Tim Sandifer (2:28)

This has bothered me for years, has bugged me so long that. But I, you know, it's because we don't want to be judgmental. We don't want to, we don't want to call things by their right names and say dictator Putin because that might offend him. So instead we give him the kind of false legitimacy that is exactly what he craves. I think it's a terrible thing, but it's been that way all my life.

Jack Armstrong (2:49)

Yeah, that's. That's weird that, that the Free West. Does that you want us to call you by a certain name? Oh sure, we will.

Tim Sandifer (2:56)

Okay.

Jack Armstrong (2:56)

I guess another question for you. So I was just reading. I know you know a lot about Waymo the, the robotaxes. You actually visited their plant. They make them in Phoenix.

Tim Sandifer (3:07)

They. Well, I don't think they make them in Phoenix, but they have a headquarters in Phoenix. Phoenix is one of their largest cities that they are operating in. And they have a garage there which is where all the cars, you know, they're all electric cars. So that's where they go for to recharge. And my wife and I got a chance to go down there and take a tour of their facility and ride for our first time in a Waymo. And since then I've I' I take every excuse I can to ride in them because I just, the technology is just mind boggling. And I just loved standing there in the garage watching these cars come in and look for parking spaces. And they looked exactly like a human was driving them. You know, pausing and backing up because oh, there's a spot and that sort of thing exactly like me at the airport. And yet there's nobody driving them. And I had thought that it would feel weird to ride in one and that went away in five seconds. After that it felt exactly like riding in a car with somebody driving. There was nobody in the driver's seat.

Jack Armstrong (4:01)

Interesting.

Tim Sandifer (4:02)

Absolutely marvelous technology.

Jack Armstrong (4:03)

I wondered about that because I've got a self driving Tesla so I'm used to the concept and I wondered what it was like for people who haven't done that before. But that's the way I was when I wrote a Waymo for the first time in San Francisco. Within a couple of seconds it was, oh cool, I get to control the music. And I was looking at the little computer in front of me and picking my music.

Tim Sandifer (4:20)

I haven't been this enthusiastic about a piece of technology in a very long time. They have already, just statistically speaking they have already saved tens of thousands of lives probably in the amount of, in just the amount of time. They've already been operating in these cities. They're going to make driving as safe as flying. It's incredible. I'm blown away by how safe and natural it feels to ride in these. And you know, it's particularly good for the blind. You know, blind people particular this technology because they can, they don't have to get in a car with somebody they don't know like they do with Uber and they can take their dogs, which you sometimes can't do in an Uber. And when you call, when you summon, your robot car arrives and it plays a tune so you know where it is, you know, and these sorts of tech, it's just marvelous how it's opened up the door for people who otherwise wouldn't have had those opportunities.

Jack Armstrong (5:13)

Yeah, I, I, I like the technology and everything. This is where we're probably going to part. I hate the idea that the autonomy of getting to drive where I want to go and having control over it is going to go away whether I like it or not. I hate that so much it makes me want to cry.

Tim Sandifer (5:30)

I do worry about that. No, I worry about that and I worry about how easy it would be for the government to say, well we want to track where everybody drives and you know, we'll run their, run their record while they're in the car. And then if we think that they need to be arrested, we'll just reroute the car to the police station or something like that. You can, you can easily imagine the dystopian ends to which this can be used. But all technology can be abused in that way. And there is no abolishing the technology isn't the solution. The solution is good philosophical and political ideas and a belief in individual rights and limited government. And since we've thrown that on the bonfire in the past decade or so, I mean this is basically, honestly this is the least of our concerns in that respect.

Jack Armstrong (6:14)

Yeah, but I think about when I was, it's not that many years ago. I'm an old man, I mean the winter of my life. But it wasn't that many decades ago.

Tim Sandifer (6:23)

Day over 80.

Jack Armstrong (6:25)

But I, I'm, I've driven all over this country. I long, I love long road trips but I used to head out on road trips.

Tim Sandifer (6:31)

Yeah.

