00:00:02
Speaker 1: From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty Show.
00:00:14
Speaker 2: So it's really an astounding document because for the first time in American history, a former president is being prosecuted by a political opponent who wields the power of the criminal justice system for what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as as president.
00:00:35
Speaker 3: That's John lro who's Trump's lead attorney on this indictment. And there aren't many people disagreeing with him, honestly, which is somewhat surprising.
00:00:47
Speaker 4: Here are the two polar ends of this, which tends to be where a lot of our conversation goes in America. Congresswoman of Rashida Talib tweeted out, we must never forget how fragile our democracy is and how important it is that we protected. Donald Trump must be held accountable for conspiring to overturn an election. The American people deserve justice from a violent fascist insurrection.
00:01:09
Speaker 3: Okay, I actually agreed with like her first phrase, that was pretty good, but then it got more unhinged as it went.
00:01:15
Speaker 4: Then on the other end, Stephen Miller. We for our your nation, justice is dead. In its place raw authoritarian persecution we have a chance to revive at twenty twenty four. The nuance luckily comes, as it doesn't always come from some of our big thinkers and some of our big newspapers. Ruth Marcus, who couldn't hate Trump Moore and has said all kinds of things that I think are out of line, did say this in her column in the Washington Boast today, Prosecuting Trump is perilous. You do not have to be a Trump partisan to conclude that Smith might have aired here around the whole idea of Trump going around claiming he won and pushing as hard as he can legally speaking to you try to get his way is free speech. I'm legally okay. So what exactly is the point? David French in the New York Times, who is no Trump fan, this case is no slam dunk, and he goes through the very same things that Ruth Margus did about how there's a lot of free speech issues here. Smith has brought a very difficult case. The Wall Street Journal editorial board, they really think it's an overreach. As we found out what the indictment was about yesterday and troubling implications far beyond the fate of mister Trump. Mister Smith's sory theory seems to be that if a president and his co conspirators and quotes are lying, then take action on that line that they are defrauding the United States. Politicians lie all the time.
00:02:49
Speaker 3: Yeah, as I said last hour, I think it's become pretty clear to me what we have here is an overwhelming desire to punish Trump for January sixth. Then the whole stops the steel thing, and we no longer have a society that operates on morals. All we have is legal and illegal rules and regulations. And so you know, the Democrats want.
00:03:15
Speaker 5: To express, well, a lot of people want to express.
00:03:18
Speaker 3: The fact that a lot of what Trump did is wrong, but it's not illegal. But we no longer have a framework for selling. Hey, that's wrong and it was bad, and the guy should never be president again. You've got to indict him. That's the only tool we have now in over legalized America. So this Jack Smith is trying to make bricks without straw, to paraphrase the Bible, and.
00:03:40
Speaker 5: He's indicting for things that are not indictable.
00:03:43
Speaker 4: And I love the question of do these cases happen? Do these trials happen before the election? Should they happen before the election? Should that play a role in when way have these trials or not? Reading from Mark Hauprin's newsletter, is the political and societal fabric fallout for the nation worse if Trump's is acquitted or if he's a convicted. This needs to be thought through because if there is a trial before the election, the legal outcome could be dispositive in determining who wins the White House. The trial could determine who's president. Do we think that's a good idea or not?
00:04:20
Speaker 3: Especially given the trial over what the basis of the charges? And to that end, are you good with the ben Dominic clips will play those? How about sixty five?
00:04:29
Speaker 5: Michael? I think this is a travesty. I think this is terrible.
00:04:33
Speaker 6: I think that Jack Smith does not have the case to make on this. You can make cases against the former president and so many other different respects, but I do not think this was a case that ought to have been brought in any case, I do not think that you know, we can go back through history, should we indict everyone who said that al Gore won in two thousand, should we indict everybody who was going down in two thousand and four, you know, objections over the Ohio and things like that. You know, when it came to John Kerry's election.
00:05:03
Speaker 4: That's a guy, by the way, who thinks Trump legitimately lost and thought it was a bad idea for Trump to bring all those cases forward, but thinks she can't prosecute him for this.
00:05:13
Speaker 5: And I like his next statement too, Michael.
00:05:17
Speaker 6: This is a step too far against any kind of politician making the case that they won in a vague and gray area scenario. Now, look, you know you can make the arguments against Donald Trump in this instance. I certainly have made them. I've made the arguments against Johnny Sman's analysis. I disagree with all of it. But bringing a case like this I think is an absolute travesty for the Justice Department. It's something that I think is going to create a toxic scenario going forward, and one that is only going to lead to bad things.
00:05:50
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:05:51
Speaker 4: I realize is all y'all don't follow this as closely as we do, or most of you don't, and for good reason. But trust us. If Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post says this was a stretch and he may Jacksmith may have aired that's meaningful.
00:06:07
Speaker 3: See, here's the problem. In simple terms, they're indicting him for a great deal of words and you know, speeches of the center that are absolutely protected under the First Amendment. You are allowed to be dishonest under the First Amendment. You're allowed to be hyperbolic, you're allowed to well, I think of me. The point and the second thing is he allegedly, well, no, not allegedly, he pitched a legal theory that was presented to him. Trump did by this John Eastman character and Sidney Powell.
00:06:38
Speaker 5: Sidney is that her.
00:06:39
Speaker 3: Name crack pots, absolute crack pots. But it's not a crime to have a bad lawyer with bad legal theories that you go to court with or go before the American people with. You can't criminalize saying they screwed me. I actually won. And you can't criminalize your lawyer saying, you know, we could take it back to the States and appeal that and then they could send new electors. He's wrong, He's completely wrong. But you can't be prosecuted for having a bad legal theory.
00:07:14
Speaker 4: Probably worth hitting this again, because it is a big part of the question here if I can find it, hold on, we need music.
00:07:30
Speaker 5: Well you're looking for that play sixty seven, would you? Michael? This is Greg Jarrett.
00:07:36
Speaker 7: This indictment strikes me as an amateurish joke. Frankly, Jack Smith as special counsel should be indicted for stupidity.
00:07:45
Speaker 5: It's that bad.
00:07:47
Speaker 7: But he has this disreputable habit of bringing politically driven prosecutions by contorting the law and mangling the evidence. And you know, these four counts are the definition of a stretch.
00:08:00
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jack Smith is the guy who prosecuted the governor of Virginia whose conviction was overturned nine zero by the Supreme Court.
00:08:11
Speaker 4: Nine zer.
00:08:12
Speaker 5: That's what Greg is referring to.
00:08:14
Speaker 4: Right, So this punditry, why indict the guy the week of the Devon Archer testimony?
00:08:20
Speaker 5: Ah?
00:08:21
Speaker 3: Right?
00:08:21
Speaker 4: If Jack Smith and Merrick Garland are not motivated by partisanship, as Red America believes they are, they should be thinking these things through more. Really, is a good idea to indict Trump now the week of the Archer testimony?
00:08:34
Speaker 5: Why?
00:08:35
Speaker 4: What is the argument for trying to bring him to trial before the election? Is there an argument for it, or are you just trying to keep him from being elected, which isn't your job. If Smith and Garland are as tone deaf and non strategic as they appear to be, they aren't in the right jobs. Do you agree with that or not? Because I have a feeling that some of our legal friends would say, no, being tone deaf to the politics is your is your job when you're.
00:09:00
Speaker 5: In the law. I don't know.
00:09:05
Speaker 3: All I can tell you is during the show yesterday, I came across somebody tweeting, in the wake of the Devon Archer testimony and the uttered crumbling of Joe Biden's statements through the years, I've never discussed the business, blah blah blah. He's a liar, a complete flaming liar, has gotten rich off influence pedalty. Anyway, somebody tweeted, I'll bet now that the Devon Archer testimony is out, they'll indict Trump tomorrow. And sure enough they were wrong. They indicted Trump that afternoon yesterday afternoon.
00:09:33
Speaker 5: It just it stinks.
