The curriculum resources include books such as Pride Puppy. Oh,
literally luring the kids into the van of this ideology
with a puppy Wow Cromer.
Speaker 5 (22:29):
Right, you're right. Oh my god, I will call you wow. Oh.
It's worse than that.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
The curriculum resources include books such as Pride Puppy, which
feature illustrated pictures of men in drag furries and words
such as queer and intersectional, and Born Ready, a story
about a five year old girl named Penelope who decides
that she really is a he and the response to
(22:59):
parents who opt to, who want to opt their children
out go to a private school and this author right, well,
that's what That's what I did with my kids. But
not everyone can afford a five figure opt out, even
if there is an alternative nearby. The result is a
kind of socioeconomic religious discrimination, religious freedom for rich people's.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
Bill Barr is one of the more even handed commentators
I think around. In this autobiography called quote a constitutional
double standard. In America's educational system, public school students are
subjected to militant secular progressivism, which is quote given the
protections of the free exercise clause, but is quote not
subject to the prohibitions of the establishment clause. The problem
(23:43):
today is not that religion is being forced on others.
The problem is that secular values are being forced on
people of faith. Progressives claim to not like the law
being used to force certain moral views on them, but
now they want to use the law to force their
moral views on others. And it's unequestionably it's quasi religious. Yeah,
I mean, and that's a good way to argue it
as a lawyer. But it's not because of.
Speaker 7 (24:05):
My faith that I don't want using the book Pride
Puppy to teach my kid.
Speaker 4 (24:10):
Oh my God about furries my five year old. Good lord. Now,
this is a longish clip, but I geek out on
this stuff, and I hope you will to, at least
to some extent.
Speaker 5 (24:20):
This is Justice Gorsha. Gorsa's talking to the.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
School board attorney Alan Schoenfeld Safety five.
Speaker 12 (24:29):
Michael, I just want to make sure I understand a
few fact things and then a law question. What age
do you in Montgomery County teach students normally about human sexuality?
Speaker 10 (24:43):
I think that it begins in either fourth or fifth grade.
Speaker 12 (24:46):
The human sexuality class.
Speaker 10 (24:48):
That family life in human sexuality curriculum. I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 12 (24:52):
It starts in fourth or fifth grade. I think is
there anything you can point us to in the record
on that.
Speaker 10 (24:57):
I don't think so?
Speaker 2 (24:59):
Okay.
Speaker 12 (25:00):
And second, these books are being used in English class.
Speaker 10 (25:04):
The division between English class and other things in a
second grade classroom doesn't really exist. You're sort of in
a room with a teacher.
Speaker 12 (25:11):
And sometimes I appreciate that I went to second grade too,
but it's it's part of the English curriculum that these
books are being used in.
Speaker 5 (25:20):
That's I thought that was.
Speaker 10 (25:21):
Yeah, I'm not I'm not fighting the premise. I'm just saying,
it's not the math class.
Speaker 12 (25:24):
It's it's not the human sexuality class.
Speaker 5 (25:27):
It's it is certainly not.
Speaker 10 (25:28):
The human sexuality class. I'm just sort of fighting the
premise that there's a neat discisin.
Speaker 12 (25:33):
And they're being used in English language instruction at age three,
some of them.
Speaker 10 (25:40):
So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for
the pre kindergarten curriculum that's no longer in the curriculum.
Speaker 12 (25:45):
That's the one where they are supposed to look for
the leather and things and bondage things like that.
Speaker 10 (25:50):
It's not bond sex a woman and a leather.
Speaker 12 (25:52):
Sex worker, right, No, no, it's not correct.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
No, gosh, I read it.
Speaker 12 (26:00):
In Great Dragon.
Speaker 10 (26:01):
The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in
a leather jacket and one of the words is drag.
Speaker 5 (26:05):
Queen and and they're supposed to look for those.
Speaker 10 (26:08):
It is an option at the end of the book.
Speaker 12 (26:09):
Correct, Yeah, okay, And you've included these in the English
language curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum to influence students.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Is that fair?
Speaker 5 (26:23):
That's what the district court found.
Speaker 10 (26:26):
I think to the extent the district court found that
it was to influence. It was to influence them towards
civility then natural consequence of being exposed whatever, but to
influence them in the manner that I just mentioned, Yes.
Speaker 12 (26:40):
And responding to parents who were concerned. You agree that
there was some intemperate language used.