Jack Armstrong (6:32)

And you know, I'd stop at a hotel. I stay in cheap hotels. They'd have the key hanging on a peg behind the door. Nobody knew I was there, nobody knew I was there after I left. Now I've got a self driving car that keeps track of every mile I drive. Everywhere I go, I park. There's license plate readers going through every parking lot checking where I was and they've got all the information at the hotel. I mean my entire trip is tracked. So in my lifetime it's gone from, I could have traveled across the country completely without a single human being knowing where I was to now thousands of people and maybe all governments knowing where I am, I find that trouble.

Tim Sandifer (7:10)

I, I, I totally sympathize. I think this is, I was, I would say this is. There's something very American about this tension between, on one hand, wanting the convenience that modern technology gives you and modern civilization gives you, but on the other hand, the want the desire to light out for the territory and, and just be away and keep something, you might say wild alive in your, in your spirit is a very important part of life. And so I totally get that. My wife and I love to go on long drives and get away from things also. And I, so I, but on the other hand, with this option available for those who are willing to, to sacrifice a little bit of their privacy in exchange for the enormous convenience of it, the answer is that both options should be available. And both options would be available in a society that respected individual rights. Unfortunately, our society respects that so much less nowadays that I do very much worry about a future where truly, you know, individual cars allowing you to drive wherever you want are outlawed. I can imagine that, oh, insurance companies.

Jack Armstrong (8:11)

Will say, yeah, the insurance companies will take care of that because as soon as this, the stats are so overwhelmingly true that it's less likely you're going to get a wreck with an automated car than without one. The insurance company is going to make it so expensive you can't afford to drive a car on your own.

Tim Sandifer (8:27)

Yeah, I can imagine that. It's sort of a Gattaca kind of a situation.

Jack Armstrong (8:31)

I don't know that term.

Tim Sandifer (8:33)

Oh, Gattaca is a great movie from the 90s about a dystopian future, but it's just run along these lines where your entire genetic code is sort of sequenced ahead of time and so people know whether you're likely to develop a health condition in the future and limit your opportunities accordingly. Not necessarily through government control, through a sick blend of government and private companies that exercise their power to deprive you of opportunity. If you haven't seen the movie, you should. It's great.

Jack Armstrong (8:59)

One more way more comment and then I promise after the break, we'll let you talk about some of your wins suing the government, which are important. I saw the former. So they're wanting to get Waymo in New York City. That'd be a huge win for Waymo, obviously. Yeah, I saw the former mayor Bill de Blasio come out and say yesterday, waymo, New York is not a town for Waymo. We should not have one. And, and I wonder if is that just to protect all the jobs of. Is that what that is?

Tim Sandifer (9:27)

Oh yes. They were exactly the same way about Uber back in the day, if you remember. They were, they were very resistant to Uber because the tax, they're the taxi drivers, you know, unions and things like that. They don't want the competition. And so it's the convenient thing to do is use the government to exclude legitimate competition in order to raise your prices and screw the consumer. And that's been the recipe for centuries. And unfortunately Waymo and other companies, you know, face that, that opposition and it's really just an attempt by people who don't want to compete fairly to use the government to block legitimate competition so that they can raise their prices at your expense. It's a violation of individual liberty and it's economically foolish. But New York has been that way for centuries.

Jack Armstrong (10:14)

Technology comes along, eliminates another a lot of jobs. But throughout history it's also created other different jobs. However, I don't, I don't think that's going to continue with AI, do you?

Tim Sandifer (10:24)

Oh, I have no doubt that it will continue.

Jack Armstrong (10:26)

Really.