00:09:37
Speaker 3: Maybe Jack Smith had say, well, that's just when we finished the forms, I had to get the form back from the boss. They sent it back this afternoon.
00:09:43
Speaker 4: Was closed on someday and I had to print out a bunch of copies. Yeah, yeah, that is I mean, yeah, if that was just where the timing landed.
00:09:53
Speaker 5: Wow, all right, final.
00:09:55
Speaker 3: Note from me, because I want to leave time for the excellent Richard Dawkins stuff that we're going to play. This is the email of the day. Do we have the fanfare still, Michael? This is the email of the day from the fabulous JT In Livermore.
00:10:08
Speaker 5: No, never mind's too late. That's not a fanfare. You're like Jack Smith. I asked for a fanfair and gave me that. They asked him for an indictment, and he thought, I got nothing to indict. I'll write something up. I guess this is the email of the day. Yes it is.
00:10:23
Speaker 3: Oh so Trump's being accused of the generic sounding conspiracy to defraud the US. I hope this is what the GOP house has been waiting for with impeachments, because there are a lot of people who should go ahead of Trump. Start with Comy and the FBI top brass McKay, Peter Strock, Lisa Page, the guy who forged the edited email. They certainly defrauded America. Let's not forget Fauci for his multiple lies on his way to defrauding the US over COVID origins, the definition of gain of function, and the effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent transmission. And of course, who could forget Hillary Clinton, whose lies literally defrauded the country of tens of millions of dollars as Democrats tried to act on her bogus dossier. Yes, yes, yes, How about the fraud from Joe Biden regarding the laptop? Is involvement with Hunter's scam business craft and Biden's attempt to suppress free speech. You want to talk about taking people's voting rights, start there. How about all those intelligence experts who defrauded the public about the validity of Hunter's laptop. What about Adam Schiff Back to Biden, what about his attempt to defraud the US over unconstitutional student loan forgiveness or Obama's executive order on dreamers. May Arkis for his poorest non border policies, Merrick Garland for his corrupt doj Anthony Blinken for his lies about the Chinese spy balloon. In fact, we can charge every member of Congress who voted for the inflation Reduction Act. I can't think of a bigger wider fraud perpetrating against the American people than to disguise the Green New Deals and inflation fighting bill. Let's get all of those people charged and prosecuted before we bother getting to the Trump charges of fraud.
00:11:52
Speaker 4: It's the emotion around January sixth. That's what's driving this. I'm looking at USA today. They're giant two inch letters like you know Kennedy shot in Dallas style coverage. Trump indeded in January sixth case. It's all of the emotion of January sixth, which was a horrible day, and I wish it had never happened and it should never happen again. But that doesn't mean this particular indictment is worthwhileer really has anything to do.
00:12:17
Speaker 5: With that or right, Yeah, So I think that what's driving.
00:12:23
Speaker 4: So it's an important event that occurred. The indictment is not very good, according to like Dan Abrams on ABC News, I watch this. He said, Ah, there's a lot of problems with the indictment.
00:12:36
Speaker 3: It's another great example of we must do something, and this is something.
00:12:41
Speaker 4: Right, He's got way more troubles with the obstruction of justice, with the documents case. I don't see how he doesn't lose that one.
00:12:51
Speaker 5: I agree completely.
00:12:52
Speaker 3: But congratulations to JT on having the email of the day. There you go, right on, right on time, right so ready for the queue.
00:13:02
Speaker 4: So sometimes this happens. One of the great liberal heroes, atheist Richard Dawkins, turns out he doesn't buy the whole there's more than two genders thing, and that's got people's uh, underwearing or not or whatever the expression is.
00:13:18
Speaker 3: Whichever style of underwear they happen to be wearing, depending on how they identify exactly.
00:13:22
Speaker 4: If you haven't heard this stuff, it's pretty good. Among other things on the Way.
00:13:26
Speaker 1: Armstrong Andy, the Armstrong and Getty.
00:13:34
Speaker 4: Show, Oh my God, The Washington Free Beacon with a satire letter that Joe Biden wrote to his new four year old granddaughter.
00:13:45
Speaker 3: I have that sitting right here. I was, Yeah, no, it's brilliant. Don't you cringe at me, sir.
00:13:52
Speaker 4: It's funny slash one.
00:13:53
Speaker 5: I'm reading it, whether you like it or not.
00:13:55
Speaker 4: When I think of that little girl, I mean, hey, yesjir.
00:13:59
Speaker 3: That's not our name, you senile old anyway more, we'll we'll share that with you it's absolutely hilarious, and it's it's it's it's targeting Joe Biden clearly the girl.
00:14:10
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's really on her behalf.
00:14:13
Speaker 3: Anyway, Uh, I came across this and I really really took note of it. And and neither one of us are tend to fall for the harum scareum clickbait headlines about two foods you should never eat, or this causes cancer. That you know, if you feed a rat five thousand gallons of diet coke, Yeah, I'll probably have cancer after it explodes.
00:14:36
Speaker 4: But so that that sort of crap. How about the headline my coworkers think my breasts are too big?
00:14:42
Speaker 5: I might click on that. I mean, you just how big?
00:14:45
Speaker 3: I just I don't now what are coworking? But no, this is really interesting from wire dot com. It's about this scientist. He and his wife had a baby, and he, because of his field of study, found himself wondering about the plan sticks that the baby food were coming in. What's coming in and specifically when it's heated in a microwave.
00:15:09
Speaker 5: What happened?
00:15:11
Speaker 3: And again, this guy, whose field was very similar to this, decided to conduct a bunch of experiments and in a study published a month or so ago in Environmental Science and Technology, and his colleagues reported that when microwave, these containers released millions of bits of plastic called microplastics and even tinier nanoplastics, and the human health effects of plastic exposure are not clear at this point, but scientists have suspected for years that they're not good. And they go into how sneaky these particles are, how they get into your body and embedd themselves in your tissues, and that sort of thing.
00:15:44
Speaker 4: They could explain all of our problems.
00:15:46
Speaker 5: It could explain a hell of a lot of them. They talk about.
00:15:49
Speaker 3: You know, microplastics, Your kidney is pretty good at filtering out and then you get rid of them. But these nanoplastics, really really small you know, bits, make their way to places they shouldn't be, as one site just said, and once they've snuck past the body's defense systems. Quote, the chemicals used in plastics hack hormones that do that signal molecules underlying basically everything the body does. So these chemicals, called endocrine disruptors, have the potential to mess with everything from metabolism to sexual development and fertility and everything in.
00:16:22
Speaker 4: Between So the testosterone dropping sperm counts dropping.
00:16:29
Speaker 3: All of our mental problems, all of it. Wow, overright, it's certainly possible. And they point out that babies are at greater risk from contaminations and full grown people for the obvious reasons, very early in their development and they're very small. And so the title of this article, and there's more, and we'll post it at Armstrong and Getty dot com so you can read the whole thing from Wired dot com. The title is, for the love of God, stop microwaving. Plastic falla the triple whammy of heat, uv irradiation, hydrolysis, a chemical reaction through which bonds are broken by water. Molecules are uniquely effective in releasing tons of the microplastics and nanoplastics. It's almost as if microwaves were designed to do that.
00:17:13
Speaker 4: If someday we determine that this is the cause of some autism, all these different things, I'm not gonna be the least bit shocked.
00:17:20
Speaker 5: Are you could be? Yep? Wow?
00:17:23
Speaker 4: If you miss an hour the show grabbed the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong.
00:17:28
Speaker 1: And Getty see Armstrong and Getty Show.
00:17:44
Speaker 4: And we've been talking about also that locally, for the first time in the county where we broadcast from somebody's being charged with murder and a fentanyl death. How often is that happening around the country. Is that a growing thing that if you give somebody a pill knowingly with fentanyl in it and they die, you get charged with murder.
00:18:03
Speaker 3: It's absolutely it's growing, Yeah, but it's a little uh slow.