Speaker 10 (26:48):
I don't know that those were responding to parents who
were concerned. This was after the fact for most of
these comments, and this was in a very public setting
which obviously got heated, and some intemperate convents were used.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
Certainly, you know what, they're perverts, they're sikos.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (27:05):
What this reminds me of is I never like the
people making all the arguments about marijuana where it's cancer
victims need to be able to smoke marijuana because they
don't have any hunger because of gamotherapy or anything like that.
And I thought, all along, you just want people to
be able to get high legally, which turns out it
was the case for like ninety nine percent of the
people were marching for this stuff. And I've never really
(27:27):
liked sex education in school because I've always just saw it,
what is this here? And I think that for most
of the people that were trying to jam it into school,
it was a camel's nose under the tent.
Speaker 5 (27:37):
You start with like the really easy.
Speaker 7 (27:39):
To defend, you know how bait where babies come from,
and you get this crap in there.
Speaker 4 (27:46):
I've got to I think the human biology is perfectly defensible,
perfectly defensive.
Speaker 5 (27:51):
Yeah, but it went beyond that very quickly.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Yes, yes, beyond the biological part, it's utterly indefensible. I
don't find difficult to draw a bright line. Well, how
about like gay sex and how about like furries and
and and leather or dry clean. Yeah, the importance of
needing to know how to please your partner, how specifically
(28:15):
whatever partner of whatever sex. Yeah, no, no, I don't
find it difficult to draw that line at all. Call me,
I'll spend an hour on it and we'll have our answer.
The idea that it's it's too hard to draw that
line is ridiculous.
Speaker 7 (28:29):
The whole the whole premise of Matt and Bailey, which
we won't go through the whole thing again, is so
worth knowing because it makes sense, because it is it's
exactly the Oh you're saying cancer victims shouldn't be able
to get marijuana, and you're and your argument, oh you
don't want biological side, but that's your that's what you
retreat to, right whenever you're trying to push in the
other stuff.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
Right Exactly, you start with a very reasonable premise that
most people agree with.
Speaker 5 (28:54):
And then you float a crazy, out there radical.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
Premise and then somebody says, WHOA, I ambject to that,
and you say, you object to the very reasonable premise
I started with. It's a very very common technique, and
the reason it's ancient is it works, Yeah, doesn't effing
work around here?
Speaker 7 (29:12):
God, that is something I'd love to hear all of
that Supreme Court argument. I heard some different Gorset stuff
on the news yesterday that I thought was good. Also,
I mean the idea that drag Queen is in a
word search, give me preschooler for any age? Why would
that be at any age in your school?
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Well?
Speaker 5 (29:32):
See that? Yeah, I agree one hundred percent. But that
shows the depth of their depravity.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
It's a concept that a little kid like that can't
even comprehend and has never come in contact with. They
are introducing the very concept of this. As the guy admitted,
you had to influence. Good Lord, our government schools are
so diseased.
Speaker 7 (29:53):
So I didn't ask for this clip because I've been sick.
We'll have to dig it up for tomorrow. Did you
hear the thing where Martha McCollum was interviewed doing the
leader of the biggest teachers union in America about the
point of education.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
We actually have a clip.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Maybe we have that clip that. Maybe we have that clip.
Go ahead, hit eighty nine. We'll see if it's what
Jack's describing.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Teachers times and classrooms are about how we engage kids
to actually be their full selves.
Speaker 5 (30:21):
How we make sure that kids actually.
Speaker 10 (30:24):
I mean, let's concern with them being their full self
than I am with them being.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Able to read and write and do math. And that
is the biggest problem that we faced in our school today.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
Yeah, that's the same time destination.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
The conversation was about what the point of public school is,
and the leader of the biggest teachers union in America
was saying, ninety percent of our classroom time is engaging
in how the children can evaluate their full self, either
the full cells or whatever.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
Yeah, as opposed to.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
Reading, writing, math in what are you talking about? Guys,
let's tick up that whole interview. Let's have it for tomorrow.
I want to go through that bit by.
Speaker 7 (31:02):
Bet who sends their kid to school in first grade, thinking, boy,
I share hope they learned to be their full selves today?
Speaker 4 (31:09):
How many people were the gauge applied for college and said, boy,
I did real well on the Act Becoming my full
Self test, And so I'll bet I'll get into Yale.
Speaker 5 (31:21):
What are you talking about?