Tim Sandifer (10:27)

Time, every time that technology has come along and they're taking our jobs, every time that happens, it turns out that it actually develops more jobs. Not just, you know, people think, well, yeah, but these people become programmers. No, it's not that. It's that new technology opens up new opportunities for economic growth that people could never have foreseen in the years before then. You know, the cell phone, if I remember when I got my first iPhone years ago, nobody could ever have imagined something like uber eats or DoorDash at that time. And now look at how many people earn money working for those companies thanks to smartphone technology. These new technologies open up vistas that nobody could possibly have imagined and people take advantage of that and the economy grows. It's almost like creating something out of literally nothing. It's amazing to see. So there's, I have no doubt that self driving technology will in the long run increase employment opportunities and more importantly increase wealth. And if it's allowed to flourish, if the government doesn't get in the way and create roadblocks.

Jack Armstrong (11:32)

I really, really want you to be right about that with AI because there are.

Tim Sandifer (11:37)

Well, historically speaking I've been right about that in every single time that a new technology has come about with the buggy whip makers, I'm sure they complained when the automobile came along and nobody was hiring buying buggy whips anymore. And they were saying, oh, our jobs are going to go overseas. We need to outlaw cars so that the union, the buggy whip union can, can flourish. And what about the workers, et cetera, et cetera. And here we are living in a society where hardly anybody buys buggy whips and we have more employment and more opportunity and more wealth and more technology than they did back then. So I have no doubt that I'm right about this.

Jack Armstrong (12:12)

Oh, God, I hope you are. Tim Sandifer, when we come back, he's going to talk about some of his wins with the government and some of the good stuff that's happened. There's a good homeless case that you should know about. Actually, that one went the wrong direction, but we'll hear about that when we come back. Want to remind you, football's back. Of course. If you're a football fan, you absolutely know that you need to get on Prize picks. That's the way to kick off the season. You get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5 with prize picks. They've already got millions of members. Prize picks is the place to put your takes to the test. You think you, you know, you read about how somebody's been working out in the off season. You think they're going to have a great year. Okay, fine. Lay down some money that way. The app is super simple to use. You just pick two or more players across any sport. You pick more or less on their projections and if you're right, you could cash in. Price picks isn't available in 40 plus states including California. Simple stats, user friendly policies. So here's the deal. Download the prize picks app today, use the Code Armstrong and get 50 instantly in lineups when you play five bucks. That's a code Armstrong and prize picks to get 50 instantly in lineups and you play five. Win or lose, you get 50 bucks in lineups just for playing guaranteed prize picks. Run your game more with Tim Sandifer right after this.

Tim Sandifer (13:25)

Armstrong and Getty.

Jack Armstrong (13:28)

We're talking with fan favorite Tim Sanford. We used to call him Tim the lawyer. Ran into a friend of yours the other day at my local church who said he worked with you way back at plf. Pacific Legal Foundation. I thought, how interesting that you guys work together. He's the minister of my local church. You're the most hardcore atheist I've ever met. And you people got along.

Tim Sandifer (13:46)

I know who you must be talking about and those are good times. He taught me a lot about law actually. We were both young lawyers together, working together. I miss those days.

Jack Armstrong (13:56)

Cool. So I got an inkling of some of the things you want to Talk about. How about this moving company in California? Tell me about this one.

Tim Sandifer (14:04)

Oh my goodness. So we filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that's in charge of discrimination cases, because they won't even tell us why they filed a $15 million fine against a moving company in California called Meathead Movers, which is one of the largest, I think it's the largest moving company in California. The largest independently owned moving company In California employs 300 people. And the EEOC claims that they've been engaging in age discrimination in hiring. Now let's pause for a moment to think about that. They say this moving company is hiring employees who are too young, that they're not hiring old people as employees. Now that's not true. They've never discriminated against people in hiring based on age. But is it really all that surprising that a moving company's employees tend to be big, hefty, strong young men, just on average? Is that really that unreasonable? So the EEOC filed this $15 million fine against them. And we said, well, so we'd like to know if anybody ever actually complained about discrimination. Did you receive any actual complaints from anybody in the private market about this? Or did you just do this on your own because you were looking around for somebody to screw? And the EEOC won't tell us, they won't tell us, they won't give us the information. So we've had to sue them for these documents.