00:18:07
Speaker 4: And I wonder, I wonder what sort of dent that'll put in the whole fentanyl death craze. But more on Matt later. I don't know if you know who Richard Dawkins is you, you know, if you're a reader or intellectual sort of person. He might know him for all kinds of different things of you just kind of know him. You mostly know him because he's the person that stands up for atheism. He's one of the most famous atheists on planet Earth. He's an old guy now. He's an evolutionary biologist, one of your Oxford Berkeley, super smart, very glib, which is why he ends up on a lot of YouTube videos arguing against people who believe in God. And he's really good at it. And so he gets up at an auditorium full of like minded people and really puts the screws to theologians and that sort of stuff on why you're an idiot if you believe in God our religion, and Richar Dawkins is really famous for that. Then it turns out he's so he's a hero lefties for that reason. Not entirely lefties, but tends to.
00:19:09
Speaker 5: Be that direction. Well, he's the great rationalist.
00:19:12
Speaker 4: And he ends up on Bill Maher and Charlie Rose and the New York Times loves all his books, and he wrote The God Delusion, which was a huge smash bestseller and all that sort of stuff. Well, he doesn't fit into that side of politics when it comes to any that transgender stuff. And now all of a sudden that's exploded because he's he's a guy who believes what he believes and he's willing to say it out loud to anybody. He's an evolutionary biologist. And here he is. The woman he's talking to is an author. I couldn't come up with any more information other than that she's written a book about sexuality and all this sort of stuff. I don't know what her background is, but that'd be her voice. Here's Richard Dawkins.
00:19:55
Speaker 8: Sex really is binnery. There's no question about it. You're either male or female, and absolutely clear. You can do it on gamut size, you can do it on chromosomes. To me, as a biologist, distinctly weird people can declare I am a woman though I have a penis, Helen, what do you think lies behind this odd distortion of reality?
00:20:17
Speaker 9: I would say that when I started to write about it first, I quickly realized that this wasn't treated the same way as anything else, like just asking very obvious questions like don't you think that if we allow people to self identify their sex this will lead to, for example, destroying women's sports or putting rapists in women's jails. People would turn this back on me and say, you think that trans people are predators, you're a bigot. What we were talking about here was an intensely linguistic movement. There isn't a sense in which a man can become a woman except linguistically, like, yes, okay, he can have operations. Most trans people don't have any operations, don't take any medicine, but that doesn't change your sex.
00:20:51
Speaker 4: An intensely linguistic movement that's interesting that's a fancy.
00:20:55
Speaker 5: Way of saying what I've been saying all along. I will not allow them.
00:20:58
Speaker 3: To force me to use their twisted language, because that is the game.
00:21:04
Speaker 4: In a different clip, we're not going to play, he talks about He says, you know, if somebody wants me to call him she, I will just not a politeness. But it doesn't mean I believe that he is now a woman because they prefer to be called she. And her response to that is she said, you know, I was where you are now. Originally. The problem is that once you start saying she, they also demand that you use terms like mother and wife and woman, and I can't go down that road also just out of politeness, and that's where it gets complicated. But anyway, here's a little more of Richard Dawkins.
00:21:40
Speaker 8: I'm perfectly happy to address a transper name and preferred pronouns. I think it's such a matter of politeness. Really, what object to is the insistence that I am a woman. I mean, you're not a woman. I'm perfectly prepared to call you she if you like, But to say I am a woman is a debauching of language. And that's where I'd row a.
00:22:02
Speaker 9: Line I've become much more hardline on this, and I would like not to be. I would have started where you are. But what I've learned is that somebody who expects to be called she also expects the words woman and female and mother and sister and daughter. And it's very hard if you give away sex to language to explain why this person cannot, and all circumstances, be treated as a woman.
00:22:25
Speaker 4: I apologize for encapsulating something. We then played h Richard Dawson's up until this one of the most respected evolutionary biologists in the history of that study. I noticed on his Twitter feed where this video is all kinds of pushback from various people on how he doesn't understand this or that about biology or revolution. It's okay, all right, you know, maybe you're smarter than him or something. But his question is so good right at the beginning. What is going Basically, it's what is going on here? What's causing this? And I know you're you're you're always talking about the neo Marxism and all that sort of stuff, and I absolutely believe that those people.
00:23:10
Speaker 5: Are pursuing that.
00:23:11
Speaker 4: But but why is there such an audience for it? Where does that come from such a willing audience that they're not they're not Marxists, they're just Yeah, that sounds right to me. There are multiple genders, and I'm gonna call you a bad person if you don't agree.
00:23:25
Speaker 5: What is driving that?
00:23:28
Speaker 3: I think it's the human desire to be a moral, a good person, to be seen as a good person. This phenomenon is much more heavily female, not exclusively, not even close, but it's more heavily female. And women have a need to belong that's different from a male's need to belong. And so these people who are so smart, I mean they they understand human minds. They're crazy and they're evil, but they're smart. They understand how to convince people. And I was talking about this under maloism yesterday. Convince people. There are bad identities and there are good identities, and it has to do with moral weight these identities. You are a person with a very bad identity, very bad. You're a hater, you're a racist, you're a transphobe, you're all the worst things a human being can be.
00:24:20
Speaker 5: All you have to.
00:24:21
Speaker 3: Do to achieve one of these good identities and to be embraced and praised is start using your pronouns and asking people what their pronouns are. And when I tell you that man is a woman, say yes, that's a woman. That's all you need to do, and now you're a good person, and people fall for that. People like us, people like the folks listening, are disproportionately independent thinkers, disproportionately When you look at humanity en mass, they are a hell of a lot of people who just go along to get along, and they're happy to do so.
00:24:56
Speaker 4: Richard Dawkins has the unfortunate situation of being an old Caucasian male, so he immediately gets head for that, being an old white male who cares what you think. You're, you know, part of everything that's wrong with the world. I do have some concern that when liberals over fifty die off, there's no going to be any nobody left on the on the left to make any of these arguments, the Matt Tybee's, the Bill Maher's, the Richard Dawkins, the whoever. For the same way, this is craziness because the younger crowd is I guess, fitting in with what you're just saying, willing to go along to be liked or something.
00:25:41
Speaker 3: Well, when you look at the history of Marxism, particularly the Maoist version of it. It is self evidently looney tunes. When you look at Mao's effort to, you know, whisk everybody out of the cities and the intellectual arts and put everybody on collective farms. I mean, you look at it and you think that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. And that's what people thought at the time. But Mao had the power to make them do it, and tens of millions of people starved. Worth mentioning. Again, we don't teach that in America's schools. America's schools have.
00:26:17
Speaker 5: Been red washed.
00:26:18
Speaker 4: I never learned to that in school. It's amazing that that could happen on planet Earth, like just a few years before I was born, and I didn't learn about that in school.
00:26:28
Speaker 5: Why not?
00:26:29
Speaker 3: And if that was like a weird mishap in the history of communism, you could almost excuse not teaching it. But China, anybody, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, everyfing time. Cuban results in starvation, death and oppression every time. But we don't teach it in schools anymore. Does that tell you something about America's educational establishment. But my ultimate point, and I'm certain I had one.
00:26:56
Speaker 5: Oh, so.
00:27:00
Speaker 3: Maoism had to die out because again it was self evidently unworkable, It was idiotic. This stuff is self evidently idiotic. Radical gender theory, a lot of the critical race theory stuff, and your best scams. You've heard me say this before, Your best scams are roughly eighty percent true. So they dressed themselves in the cloak of truth. Is there a racism in the United States? Yes, of course there was. There is now slavery y ouse that's plot upon the soul of mankind. Slavery existed everywhere, by the way, it still exists today. Then you dress that up in this scam. Whereas James Lindsay puts it so brilliantly, you call what you want to control racist until you control it, and then you have all the power. So anyway, this stuff is crazy sounding, as the Maoist stuff, But you got the sheeple willing to go along just to avoid trouble, or just because they think dimly. I want to be a good person, not a bad person, and they're telling me I got to say this to be a good person. And you have something self evidently crazy become what the society does. It will end disastrously, but it will end. It's just a question of how many victims it claims along the way.