Speaker 7 (31:23):
We'll finish strong next or.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
The One More Thing podcast.
Speaker 7 (31:29):
I want to talk about some things that were different
flying Southwest over my little vacation than I'd ever seen before.
Speaker 5 (31:36):
So stay doing for that excellent looking forward to it.
Speaker 4 (31:39):
Boy, I really enjoyed that listening to the oral arguments
corsicch and that attorney. I'm going to dig up the
rest of that and geek out on it today. More importantly, perhaps, Jack,
is that wild chimps have been seen in the wild
indulging in.
Speaker 5 (31:53):
Booze fueled feasts.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
According to a rare video, for the first time, wild
chimps have been cordate indulging in alcohol together.
Speaker 5 (32:02):
Interestingly enough, they were drinking rose.
Speaker 7 (32:06):
So do they stand outside of a convenience store and
wait till like a shifty adult is going in and say, hey,
we'll give you twenty bucks if you buys a sad.
Speaker 5 (32:16):
Because chimps are under eight.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
No.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
Actually, they were eating and drinking from a volleyball sized
fermented breadfruit.
Speaker 5 (32:25):
And what's interesting is that they seem to be.
Speaker 4 (32:30):
Sharing it and bonding together, in effect, getting together for
a drink of the intoxicating fermented bread fruit. And scientists
who observed this say, look, the possibility is that these primates,
which are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, could
also use booze as a social bonding tool, and they
(32:52):
believe the sharing of boozy food is likely widespread among chimps.
Speaker 5 (32:56):
Well they're ninety nine percent are genetics more than that.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
So the pure reviewed bindings offer a clue to another mystery.
Speaker 5 (33:05):
The origins of alcohol fueled feasting and humans could be
goes back.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Millions of years down Strong, It's.
Speaker 5 (33:18):
Battle, Strong, get Ready, Katie.
Speaker 10 (33:21):
Green and.
Speaker 5 (33:24):
Strong Monkey Happy Hours.
Speaker 4 (33:28):
Researchers have long suspected that human's ability to metabolize alcohol
could serve an evolutionary purpose, a theory known as the
drunken monkey hypothesis, which might be my favorite hypothesis.
Speaker 7 (33:38):
You don't have to stop throwing your feces here, but
you can't.
Speaker 5 (33:42):
You have to throw it at home or something like
them something something.
Speaker 4 (33:45):
Hey, let's get a final thought from everybody on the crew,
beginning with our technical director Michael hit.
Speaker 5 (33:49):
It Jack, do whatever it takes to get yourself well,
use whatever drug you need.
Speaker 6 (33:54):
If you have to drive to Tijuana and get something illegal,
go for it, right.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
That's right, takes her hih Katie in our Steam Muswoman final.
Speaker 5 (34:01):
Thought, I think you should just go get drunk with
some monkeys. You'll feel a lot better.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (34:06):
Maybe, how drunk did you get last night? Monkey?
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Drunk?
Speaker 5 (34:09):
Monkey drunk? It's for you Jack.
Speaker 7 (34:11):
A final thought for us, I wish it was some
easy test for the whole. This is gonna require an antibiotic,
so you don't have to be like miserable for.
Speaker 5 (34:20):
Like a week and a half.
Speaker 7 (34:22):
Before they can give you the drug that will get
you over at like forty eight hours.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
All right, can you test me for a micro My
final thought enjoyed having a couple of extra days off,
various kids on spring break and that sort of thing.
I'm very good at, not working, very very good at it.
Speaker 7 (34:38):
Armstrong and Giddy wrapping up another grueling four hour workday.
Speaker 4 (34:41):
So many people, thanks so little time, Thank you for
being here, good Armstrong and giddy dot com we have
the story about the drunken champs, for instance under hotlinks
cool we.
Speaker 5 (34:50):
Will see you tomorrow. God bless America. I'm strong and gatty.
How many more hours am I doing this huge go
away here? That's ludicrous? Right, I'm so.
Speaker 6 (35:02):
Good, says I do think it risks escalating tensions? Well,
don't smoke crack.
Speaker 5 (35:07):
Do you understand?
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Can I understand the word you're sharing.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
Okay, so let's go with a fine man. I can
jam some ambrosia and sing to it in my car.
Just jam the ambrosia. Are you sure of that?
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Dude?
Speaker 5 (35:18):
That high note? I still have this stuff, baby, Thank
you Warmstorm.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
I'm getting it.
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!