Jack Armstrong (15:28)

Well, back up just a second though. So if I've always been confused about what the law is on this, so if I am, I'm actually in pretty good shape right now. But say I'm not in good shape, I'm a 60 year old man and I go apply for that job and they, and they turn me down for a 25 year old man. Do I have a case because they discriminated against me based on my age?

Tim Sandifer (15:49)

Well, you know, when you use the question do I have a case? You have to remember that there's two ways of answering that. The one is, do you have a meritorious case? And the other one is can you sue? And you can sue even if you don't have a meritorious case. And when you sue, you know, then the other side has to hire lawyers and it takes a long time, it costs a lot of money. Just the fact that you can sue to begin with is a big detriment to a lot of businesses. Now the answer to your question is that of course the company can choose people based on physical strength and stuff. And so but they can't discriminate based on age. But where do you know in a particular circumstance, where do you draw the line? That unfortunately is for the judges to figure out after you spend all this money for lawyers.

Jack Armstrong (16:29)

But obviously a world where moving companies have to hire 65 year old men at the same rate that they hire 22 year old men would be insane.

Tim Sandifer (16:40)

Yep. This. Well, as they, as, as the saying has it, this is the world that the left wants. Right. They, they want a world in which moving companies are forced to hire grandma instead of the, the weightlifter because that's more equitable.

Jack Armstrong (16:56)

Oh, that's hilarious. That is a good one. Well, thank God you're fighting the good fight. I know. We've got a bad news story about a homeless ruling in Utah. We're going to get to coming up in just a few minutes. Yeah, well, concerned about.

Tim Sandifer (17:10)

Yeah. So unfortunately, the Utah Supreme Court issued a bad decision in a case, one of these cases about homeless encampments. Now, we have a solution, but it's going to take a while to get that done. So update you about that after the break.

Jack Armstrong (17:22)

Cool. How many, like how much time do you spend every day, you know, writing, poring over books, doing lawyer stuff?

Tim Sandifer (17:31)

All the time.

Jack Armstrong (17:32)

All the time.

Tim Sandifer (17:34)

The dream job is my dream job. I go to work and I sit at my desk surrounded by books written by, you know, Thomas Jefferson and Sir Edward Cook and write about it. And then I go home and I'm surrounded by books here. I love it. It's great.

Jack Armstrong (17:48)

Right?

Tim Sandifer (17:48)

In the world of ideas about freedom and making them real in people's actual lives is what the Goldwater Institute is all about. And that's why it's the best job in the world.

Jack Armstrong (17:57)

That's fantastic. If you have a job like that, like I do, people ask how much time you spend. All my time. But I would do it even I wasn't doing this. I just, I like following the news and reading everybody's opinions, so it's easy. But anyway, we'll tell you about this homeless ruling that went the wrong way. We didn't need that, did we? Coming up with Tim Lawyer in just a little bit. If you miss a segment or an hour, get the podcast. Armstrong and Getty on demand.

Joe Getty (18:20)

Armstrong and Getty.

Jack Armstrong (18:23)

So we're talking with Tim the Lawyer fan favorite, Tim Sander with the Goldwater Institute, who I like. You describe your job title as you sue the government. Man, that's, that's got to get you out of bed in the morning.

Tim Sandifer (18:36)

There's always plenty of work. That's the thing.

Jack Armstrong (18:38)

Yeah, no kidding. I'm amazed by the people who are on the other side who, who I think have to know they're doing evil for the schools. For instance, like some of the teachers union people and stuff like that. Don't they know they have to or, or do they convince themselves somehow they're doing something good?

Tim Sandifer (18:57)

Well, there's, I, there's some people who take shelter in the idea that everybody deserves a defense, which is true. You know, that's fine if that's what you do. But I couldn't, I wouldn't be happy doing that. And then there's people who do it because it's part of the, of the path to another job you kind of have to work in as a Prosecutor or a U.S. attorney or something if you wanted to become a judge someday. And so they, they go through what the Romans used to call the courses honorum, the series of positions that you have to have in order to rise in the government and something like that. I've never really had a great deal of ambition in that respect. And I don't think I'd be very good at it anyway because I'm not really good about keeping my opinions to myself. So.