00:28:11
Speaker 4: I would say on the different gender stuff, there's fifty one genders and all that sort of stuff. I feel like the tide definitely has turned on that whole thing and is receding. I think it reached its high water mark two years ago, three years ago, something like that.
00:28:30
Speaker 5: I was gonna say the same thing, yeah, about two three years ago.
00:28:33
Speaker 3: It's and what really bothers me about it. Part of it is the narcissism of small distinctions. Kids want to be able to say I'm this special thing to stand out from their peers. I had long hair, and I learned how to play guitar. Everybody doesn't in one way or another. But this stuff is undermining some of the realities of the world. You know, I might have played David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust, but I didn't claim.
00:28:56
Speaker 5: To be from outer space anyway.
00:28:59
Speaker 3: Part of it's and that's fine, But the part that really bothers me is the idea of if there's an effeminate boy, he's transgender, you're a woman.
00:29:09
Speaker 5: You're a woman.
00:29:10
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, Maybe I'm just sensitive. Maybe I'm a poet, maybe I'm gay, whatever, maybe I'm just kind of effeminate. No, no, no, you need to say you're a woman, or you're by this or fluid that, or it denies both men and women the opportunity to be super butch or super girly or whatever and all points in between, to value them as human beings. One final argument. I heard this a few weeks ago and it really stuck with me. The radical gender theory crowd is trying to convince all of us that transgenderism gender dysphoria is not a disorder, and that the surgery and the hormones and everything is gender affirming healthcare. Okay, if it's not a disorder, why do you have to get dangerous experimental surgery to fix it. If I'm merely quirky, I don't have to go get surgery.
00:30:06
Speaker 5: That's crazy, illogical, It doesn't make sense.
00:30:11
Speaker 4: So before we take a break, here's my favorite headline of the day that'll make you groan.
00:30:15
Speaker 5: You want to grow, not really, and.
00:30:17
Speaker 4: Not in a good way, not like a like the kind of moan happens sometimes when life is good. This is a good.
00:30:26
Speaker 5: Wow. That's a moan, not a groan, right, I hate to quibble.
00:30:32
Speaker 4: This happened on MSNBC a little bit ago. Their medical contributor told the host that Americans should start wearing masks again after an uptick in COVID hospitalizations.
00:30:42
Speaker 5: Yeah, go ahead, you wear yours, you jackass.
00:30:46
Speaker 4: Oh my god, Oh wow, that made me grown. We got a bunch of other stuff on the way.
00:30:54
Speaker 3: Including, look up from your work, pay attention to your job. I'm sorry I should yell at you. You're one of the best parts of the day. You apologize. The absolutely hilarious parody letter from Joe Biden to his newly discovered granddaughter.
00:31:16
Speaker 5: Oh it's so good. That is next now.
00:31:28
Speaker 1: The Armstrong and Getty Show.
00:31:35
Speaker 3: I was going to shoehorn in one of my favorite bits of writing about the whole pronounce thing. Then I thought, Nah, why shoehorn it when we have another hour to do. Now, If you don't get that hour on your favorite radio station or what have you, just grabbed the fourth hour of the Armstrong and Getty on demand podcast later on. I think you will find it quite convincing. This is from the Good folks at the Free Beacon. Absolutely brilliant. It is a letter from Joe Biden to his newly discovered granddaughter.
00:32:09
Speaker 5: Do we have any sort of like touching theme music, Michael, something appropriate?
00:32:17
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, this is perfect, absolutely perfect. Here's how it goes, Dear Navy Joan. My name is Joe Biden, and I'm Jill's husband. I'm also a Hunter's dad and your grandfather. I'm sure by now you've read the statement I provided exclusively to People Magazine on Friday afternoon.
00:32:35
Speaker 5: I meant every word.
00:32:36
Speaker 3: I can't even tell you begin to tell you how proud I was when I heard about the paternity test.
00:32:41
Speaker 5: Results in twenty nineteen.
00:32:42
Speaker 3: It's been a great honor and a privilege to respect your privacy these past four years by declining to comment on this personal matter.
00:32:49
Speaker 5: As I've often said, there is nothing more important than family.
00:32:52
Speaker 3: Accordingly, I was pleased to learn that you won't be taking the Biden name per the terms of the modified legal settlement your parents lovingly goiated last month. Family is so much more than just a name. Let's be honest, though you're not really a Biden, are you? Given the unholy circumstances of your conception. It would be literally blasphemous to suggest otherwise. Your daddy doesn't even remember giving your mommy the business. What do you mean that's inappropriate for crying out loud, Jill. This whole thing is ridiculous. No, I don't want to start over. Are you writing all this down all right? Because she's not a Biden.
00:33:24
Speaker 5: Dammit, some floozy's bastard kid. Come on, what I mean?
00:33:27
Speaker 3: Sure, I'd like to smell her hair at least once. That got to do with anything. No, I don't buy it. It's not even a hunter's kid who says, all right the scientific tests. Let those doctors know anything, the tests they give me of Alzheimer's, and we all know that's bull spit. Now I'm in a bad mood. Send in some of the interns so I can yell at them. No, that's all I'm gonna say. I'm done, write it up and send the letter dad, gum it, son of a bitch, Sincerely, Joseph ar Biden. Is there anything in the last several years of his activity that would suggest that is not more or less accurate?
00:34:02
Speaker 4: I'm sure by now you've read the statement I provided to People Magazine.
00:34:08
Speaker 5: I meant every word. I was seven grandkids.
00:34:16
Speaker 3: Accordingly, I was pleased to learn that you won't be taking the Biden name per the terms of the modified legal settlement your parents lovingly negotiated last month.
00:34:24
Speaker 4: Right, that whole weird thing with the paintings.
00:34:27
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, Hey, another painting buyers come out. I can't remember her name. She and her kids, including when they were children, give the max amount to Democratic candidates every time and then contribute to packs.
00:34:41
Speaker 5: They're super rich, they're the heirs to something or other.
00:34:44
Speaker 3: But she bought one of the Hunter Biden paintings for high six figures. It's all big time Democratic Party contributors buying this stuff.
00:34:57
Speaker 4: That is incredible. I who was it made the joke the other day, Oh, DeSantis said, my six year old can paint better than that. That's not true. I mean, I've seen the Hunter Biden stuff and he's got artistic abilities. But at the same time, the bar for breaking through in the art world to the point that you can make any money off of painting, let alone big money, Oh my god. I mean, the barrier to entry for that is so high.
00:35:29
Speaker 3: Judy and I like to go to art galleries, local art galleries, you know, wherever we are and look at some of the local artists. A lot of it is pretty amateurish, but they have a hobby that gives them joy, and I think that's a wonderful thing. Some of it is very very good. And if you're talking about a supremely talented artist, it's like the best singer in town, terrific guitar player, that level of wow talent, and they're not nationally known. You can get one of their paintings for you know, depending on the size, high hundreds of dollars to fifteen hundred dollars maybe maybe two grand maybe, And then you got your nationally known artists who who are are again they're they're another level of talent. They're oh my god talented and have a real national or international reputation. You can certainly spend to get that sort of art. Twelve fifteen thirty fifty seventy five, one hundred thousand dollars.
00:36:28
Speaker 5: But half a million dollars.
00:36:31
Speaker 3: That's like it was hanging in the Metropolitan Museum of Art last week and now they're selling it like you've heard of the name your entire life. And two hundred years ago they were painting. That's sort of that those prices don't.
00:36:45
Speaker 5: Exist, right, that's crazy. Yeah, well, and it's so obvious.
00:36:51
Speaker 3: What's happening weird is that great explanation of why you don't play the pronoun game Next hour.
00:36:57
Speaker 4: Okay, we do four hours every day. If you miss an out, you get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 1: From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty Show.