Jack Armstrong (19:36)

One of the most interesting things I ever heard from David French, who now works for the New York Times. He's a Harvard Law School grad. He said he was, he was always worried about that, the whole, you know, having to defend an awful person or an awful company or something like that. As a lawyer, how you do it. He said it doesn't become an issue. You always find a way to convince yourself that your guy or company is getting screwed somehow. So they need a good defense. You just always do.

Tim Sandifer (20:02)

Yeah. And how could you live with yourself if you became the kind of person who did that? But your client was the government. How could you know that you are able to accommodate your conscience to the kinds of things that the federal and state governments are doing to people day in and day out in this country? I don't know.

Jack Armstrong (20:17)

So what did Utah just rule about? Homelessness. That's going to appall me.

Tim Sandifer (20:21)

So this is the latest in the series of lawsuits where cities have allowed homeless encampments or even encouraged homeless encampments on government owned property that create what we call a nuisance for neighboring property owners. Now you might remember a couple years ago Phoenix had the largest homeless encampment in the country. 1,000 people living on the streets of Phoenix through our 120 degree summers. Wow. Because the government was like yeah, sure, fine, you can camp here. We're not going to enforce the laws against that here. And it destroyed local businesses. It really was. The real victims of these policies are the tax paying, hardworking citizens of these communities who pay their tax doll for police protection and don't get it because city officials decide that they would rather not enforce the laws. Well, in Utah, unfortunately in Salt Lake City, they were doing the same thing. There's a lot of city owned property in the city. And the city was like, yeah, sure, if you want to have a homeless encampment there, that's fine. We're not going to do anything about it. And locals sued the city for maintaining a nuisance. Now the problem is that a lot of states have a legal principle that says you can't sue the government for failing to enforce the law. The government can choose when to enforce the law and when not to. And the reason why is because they have limited resources and sometimes they want to take mercy on people or whatever. And so in general sense, it's okay for the government to pick and choose the cases it's going to pursue. But unfortunately what happens is then the government uses as an excuse to just stand back and do nothing. And so unfortunately, the state Supreme Court in Utah ruled that Salt Lake City could not be sued on the grounds that they, that it effectively ran a bunch of nuisances in the city, damaging people's property and threatening public safety because of this rule that you can't sue the government. Now we have. So you have in Arizona, the courts went one way saying yes, you can sue the government for this. And in Utah you have the opposite way where you can't sue the government for this. The Goldwater Institute, we developed a solution to this problem. It's called Prop 312. We ran it on the ballot in Arizona and it passed. And it says if the government chooses not to enforce the law against these, these encampments, then, and if you have to take steps to protect yourself, if they put bars on your business to keep people from breaking in the windows or install security cameras or hire a security guard, you should be able to deduct that from your taxes. If the government's not providing you with the services that it is supposed to be spending your tax dollars on, you should get your tax dollars back, essentially. And so it'll. Our initiative, which, which is now the law in Arizona, says just that. And where I'm saying Utah, if you're listening, this is a solution to your problem. Your state supreme court has decided not to require the government to enforce the law. So there's an answer to that. And that is if you have to take steps to protect yourself, you should, you at least shouldn't have to pay twice.

Jack Armstrong (23:11)

That is, yeah, no kidding. That is a really an interesting idea you guys came up with and I'm glad it worked. So I'm wondering if we had something wrong here. So a couple of weeks ago here in the state capital of California, in Sacramento, they came up with this new rule where no homeless people around city hall. And, and, and we were mocking that actually because they were saying, you know, it's not fair that our employees have to be worried walking to their cars or whatever. Yeah, and, and we were mocking that because, okay, fine for the government worker, but what about the guy just four blocks over at the restaurant? He's, you know, he's got to step over drug addicts to get into his business. You care about the government workers, but not him. But should we be happy that they started with the government property or not?

Tim Sandifer (23:58)

I don't, I don't know. Talk about, let them eat cake. That's outrageous. I mean, we actually, we had a benefit in Phoenix in that the enormous homeless encampment was right there in the middle of the area where the government complex is. It was next to the Supreme Court, next to the state capitol building. You couldn't avoid seeing it if you were a government employee. And that was good because it put pressure on the government to actually enforce the existing laws against this kind of behavior, which they were refusing to do. And so by saying, oh no, you ordinary, hardworking proletarian Californians, you can deal with this. We government officials, because we have stars on our bellies like Dr. Seuss's sneetches, we don't have to put up with that. That really is, I mean, how Louis XIV can you get? I mean this is, this is French ancien regime kind of stuff. Crazy.

Jack Armstrong (24:51)

Yeah. So I often, I realized the law is, is crafted around a lot of protecting individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority. But, but it seems so often, at least living in California, the tyranny of the minority against the majority happens so often.

Tim Sandifer (25:09)

Yeah. California, California's political culture has as a hangover from the 60s of this obsession with, of ignoring or penalizing the hard working wealth creators of your state to benefit the so called oppressed, who in many cases are in fact lawbreakers who are damaging other people's property and other people's rights. And it's so perverse. But the problem is with California is. Well, there's many problems, but one of the biggest ones is its political culture, this mawkish obsession with the allegedly disenfranchised or the allegedly underprivileged, when in fact what it is is that the state refuses to protect the rights of those who actually go out there and work for a living all day. Why should you bother if the state's going to do everything for you, why would you bother going out and working hard and creating wealth and providing jobs and things like that? I just, at some point, point, people have to wake up about this stuff, right? I don't know. California has not woken up about the bullet train still, so who knows?

Jack Armstrong (26:18)

No freaking kidding. That's.

Tim Sandifer (26:20)

I believe California is on the road to reform. And it. When it nixes that ridiculous.

Jack Armstrong (26:24)

No kidding. We are almost into September, which gets us close to October, which gets us into another Supreme Court session. Are there any big cases coming this next year that we should look forward to do?

Tim Sandifer (26:35)

You know, I, I think so. I think you're going to see birthright citizenship. I think you're going to see this thing just yesterday about firing the head of the Fed. So, you know, what's going on there is Back in the 30s, the Supreme Court issued a decision that said that it's. That says that the Congress can create these jobs that the president can appoint, but then the president can't fire these people. And the question is, is that constitutional? The Constitution says the president has the executive power, and that in theory, that should mean that the president gets to appoint people and he gets to fire people. And everybody in the executive branch, branch works for the president and can be fired by the president. But back in the 30s, during the New Deal era, Congress started creating these new kinds of bureaucratic administrative agencies and said, well, the President can't fire them. We want them to be independent from the president, but also sort of independent from Congress and also kind of independent from the courts. Well, the US Constitution only contemplates three branches of government. And so for a long time, this has been a problem, whether the Congress can. Can create these agencies that the President isn't really in charge of. And so what Trump is doing by firing the head of the Fed is triggering this lawsuit about whether or not that's constitutional and reconsider those decisions from the 1930s that created these independent administrative agencies. On one hand, I agree. I think these are unconstitutional. I think if you're in the executive branch, you work for the President. That's how the Constitution works. And he can fire anybody he wants in the executive branch. But on the other hand, and that opens the door to a lot of chaos as we saw with the markets yesterday with the announcement of the firing of the Fed. So there's a real constitutional and economic reckoning to come and I think we're going to see that in the Supreme Court in the coming year.

Jack Armstrong (28:23)

So I was listening to a podcast the other day. They were actually talking about the specific case of tick tock which Congress passed the law. The tick tock's got to go. It got. It ended up in the other branch, the Justice Branch. 9. Oh, the Supreme Court decided it's okay to boot. Tick tock. But the executive branch has decided for whatever reason not to get rid of tick tock. And is it possible, and you could apply this to a whole bunch of other situations other than tick tock. Is it possible for our country to function with only two of the three branches actually doing anything? Because Congress has decided, eh, we'll let the courts and the, the President with his pen and phone do everything and we're just going to stay out of it. And they did it with Biden and Obama and they're doing it with Trump.