00:00:14
Speaker 2: So it's really an astounding document because for the first time in American history, a former president is being prosecuted by a political opponent who wields the power of the criminal justice system for what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as as president.
00:00:35
Speaker 3: That's John lro who's Trump's lead attorney on this indictment. And there aren't many people disagreeing with him, honestly, which is somewhat surprising.
00:00:47
Speaker 4: Here are the two polar ends of this, which tends to be where a lot of our conversation goes in America. Congresswoman of Rashida Talib tweeted out, we must never forget how fragile our democracy is and how important it is that we protected. Donald Trump must be held accountable for conspiring to overturn an election. The American people deserve justice from a violent fascist insurrection.
00:01:09
Speaker 3: Okay, I actually agreed with like her first phrase, that was pretty good, but then it got more unhinged as it went.
00:01:15
Speaker 4: Then on the other end, Stephen Miller. We for our your nation, justice is dead. In its place raw authoritarian persecution we have a chance to revive at twenty twenty four. The nuance luckily comes, as it doesn't always come from some of our big thinkers and some of our big newspapers. Ruth Marcus, who couldn't hate Trump Moore and has said all kinds of things that I think are out of line, did say this in her column in the Washington Boast today, Prosecuting Trump is perilous. You do not have to be a Trump partisan to conclude that Smith might have aired here around the whole idea of Trump going around claiming he won and pushing as hard as he can legally speaking to you try to get his way is free speech. I'm legally okay. So what exactly is the point? David French in the New York Times, who is no Trump fan, this case is no slam dunk, and he goes through the very same things that Ruth Margus did about how there's a lot of free speech issues here. Smith has brought a very difficult case. The Wall Street Journal editorial board, they really think it's an overreach. As we found out what the indictment was about yesterday and troubling implications far beyond the fate of mister Trump. Mister Smith's sory theory seems to be that if a president and his co conspirators and quotes are lying, then take action on that line that they are defrauding the United States. Politicians lie all the time.
00:02:49
Speaker 3: Yeah, as I said last hour, I think it's become pretty clear to me what we have here is an overwhelming desire to punish Trump for January sixth. Then the whole stops the steel thing, and we no longer have a society that operates on morals. All we have is legal and illegal rules and regulations. And so you know, the Democrats want.
00:03:15
Speaker 5: To express, well, a lot of people want to express.
00:03:18
Speaker 3: The fact that a lot of what Trump did is wrong, but it's not illegal. But we no longer have a framework for selling. Hey, that's wrong and it was bad, and the guy should never be president again. You've got to indict him. That's the only tool we have now in over legalized America. So this Jack Smith is trying to make bricks without straw, to paraphrase the Bible, and.
00:03:40
Speaker 5: He's indicting for things that are not indictable.
00:03:43
Speaker 4: And I love the question of do these cases happen? Do these trials happen before the election? Should they happen before the election? Should that play a role in when way have these trials or not? Reading from Mark Hauprin's newsletter, is the political and societal fabric fallout for the nation worse if Trump's is acquitted or if he's a convicted. This needs to be thought through because if there is a trial before the election, the legal outcome could be dispositive in determining who wins the White House. The trial could determine who's president. Do we think that's a good idea or not?
00:04:20
Speaker 3: Especially given the trial over what the basis of the charges? And to that end, are you good with the ben Dominic clips will play those? How about sixty five?
00:04:29
Speaker 5: Michael? I think this is a travesty. I think this is terrible.
00:04:33
Speaker 6: I think that Jack Smith does not have the case to make on this. You can make cases against the former president and so many other different respects, but I do not think this was a case that ought to have been brought in any case, I do not think that you know, we can go back through history, should we indict everyone who said that al Gore won in two thousand, should we indict everybody who was going down in two thousand and four, you know, objections over the Ohio and things like that. You know, when it came to John Kerry's election.
00:05:03
Speaker 4: That's a guy, by the way, who thinks Trump legitimately lost and thought it was a bad idea for Trump to bring all those cases forward, but thinks she can't prosecute him for this.
00:05:13
Speaker 5: And I like his next statement too, Michael.
00:05:17
Speaker 6: This is a step too far against any kind of politician making the case that they won in a vague and gray area scenario. Now, look, you know you can make the arguments against Donald Trump in this instance. I certainly have made them. I've made the arguments against Johnny Sman's analysis. I disagree with all of it. But bringing a case like this I think is an absolute travesty for the Justice Department. It's something that I think is going to create a toxic scenario going forward, and one that is only going to lead to bad things.
00:05:50
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:05:51
Speaker 4: I realize is all y'all don't follow this as closely as we do, or most of you don't, and for good reason. But trust us. If Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post says this was a stretch and he may Jacksmith may have aired that's meaningful.
00:06:07
Speaker 3: See, here's the problem. In simple terms, they're indicting him for a great deal of words and you know, speeches of the center that are absolutely protected under the First Amendment. You are allowed to be dishonest under the First Amendment. You're allowed to be hyperbolic, you're allowed to well, I think of me. The point and the second thing is he allegedly, well, no, not allegedly, he pitched a legal theory that was presented to him. Trump did by this John Eastman character and Sidney Powell.
00:06:38
Speaker 5: Sidney is that her.
00:06:39
Speaker 3: Name crack pots, absolute crack pots. But it's not a crime to have a bad lawyer with bad legal theories that you go to court with or go before the American people with. You can't criminalize saying they screwed me. I actually won. And you can't criminalize your lawyer saying, you know, we could take it back to the States and appeal that and then they could send new electors. He's wrong, He's completely wrong. But you can't be prosecuted for having a bad legal theory.
00:07:14
Speaker 4: Probably worth hitting this again, because it is a big part of the question here if I can find it, hold on, we need music.
00:07:30
Speaker 5: Well you're looking for that play sixty seven, would you? Michael? This is Greg Jarrett.
00:07:36
Speaker 7: This indictment strikes me as an amateurish joke. Frankly, Jack Smith as special counsel should be indicted for stupidity.
00:07:45
Speaker 5: It's that bad.
00:07:47
Speaker 7: But he has this disreputable habit of bringing politically driven prosecutions by contorting the law and mangling the evidence. And you know, these four counts are the definition of a stretch.
00:08:00
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jack Smith is the guy who prosecuted the governor of Virginia whose conviction was overturned nine zero by the Supreme Court.
00:08:11
Speaker 4: Nine zer.
00:08:12
Speaker 5: That's what Greg is referring to.
00:08:14
Speaker 4: Right, So this punditry, why indict the guy the week of the Devon Archer testimony?
00:08:20
Speaker 5: Ah?
00:08:21
Speaker 3: Right?
00:08:21
Speaker 4: If Jack Smith and Merrick Garland are not motivated by partisanship, as Red America believes they are, they should be thinking these things through more. Really, is a good idea to indict Trump now the week of the Archer testimony?
00:08:34
Speaker 5: Why?
00:08:35
Speaker 4: What is the argument for trying to bring him to trial before the election? Is there an argument for it, or are you just trying to keep him from being elected, which isn't your job. If Smith and Garland are as tone deaf and non strategic as they appear to be, they aren't in the right jobs. Do you agree with that or not? Because I have a feeling that some of our legal friends would say, no, being tone deaf to the politics is your is your job when you're.
00:09:00
Speaker 5: In the law. I don't know.
00:09:05
Speaker 3: All I can tell you is during the show yesterday, I came across somebody tweeting, in the wake of the Devon Archer testimony and the uttered crumbling of Joe Biden's statements through the years, I've never discussed the business, blah blah blah. He's a liar, a complete flaming liar, has gotten rich off influence pedalty. Anyway, somebody tweeted, I'll bet now that the Devon Archer testimony is out, they'll indict Trump tomorrow. And sure enough they were wrong. They indicted Trump that afternoon yesterday afternoon.
00:09:33
Speaker 5: It just it stinks.