Tim Sandifer (29:06)

Yeah, you've put your finger on the real problem is Congress's refusal to do its job. The Constitution was written by people expected Congress to show up for work and actually do something every day. And, and instead what Congress has done is it's passed a series of laws that give the President power to make or break and do whatever he wishes and then they've washed their hands of it and gone home. And no, the system cannot work that way. We need a Congress that actually does its job. Now, I would dispute whether we actually have two functioning branches of government. I would say we have about a half of a functioning branch of government. Half of the judiciary basically works. Half of it doesn't. Congress doesn't do anything. The President just does whatever it feels like. And the TikTok ban is a great example of that. It's totally unconstitutional for the President to refuse to enforce a TikTok ban. The Constitution requires the President to, quote, take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Not just executed, but faithfully executed. That means it's his job to enforce the law whether he likes it or not. The only exception to that is if the President thinks the law is unconstitutional, then he doesn't have to enforce it. In fact, he's obligated not to. But the President does not claim that the TikTok ban is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has said that it's not so. The president has a moral and legal obligation to enforce this law and he just doesn't care and Congress doesn't care and nobody's doing anything about it. It's truly astounding.

Jack Armstrong (30:21)

And that's one of many examples. Anyway, Tim Sandoval, I can hear people.

Tim Sandifer (30:24)

Saying, but Obama did it too. Yeah. That doesn't make it right. Don't make it right.

Jack Armstrong (30:28)

No, no. Well, that's, that's what I was talking about yesterday. Today, how do we end this race to the bottom? How do you envy? Well, they play hardball. We're gonna play harder ball. You know where you end up when you do that? The race to the bottom. I mean, it just, it all comes apart. But anyway, Tim Sandifer with the Goldwater Institute. Appreciate all your time today, Tim. Great as always. I'm sure I'm gonna get all kinds of texts and emails saying, have Tim back soon. We love Tim, so.

Tim Sandifer (30:50)

And only a few of those will be from me.

Jack Armstrong (30:53)

Thank you, Tim Sandifer. Okay, cool. What did you tell me? Oh, I know what I got to talk about here. This is something I'm really excited about and I've got it for the whole family now. Tell you about web root cybercrime. Obviously a problem. Every 22 seconds someone becomes a victim of identity theft. And it can happen with you. Click on a link on your computer or your phone or whatever. That's why we use Webroot Total Protection. It's not just antivirus, it's real time protection against malware, ransomware, phishing scams, which I always worry about. Plus a web threat shield that blocks dangerous sites before you click. You also get a firewall, VPN and password manager. A password manager, finally, to keep your family secure on every device. How about this? With plans covering up to 10 identities. So easy to get you your kids, your wife, grandma and grandpa, whoever on this. And you're protected in the whole family with up to a million dollars in reimbursement if identity theft happens. So don't wait until it's too late. Get 55,0% off web root total protection or web root essentials right now@webroot.com Armstrong Protect your Digital life today because hackers aren't slowing down. Get 50 off Webroot Total Protection or Webroot Essentials. Webroot.comarmstrong One more time. That's webroot.comarmstrong I'm actually very excited about this and the fact that I've now got it and it should have done it a Long time ago. Actually, as always, some super interesting stuff from Tim that, that last part is fascinating. Will Congress ever decide to be serious about the fact that they're supposed to be, they're, they're Article 1 power. I mean they're the, the basis of our entire government, you know, up against the other balancing acts of the executive and the judge. But Congress has just decided, eh, we'll just do whatever a president at the time wants and then if we're out of power, we just don't do anything. It's very, very frustrating. Anyway, we got more on the way. If you have a thought for any of this, text line 415295K FTC Armstrong.