00:09:37
Speaker 3: Maybe Jack Smith had say, well, that's just when we finished the forms, I had to get the form back from the boss. They sent it back this afternoon.
00:09:43
Speaker 4: Was closed on someday and I had to print out a bunch of copies. Yeah, yeah, that is I mean, yeah, if that was just where the timing landed.
00:09:53
Speaker 5: Wow, all right, final.
00:09:55
Speaker 3: Note from me, because I want to leave time for the excellent Richard Dawkins stuff that we're going to play. This is the email of the day. Do we have the fanfare still, Michael? This is the email of the day from the fabulous JT In Livermore.
00:10:08
Speaker 5: No, never mind's too late. That's not a fanfare. You're like Jack Smith. I asked for a fanfair and gave me that. They asked him for an indictment, and he thought, I got nothing to indict. I'll write something up. I guess this is the email of the day. Yes it is.
00:10:23
Speaker 3: Oh so Trump's being accused of the generic sounding conspiracy to defraud the US. I hope this is what the GOP house has been waiting for with impeachments, because there are a lot of people who should go ahead of Trump. Start with Comy and the FBI top brass McKay, Peter Strock, Lisa Page, the guy who forged the edited email. They certainly defrauded America. Let's not forget Fauci for his multiple lies on his way to defrauding the US over COVID origins, the definition of gain of function, and the effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent transmission. And of course, who could forget Hillary Clinton, whose lies literally defrauded the country of tens of millions of dollars as Democrats tried to act on her bogus dossier. Yes, yes, yes, How about the fraud from Joe Biden regarding the laptop? Is involvement with Hunter's scam business craft and Biden's attempt to suppress free speech. You want to talk about taking people's voting rights, start there. How about all those intelligence experts who defrauded the public about the validity of Hunter's laptop. What about Adam Schiff Back to Biden, what about his attempt to defraud the US over unconstitutional student loan forgiveness or Obama's executive order on dreamers. May Arkis for his poorest non border policies, Merrick Garland for his corrupt doj Anthony Blinken for his lies about the Chinese spy balloon. In fact, we can charge every member of Congress who voted for the inflation Reduction Act. I can't think of a bigger wider fraud perpetrating against the American people than to disguise the Green New Deals and inflation fighting bill. Let's get all of those people charged and prosecuted before we bother getting to the Trump charges of fraud.
00:11:52
Speaker 4: It's the emotion around January sixth. That's what's driving this. I'm looking at USA today. They're giant two inch letters like you know Kennedy shot in Dallas style coverage. Trump indeded in January sixth case. It's all of the emotion of January sixth, which was a horrible day, and I wish it had never happened and it should never happen again. But that doesn't mean this particular indictment is worthwhileer really has anything to do.
00:12:17
Speaker 5: With that or right, Yeah, So I think that what's driving.
00:12:23
Speaker 4: So it's an important event that occurred. The indictment is not very good, according to like Dan Abrams on ABC News, I watch this. He said, Ah, there's a lot of problems with the indictment.
00:12:36
Speaker 3: It's another great example of we must do something, and this is something.
00:12:41
Speaker 4: Right, He's got way more troubles with the obstruction of justice, with the documents case. I don't see how he doesn't lose that one.
00:12:51
Speaker 5: I agree completely.
00:12:52
Speaker 3: But congratulations to JT on having the email of the day. There you go, right on, right on time, right so ready for the queue.
00:13:02
Speaker 4: So sometimes this happens. One of the great liberal heroes, atheist Richard Dawkins, turns out he doesn't buy the whole there's more than two genders thing, and that's got people's uh, underwearing or not or whatever the expression is.
00:13:18
Speaker 3: Whichever style of underwear they happen to be wearing, depending on how they identify exactly.
00:13:22
Speaker 4: If you haven't heard this stuff, it's pretty good. Among other things on the Way.
00:13:26
Speaker 1: Armstrong Andy, the Armstrong and Getty.
00:13:34
Speaker 4: Show, Oh my God, The Washington Free Beacon with a satire letter that Joe Biden wrote to his new four year old granddaughter.
00:13:45
Speaker 3: I have that sitting right here. I was, Yeah, no, it's brilliant. Don't you cringe at me, sir.
00:13:52
Speaker 4: It's funny slash one.
00:13:53
Speaker 5: I'm reading it, whether you like it or not.
00:13:55
Speaker 4: When I think of that little girl, I mean, hey, yesjir.
00:13:59
Speaker 3: That's not our name, you senile old anyway more, we'll we'll share that with you it's absolutely hilarious, and it's it's it's it's targeting Joe Biden clearly the girl.
00:14:10
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's really on her behalf.
00:14:13
Speaker 3: Anyway, Uh, I came across this and I really really took note of it. And and neither one of us are tend to fall for the harum scareum clickbait headlines about two foods you should never eat, or this causes cancer. That you know, if you feed a rat five thousand gallons of diet coke, Yeah, I'll probably have cancer after it explodes.
00:14:36
Speaker 4: But so that that sort of crap. How about the headline my coworkers think my breasts are too big?
00:14:42
Speaker 5: I might click on that. I mean, you just how big?
00:14:45
Speaker 3: I just I don't now what are coworking? But no, this is really interesting from wire dot com. It's about this scientist. He and his wife had a baby, and he, because of his field of study, found himself wondering about the plan sticks that the baby food were coming in. What's coming in and specifically when it's heated in a microwave.
00:15:09
Speaker 5: What happened?
00:15:11
Speaker 3: And again, this guy, whose field was very similar to this, decided to conduct a bunch of experiments and in a study published a month or so ago in Environmental Science and Technology, and his colleagues reported that when microwave, these containers released millions of bits of plastic called microplastics and even tinier nanoplastics, and the human health effects of plastic exposure are not clear at this point, but scientists have suspected for years that they're not good. And they go into how sneaky these particles are, how they get into your body and embedd themselves in your tissues, and that sort of thing.
00:15:44
Speaker 4: They could explain all of our problems.
00:15:46
Speaker 5: It could explain a hell of a lot of them. They talk about.
00:15:49
Speaker 3: You know, microplastics, Your kidney is pretty good at filtering out and then you get rid of them. But these nanoplastics, really really small you know, bits, make their way to places they shouldn't be, as one site just said, and once they've snuck past the body's defense systems. Quote, the chemicals used in plastics hack hormones that do that signal molecules underlying basically everything the body does. So these chemicals, called endocrine disruptors, have the potential to mess with everything from metabolism to sexual development and fertility and everything in.
00:16:22
Speaker 4: Between So the testosterone dropping sperm counts dropping.
00:16:29
Speaker 3: All of our mental problems, all of it. Wow, overright, it's certainly possible. And they point out that babies are at greater risk from contaminations and full grown people for the obvious reasons, very early in their development and they're very small. And so the title of this article, and there's more, and we'll post it at Armstrong and Getty dot com so you can read the whole thing from Wired dot com. The title is, for the love of God, stop microwaving. Plastic falla the triple whammy of heat, uv irradiation, hydrolysis, a chemical reaction through which bonds are broken by water. Molecules are uniquely effective in releasing tons of the microplastics and nanoplastics. It's almost as if microwaves were designed to do that.
00:17:13
Speaker 4: If someday we determine that this is the cause of some autism, all these different things, I'm not gonna be the least bit shocked.
00:17:20
Speaker 5: Are you could be? Yep? Wow?
00:17:23
Speaker 4: If you miss an hour the show grabbed the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong.
00:17:28
Speaker 1: And Getty see Armstrong and Getty Show.
00:17:44
Speaker 4: And we've been talking about also that locally, for the first time in the county where we broadcast from somebody's being charged with murder and a fentanyl death. How often is that happening around the country. Is that a growing thing that if you give somebody a pill knowingly with fentanyl in it and they die, you get charged with murder.
00:18:03
Speaker 3: It's absolutely it's growing, Yeah, but it's a little uh slow.
00:18:07
Speaker 4: And I wonder, I wonder what sort of dent that'll put in the whole fentanyl death craze. But more on Matt later. I don't know if you know who Richard Dawkins is you, you know, if you're a reader or intellectual sort of person. He might know him for all kinds of different things of you just kind of know him. You mostly know him because he's the person that stands up for atheism. He's one of the most famous atheists on planet Earth. He's an old guy now. He's an evolutionary biologist, one of your Oxford Berkeley, super smart, very glib, which is why he ends up on a lot of YouTube videos arguing against people who believe in God. And he's really good at it. And so he gets up at an auditorium full of like minded people and really puts the screws to theologians and that sort of stuff on why you're an idiot if you believe in God our religion, and Richar Dawkins is really famous for that. Then it turns out he's so he's a hero lefties for that reason. Not entirely lefties, but tends to.
00:19:09
Speaker 5: Be that direction. Well, he's the great rationalist.
00:19:12
Speaker 4: And he ends up on Bill Maher and Charlie Rose and the New York Times loves all his books, and he wrote The God Delusion, which was a huge smash bestseller and all that sort of stuff. Well, he doesn't fit into that side of politics when it comes to any that transgender stuff. And now all of a sudden that's exploded because he's he's a guy who believes what he believes and he's willing to say it out loud to anybody. He's an evolutionary biologist. And here he is. The woman he's talking to is an author. I couldn't come up with any more information other than that she's written a book about sexuality and all this sort of stuff. I don't know what her background is, but that'd be her voice. Here's Richard Dawkins.
00:19:55
Speaker 8: Sex really is binnery. There's no question about it. You're either male or female, and absolutely clear. You can do it on gamut size, you can do it on chromosomes. To me, as a biologist, distinctly weird people can declare I am a woman though I have a penis, Helen, what do you think lies behind this odd distortion of reality?
00:20:17
Speaker 9: I would say that when I started to write about it first, I quickly realized that this wasn't treated the same way as anything else, like just asking very obvious questions like don't you think that if we allow people to self identify their sex this will lead to, for example, destroying women's sports or putting rapists in women's jails. People would turn this back on me and say, you think that trans people are predators, you're a bigot. What we were talking about here was an intensely linguistic movement. There isn't a sense in which a man can become a woman except linguistically, like, yes, okay, he can have operations. Most trans people don't have any operations, don't take any medicine, but that doesn't change your sex.
00:20:51
Speaker 4: An intensely linguistic movement that's interesting that's a fancy.
00:20:55
Speaker 5: Way of saying what I've been saying all along. I will not allow them.
00:20:58
Speaker 3: To force me to use their twisted language, because that is the game.
00:21:04
Speaker 4: In a different clip, we're not going to play, he talks about He says, you know, if somebody wants me to call him she, I will just not a politeness. But it doesn't mean I believe that he is now a woman because they prefer to be called she. And her response to that is she said, you know, I was where you are now. Originally. The problem is that once you start saying she, they also demand that you use terms like mother and wife and woman, and I can't go down that road also just out of politeness, and that's where it gets complicated. But anyway, here's a little more of Richard Dawkins.
00:21:40
Speaker 8: I'm perfectly happy to address a transper name and preferred pronouns. I think it's such a matter of politeness. Really, what object to is the insistence that I am a woman. I mean, you're not a woman. I'm perfectly prepared to call you she if you like, But to say I am a woman is a debauching of language. And that's where I'd row a.
00:22:02
Speaker 9: Line I've become much more hardline on this, and I would like not to be. I would have started where you are. But what I've learned is that somebody who expects to be called she also expects the words woman and female and mother and sister and daughter. And it's very hard if you give away sex to language to explain why this person cannot, and all circumstances, be treated as a woman.
00:22:25
Speaker 4: I apologize for encapsulating something. We then played h Richard Dawson's up until this one of the most respected evolutionary biologists in the history of that study. I noticed on his Twitter feed where this video is all kinds of pushback from various people on how he doesn't understand this or that about biology or revolution. It's okay, all right, you know, maybe you're smarter than him or something. But his question is so good right at the beginning. What is going Basically, it's what is going on here? What's causing this? And I know you're you're you're always talking about the neo Marxism and all that sort of stuff, and I absolutely believe that those people.
00:23:10
Speaker 5: Are pursuing that.
00:23:11
Speaker 4: But but why is there such an audience for it? Where does that come from such a willing audience that they're not they're not Marxists, they're just Yeah, that sounds right to me. There are multiple genders, and I'm gonna call you a bad person if you don't agree.
00:23:25
Speaker 5: What is driving that?
00:23:28
Speaker 3: I think it's the human desire to be a moral, a good person, to be seen as a good person. This phenomenon is much more heavily female, not exclusively, not even close, but it's more heavily female. And women have a need to belong that's different from a male's need to belong. And so these people who are so smart, I mean they they understand human minds. They're crazy and they're evil, but they're smart. They understand how to convince people. And I was talking about this under maloism yesterday. Convince people. There are bad identities and there are good identities, and it has to do with moral weight these identities. You are a person with a very bad identity, very bad. You're a hater, you're a racist, you're a transphobe, you're all the worst things a human being can be.
00:24:20
Speaker 5: All you have to.
00:24:21
Speaker 3: Do to achieve one of these good identities and to be embraced and praised is start using your pronouns and asking people what their pronouns are. And when I tell you that man is a woman, say yes, that's a woman. That's all you need to do, and now you're a good person, and people fall for that. People like us, people like the folks listening, are disproportionately independent thinkers, disproportionately When you look at humanity en mass, they are a hell of a lot of people who just go along to get along, and they're happy to do so.
00:24:56
Speaker 4: Richard Dawkins has the unfortunate situation of being an old Caucasian male, so he immediately gets head for that, being an old white male who cares what you think. You're, you know, part of everything that's wrong with the world. I do have some concern that when liberals over fifty die off, there's no going to be any nobody left on the on the left to make any of these arguments, the Matt Tybee's, the Bill Maher's, the Richard Dawkins, the whoever. For the same way, this is craziness because the younger crowd is I guess, fitting in with what you're just saying, willing to go along to be liked or something.
00:25:41
Speaker 3: Well, when you look at the history of Marxism, particularly the Maoist version of it. It is self evidently looney tunes. When you look at Mao's effort to, you know, whisk everybody out of the cities and the intellectual arts and put everybody on collective farms. I mean, you look at it and you think that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. And that's what people thought at the time. But Mao had the power to make them do it, and tens of millions of people starved. Worth mentioning. Again, we don't teach that in America's schools. America's schools have.
00:26:17
Speaker 5: Been red washed.
00:26:18
Speaker 4: I never learned to that in school. It's amazing that that could happen on planet Earth, like just a few years before I was born, and I didn't learn about that in school.
00:26:28
Speaker 5: Why not?
00:26:29
Speaker 3: And if that was like a weird mishap in the history of communism, you could almost excuse not teaching it. But China, anybody, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, everyfing time. Cuban results in starvation, death and oppression every time. But we don't teach it in schools anymore. Does that tell you something about America's educational establishment. But my ultimate point, and I'm certain I had one.
00:26:56
Speaker 5: Oh, so.
00:27:00
Speaker 3: Maoism had to die out because again it was self evidently unworkable, It was idiotic. This stuff is self evidently idiotic. Radical gender theory, a lot of the critical race theory stuff, and your best scams. You've heard me say this before, Your best scams are roughly eighty percent true. So they dressed themselves in the cloak of truth. Is there a racism in the United States? Yes, of course there was. There is now slavery y ouse that's plot upon the soul of mankind. Slavery existed everywhere, by the way, it still exists today. Then you dress that up in this scam. Whereas James Lindsay puts it so brilliantly, you call what you want to control racist until you control it, and then you have all the power. So anyway, this stuff is crazy sounding, as the Maoist stuff, But you got the sheeple willing to go along just to avoid trouble, or just because they think dimly. I want to be a good person, not a bad person, and they're telling me I got to say this to be a good person. And you have something self evidently crazy become what the society does. It will end disastrously, but it will end. It's just a question of how many victims it claims along the way.