Joe Getty (32:59)

And Getty Matsuzawa learned how to kick just five years ago, studying YouTube videos of Seattle Seahawks kicker Jason Meyers. Matsuzawa moved to Ohio to play at a community college where he turned to his favorite online tutor to learn English before transferring, uh, to play on scholarship. In all, Matsuzawa made three field goals in Hawaii's 2320 win over Stanford. Proving when there's a will and a.

Jack Armstrong (33:25)

Lot of YouTube, there's a way Hawaii beat Stanford. And that story with the kicker, that's something Joe and I talk about a lot. I'm not saying that. I mean, obviously it would be stupid to say that practice and lessons and hiring a coach and all that sort of stuff doesn't matter. But man, at the end of the day, a lot of it is just your natural born athletic ability.

Tim Sandifer (33:49)

A lot of it.

Jack Armstrong (33:50)

And it's amazing how many people start playing basketball at age 15 or football or whatever and go on to do really well because they're great athletes. And your kid who started at age 5 and has been in 30 different leagues with the pro coach because they just can't run as fast. You know, that whole, you kind of.

Tim Sandifer (34:10)

Have it or you don't.

Jack Armstrong (34:12)

Yeah, there's, there's a certain amount to that to sports now. If you've already got the, the talent and skill, strength and speed and everything like that, and you hire coaches against a kid who doesn't, that could make a huge difference. But you definitely have to have the strength, speed and coordination to start with. Yeah, okay, so there's that story. I wanted to get this ridiculous story on. Also.

Guest or News Announcer (34:34)

Mount Rushmore, an American icon. There is now an effort by some supporters of Donald Trump to add his face to the monument. Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna has a bill in Congress that would add Trump to Mount Rushmore from an engineering and geological perspective, adding any face is near impossible. A close look shows the mountain filled with deep fractures. Paul Nelson, an engineer who worked on the mountain, warns any new carving could cause serious damage.

Jack Armstrong (35:03)

I can't believe they actually went to an engineer to talk about adding another face to Mount Rushmore. Which if you've been there, and I've been there 50 times in my life because I'm from South Dakota. Yeah, you actually had to go talk to some, a guy who carves faces on mountains to come up with the idea that it's, there's no room on there for a face. For one thing, you take Teddy Roosevelt off because nobody, nobody knows why he's up there. And you put Trump right there, there. It's a little swap. You got Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, you know, really three big ones. And then you got Trump right over there in the corner where Teddy Roosevelt used to be. And nobody knows why. Remember when Pelosi floated putting Biden up there? I know, I just, I was thinking about this. Everybody has a different level to the extent they're willing to kiss their boss's ass and some people, as we all know, are willing to go really far. And you, you watch them in the hallway or, or listen to them in the conference room and you think, ah, you're such a suck up, you make me ill. And then there's the person that won't do it at all. I'm pretty, I'm a lot closer to that level. I can do it a tiny bit some if I'm in the right mood sometimes. And I justify it with, I'm looking out for my own career, my own betterment, to make more money for my family, me. It's a, it's a, it's a selfish act of trying to help. But I can only do it a little bit sometimes. The, the starting a bill in Congress to put Trump on Mount Rushmore, I mean, that is just so dumb. And I mean, it's so obviously what it is. And Trump knows it's obviously what it is. It's not like he doesn't know what you're doing. Oh, he thinks you're pathetic. You realize he thinks you're a pathetic sucker up that has no spine of your own. That's what Trump thinks of you when you talk about putting him on Mount Rushmore. Jack, what you just said was brilliant. Yeah, well, I mean, you're just the best. Oh my God, that hurts. That's like the worst thing I could find out is somebody is being nice to me only because I, if it's not genuine, I'd rather not get it at all. Oh, Jack, your glasses look really nice today. Thank you very much. If you missed a segment, get the podcast. More on the way.

Tim Sandifer (37:25)

Armstrong and Yeti, this is an iHeart podcast.