00:28:11
Speaker 4: I would say on the different gender stuff, there's fifty one genders and all that sort of stuff. I feel like the tide definitely has turned on that whole thing and is receding. I think it reached its high water mark two years ago, three years ago, something like that.
00:28:30
Speaker 5: I was gonna say the same thing, yeah, about two three years ago.
00:28:33
Speaker 3: It's and what really bothers me about it. Part of it is the narcissism of small distinctions. Kids want to be able to say I'm this special thing to stand out from their peers. I had long hair, and I learned how to play guitar. Everybody doesn't in one way or another. But this stuff is undermining some of the realities of the world. You know, I might have played David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust, but I didn't claim.
00:28:56
Speaker 5: To be from outer space anyway.
00:28:59
Speaker 3: Part of it's and that's fine, But the part that really bothers me is the idea of if there's an effeminate boy, he's transgender, you're a woman.
00:29:09
Speaker 5: You're a woman.
00:29:10
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, Maybe I'm just sensitive. Maybe I'm a poet, maybe I'm gay, whatever, maybe I'm just kind of effeminate. No, no, no, you need to say you're a woman, or you're by this or fluid that, or it denies both men and women the opportunity to be super butch or super girly or whatever and all points in between, to value them as human beings. One final argument. I heard this a few weeks ago and it really stuck with me. The radical gender theory crowd is trying to convince all of us that transgenderism gender dysphoria is not a disorder, and that the surgery and the hormones and everything is gender affirming healthcare. Okay, if it's not a disorder, why do you have to get dangerous experimental surgery to fix it. If I'm merely quirky, I don't have to go get surgery.
00:30:06
Speaker 5: That's crazy, illogical, It doesn't make sense.
00:30:11
Speaker 4: So before we take a break, here's my favorite headline of the day that'll make you groan.
00:30:15
Speaker 5: You want to grow, not really, and.
00:30:17
Speaker 4: Not in a good way, not like a like the kind of moan happens sometimes when life is good. This is a good.
00:30:26
Speaker 5: Wow. That's a moan, not a groan, right, I hate to quibble.
00:30:32
Speaker 4: This happened on MSNBC a little bit ago. Their medical contributor told the host that Americans should start wearing masks again after an uptick in COVID hospitalizations.
00:30:42
Speaker 5: Yeah, go ahead, you wear yours, you jackass.
00:30:46
Speaker 4: Oh my god, Oh wow, that made me grown. We got a bunch of other stuff on the way.
00:30:54
Speaker 3: Including, look up from your work, pay attention to your job. I'm sorry I should yell at you. You're one of the best parts of the day. You apologize. The absolutely hilarious parody letter from Joe Biden to his newly discovered granddaughter.
00:31:16
Speaker 5: Oh it's so good. That is next now.
00:31:28
Speaker 1: The Armstrong and Getty Show.
00:31:35
Speaker 3: I was going to shoehorn in one of my favorite bits of writing about the whole pronounce thing. Then I thought, Nah, why shoehorn it when we have another hour to do. Now, If you don't get that hour on your favorite radio station or what have you, just grabbed the fourth hour of the Armstrong and Getty on demand podcast later on. I think you will find it quite convincing. This is from the Good folks at the Free Beacon. Absolutely brilliant. It is a letter from Joe Biden to his newly discovered granddaughter.
00:32:09
Speaker 5: Do we have any sort of like touching theme music, Michael, something appropriate?
00:32:17
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, this is perfect, absolutely perfect. Here's how it goes, Dear Navy Joan. My name is Joe Biden, and I'm Jill's husband. I'm also a Hunter's dad and your grandfather. I'm sure by now you've read the statement I provided exclusively to People Magazine on Friday afternoon.
00:32:35
Speaker 5: I meant every word.
00:32:36
Speaker 3: I can't even tell you begin to tell you how proud I was when I heard about the paternity test.
00:32:41
Speaker 5: Results in twenty nineteen.
00:32:42
Speaker 3: It's been a great honor and a privilege to respect your privacy these past four years by declining to comment on this personal matter.
00:32:49
Speaker 5: As I've often said, there is nothing more important than family.
00:32:52
Speaker 3: Accordingly, I was pleased to learn that you won't be taking the Biden name per the terms of the modified legal settlement your parents lovingly goiated last month. Family is so much more than just a name. Let's be honest, though you're not really a Biden, are you? Given the unholy circumstances of your conception. It would be literally blasphemous to suggest otherwise. Your daddy doesn't even remember giving your mommy the business. What do you mean that's inappropriate for crying out loud, Jill. This whole thing is ridiculous. No, I don't want to start over. Are you writing all this down all right? Because she's not a Biden.
00:33:24
Speaker 5: Dammit, some floozy's bastard kid. Come on, what I mean?
00:33:27
Speaker 3: Sure, I'd like to smell her hair at least once. That got to do with anything. No, I don't buy it. It's not even a hunter's kid who says, all right the scientific tests. Let those doctors know anything, the tests they give me of Alzheimer's, and we all know that's bull spit. Now I'm in a bad mood. Send in some of the interns so I can yell at them. No, that's all I'm gonna say. I'm done, write it up and send the letter dad, gum it, son of a bitch, Sincerely, Joseph ar Biden. Is there anything in the last several years of his activity that would suggest that is not more or less accurate?
00:34:02
Speaker 4: I'm sure by now you've read the statement I provided to People Magazine.
00:34:08
Speaker 5: I meant every word. I was seven grandkids.
00:34:16
Speaker 3: Accordingly, I was pleased to learn that you won't be taking the Biden name per the terms of the modified legal settlement your parents lovingly negotiated last month.
00:34:24
Speaker 4: Right, that whole weird thing with the paintings.
00:34:27
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, Hey, another painting buyers come out. I can't remember her name. She and her kids, including when they were children, give the max amount to Democratic candidates every time and then contribute to packs.
00:34:41
Speaker 5: They're super rich, they're the heirs to something or other.
00:34:44
Speaker 3: But she bought one of the Hunter Biden paintings for high six figures. It's all big time Democratic Party contributors buying this stuff.
00:34:57
Speaker 4: That is incredible. I who was it made the joke the other day, Oh, DeSantis said, my six year old can paint better than that. That's not true. I mean, I've seen the Hunter Biden stuff and he's got artistic abilities. But at the same time, the bar for breaking through in the art world to the point that you can make any money off of painting, let alone big money, Oh my god. I mean, the barrier to entry for that is so high.
00:35:29
Speaker 3: Judy and I like to go to art galleries, local art galleries, you know, wherever we are and look at some of the local artists. A lot of it is pretty amateurish, but they have a hobby that gives them joy, and I think that's a wonderful thing. Some of it is very very good. And if you're talking about a supremely talented artist, it's like the best singer in town, terrific guitar player, that level of wow talent, and they're not nationally known. You can get one of their paintings for you know, depending on the size, high hundreds of dollars to fifteen hundred dollars maybe maybe two grand maybe, And then you got your nationally known artists who who are are again they're they're another level of talent. They're oh my god talented and have a real national or international reputation. You can certainly spend to get that sort of art. Twelve fifteen thirty fifty seventy five, one hundred thousand dollars.
00:36:28
Speaker 5: But half a million dollars.
00:36:31
Speaker 3: That's like it was hanging in the Metropolitan Museum of Art last week and now they're selling it like you've heard of the name your entire life. And two hundred years ago they were painting. That's sort of that those prices don't.
00:36:45
Speaker 5: Exist, right, that's crazy. Yeah, well, and it's so obvious.
00:36:51
Speaker 3: What's happening weird is that great explanation of why you don't play the pronoun game Next hour.
00:36:57
Speaker 4: Okay, we do four hours every day. If you miss an out, you get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty
