Oh My God I Hate The Left

This is an I Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. I'm strong and getty. And now, here's our strong and getty. The FDA has approved a drug called Foundayo. It's made by Eli Lilly. It's given as a daily pill and it works similarly to drugs like ozempic, wagovie and Zepbound by mimicking a hormone known as GLP1. This one follows another pill that was approved in December, hit the market earlier this year called the wagovie pill sold by Novo Nordisk. And Eli Lilly says that its drug represents an advance compared with that pill because Foundayo doesn't need to be taken at any particular time of day or with any restrictions on food and water where the wagovie pill must be taken right when you wake up in the morning on an empty stomach. So they're getting sounds like easier to take these various pills. I don't know if you watch the TNT show on about the NBA playoffs are about to get going in the NBA. Charles Barkley is like half his size because he's on one of these drugs. He's lost over a hundred pounds. He was like 330 at his heaviest. Even for a tall guy, that's a lot of weight. And he's getting close to his playing weight from back when he was a fairly thin NBA player. But he's lost over a hundred pounds on this drug. And I know somebody that I assume is doing this, quite a big woman who's now quite thin. And in a short amount of time, it's got to feel like the miracle drug you've been wanting forever for a lot of people. Yeah, yeah. I always wonder about the long term thing just as a guy has lost weight and gained a backie unlike everybody does. But there's no question that it's even if you're lighter for a while, it's pretty good for you. Well, if you stay on it, you stay thin, won't you? Yeah. Well, and I talked to my doctor who's just a terrific guy and a terrific doctor. And he said, I've had virtually nothing but success with it. People tolerated beautifully, had great results. I'm a fan. Wow. That's awesome. Yeah, because you know how it is. If there's a news article that says these drugs are tolerated by most people and do a nice job, I'm not going to think, oh, that's good. I'm not going to click on it. If I see horrific side effects of wigobi, we'll get tongues whacking. You know, it's hard not to click. Right. Right. So you get an outsized idea of the downsides, which exists, of course, consult your physician. Speaking of doctors told the story yesterday about how outraged I get when I'm at the doctor's office. Oh, with my kid, this happened the other day, getting a physical and I'm asked to leave the room. And I stupidly did it. I mostly did it because I didn't want to embarrass my son. I hadn't talked to him about ahead of time. I will never do it again. Now that I have thought it through and heard from some of you good people. I mean, if I had thought it through for a second, what are they going to do? Tell me my son can't get physical. Kick me out of the hospital. Exactly. Cuff you and take your child away from you. But and I also I asked the woman and very nice person and I told her, I said, you're just doing your job. It's the hospital policy. I said, is this a hospital thing or a government thing? You know, it's a combination of this and that and blah, blah, blah. And apparently a friend of mine in Tennessee who used to live in California and left for Tennessee, like so many people have said, they don't do that in Tennessee. They don't ask you to leave the room to talk to your kid alone. I found it. I find it outrageous, absolutely beyond the pale to step in as the weird, the authority. We we know what's good and what's best that that guy, your dad does not. What we're going to message that's in your kid. Oh, my God, it's awful on so many different levels. But anyway, finding out it's not universal is helpful to me. And I hope you all finding out that you can just say, no, no, I'm not going to do that. Ask any questions you want in front of me. That's the way we're going to do it here. I got a note from a physician friend in California who said, hey, I've got a name of a doctor for Jack that they don't pull that crap. It's some it's like the best guidance of the AMA and stuff like that, that you ought to do this. And you're more progressive health organizations, especially in your more lefty places. They're like, yes, that is a great idea. I'm not surprised in the town that I live in that they lean that direction. I love my doctor, but I would imagine that the hospital he works at, they tell him to do that. Yeah. Yeah. Boy, we got a ton of emails about that. Some of them kind of restate what I just said. Um, I wonder, I wonder how many people completely unbothered by it at all go along with it and think, well, that makes sense that the government of or some other institution is stepping in as the authority between me and my child. So, uh, thanks to everybody who wrote really interesting stuff, but I've picked three emails in particular that I think are terrific. First of all, Brian and Santa Rosa, first time a doctor or their assistant asked me, I'm trying to have the other have you leave the room while I talk to my child. I asked them where they went to school in a series of other questions. Then I told them that they would have to wait until I researched their background. I don't just let anybody talk to my child alone. If they graduated from college in the last few years, I bring up the statistics of how easy it is to get through medical school these days. I ask them what their religion is, what their beliefs are, and if they're woke, I was the same way when my children were young. Now it's my grandson. His dad reluctantly agrees with me. Good for you, Brian. I love that. The terrific JT and Livermore writes, I've always hated that concept, but I'm asking the parent to leave the room, but I've never given it much thought as to why. Now I have. For me, it isn't because I feel like the state is temporarily, temporarily taking over my parenting function or they think they care more about my kids than I do. The problem is that it goes against the Fourth Amendment, illegal search and seizure, either literally or culturally. They are fishing for proof of a crime without the slightest provocation that anything is wrong. That's 100% true. I mean, what else would it be? What else would it be? Oh, it's a it's if it's not a presumption of guilt, it's a presumption that everyone must be screened. And asked to leave the room. Now I know that the doctor or nurses, not a representative of the government, but aren't they a proxy of a sort, given that doctors and nurses are subject to required to report laws. But if a placement or other government representative can't illegally search my child absent, even the barest indication of a crime that's been committed, then they can't outsource that illegal search via proxy. What else can a health professional ask that a quasi related to the kids health? Can they ask my kid if I ever smoke crack or if I share my prescription pain kills with my brother in law or hurt his back? Or if I've ever driven them somewhere after having a beer? Yeah, I gotta say I'm highly embarrassed that I did step out of the room. My kids have been coached up on the gun question. We don't answer that question because I got outraged about that many years ago. If you were listening, you remember, like you don't get to freaking ask that question. What the hell? Way me take my blood pressure, figure out my cholesterol and then I'll go home. Yeah. Yeah. And then finally, this from Brian, the cop. Great note on a couple of different topics. He says, um, wonder, provide a perspective about how healthcare professionals are failing at risk children. In law enforcement, we have reasonable suspicion, which leads us to begin an investigation into a possible crime. When it goes further, we begin to develop probable cause to continue to investigate and make an arrest. While healthcare workers in California have made separating parents from their children in order to discover abuse or neglect. Through a process, they put all families through a process that is not only a crime, but also a crime. They stop using their training and instincts to look for clues of neglect and abuse. They do this believing the process they now use will expose the abusers. Now that every parent is a possible subject, they stopped noticing the reasonable suspicion in the parents they would hopefully notice it in. The vast majority of parents don't abuse their kids, but now you're blending all parents together and it makes it easier, in my opinion, to hide the clues you wouldn't have noticed before. That's an interesting perspective. And then, as a guy who is a certified drug investigator, he says, judging by the description of Tiger Woods by the roadside, he was on a lot more than a narcotic analgesics. Really? Specifically, his, uh, um, his, uh, wide pupils, his dilated pupils. Because if he was on what everybody thinks he was on, simply they cause contracted pupils. He had hydrocodone pills in his pocket, so that wouldn't make your pupils dilate. Not according to this guy. Interesting. He had to get drug crimes. Yeah. Uh, that's funny. Here's another failure of the media. It would take one, I could do it during the commercials, to check and see does hydrocodone cause your pupils to dilate? Because everybody did that in the news as if clearly assigned. Well, is it? That's what, you know, one of the epithets I throw at the media during my frequent screeds is, in curious. Yeah. That's what the most amazing thing. Jack and I have observed that, uh, so many times, this is the, according to authorities, this is the second highest number of this ever. I wonder. Okay, well, what's everybody wondering? What was the highest? When was it? How much was it? Uh, I wonder what else Tiger is doing then. Microdosin Academy. That's what all the rich hipsters are doing. And, uh, and, uh, uh, the silo-cybin, the, uh, magic mushroom. Or what if he's into bimbification? What if it all comes together? I'm not sure how that ties in. I don't want to stomp your theory out before there's a chance to get going. We're going to talk to a legal expert coming up in a little bit about how the oral arguments went yesterday. You say there are some complicated- The citizen birthrights case. Yeah. Yeah. You say there are some complicated reasons that it might make sense that we allow any child born in this country to be automatically a citizen? Yeah, and, or we would have to specifically write laws to change the, uh, the way it currently works. Okay. I want to hear about that. So, we have lots on the way. Stay here. Why do you want to be here? Why do you love space? Why do you love being a part of history? We're going back to the f***ing moon. That's why. An excited little kid who watched the space launch with a foul mouth. Did I hear like a re- He said fricking in the, the, the tape I saw. Yeah, okay. We're going back to the fricking moon. I love that. That's right, son. That's right. And you're right to be excited. This is a great country and we do great things and we better beat China to the moon. Stay tuned for hour four. We're going to go big on the space race and how serious it is. He emphasized the wrong thing though. He's supposed to emphasize that it's the first one-legged, half Asian, half Jewish trans woman or whatever identity politics. Oh my god. They always throw at us with every space mission. I know. I saw that headline and whoa, was it USA Today or something? Oh, shut up with that. Are they a great astronaut? Good. They studied hard. Give them credit for their expertise, not the color of their skin or who they like to sex up. Oh my god. I hate the left. I found this very interesting. Listen to this. We're just speaking to the Artemis mission. The crew of Artemis two now bound for the moon. The Artemis two mission is underway for astronauts on a 10 day mission to the moon and back. The Orion spacecraft lifting off powered by that massive 322 foot tall, six million pound rocket packed with more than 700,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen. Passing one minute, approaching MaxQ. Before launch teams checking those suits then just as astronauts have done in past missions, a bit of superstition playing cards until everyone loses a hand to leave bad luck behind. Wow. Like, Sharia law loses a hand like that sort of thing? You misunderstand, Jack. A hand of cards, in other words, an individual little game within the game. That's an interesting superstition though. What the heck? If that helps set your mind at ease as you strap yourself on top of a bomb and get vaulted in the space, do whatever helps. So speaking of the burning of fuel, I thought it was interesting. I was just going through email and we get a heck of a lot of it. And notice we have a handful of people all asking the same question. In essence, if we don't depend on the straits of Hormuz, as Donald Trump has said repeatedly, then why are our gas prices going so high? And I was mildly surprised that some of the people asking that, but then, you know, everybody studies different things and knows different things. Here's the answer. It's fairly simple. Number one, oil is a global commodity. And I'm reading now, think the world's oil supply like a single giant bathtub, even if we're only dipping our cup into the North American side of the tub, when someone pulls the plug in the Middle East side, the water levels drops for everybody. The 20% rule roughly 20% of the world's total oil supply pass through that narrow straight. And you can see how if prices skyrocket in Asia, for instance, the prices kind of react all over the world. It's global market. There's also a difference in the kinds of oil different countries use from different places. Well, I think that's why the global market thing plays in, is we're doing a different kind of oil. Because otherwise, couldn't we just go isolated? Couldn't we just stay out of the global market, pump our own oil, use our own oil and just stay out of the global market? In the same way that I could make my own beer and charge myself for whatever I want to charge? Well, yeah, but that would be a complete restructuring of how oil markets have always worked. So it would be enormous. I wish you could be completely independent. You're a mercantilist. Drill baby drill. Oh, tariff, baby tariff. Let's see. And then there's the way the oil markets work. And gas is obviously refined oil. The fear premium, what they call it, because it's all based on the futures market. Gas prices often jump before a single barrel of oil is actually lost. Traders on the commodities market buy oil futures. Contracts for oil to be delivered months from now. That's how it works. When a critical choke point like the Strait of Formosa is threatened or closed, traders panic and bid prices higher to hedge against the future shortage. That fear premium is passed directly to gas stations almost immediately. And I could get into some more details, but that's it. The short answer is it's a global market and always has been. I heard somebody making this point. A lot of the politicians that are making the loudest noises about the price of oil slash the price of gas and how awful it is are from states where they artificially keep the price of gas high to try to drive you into electric cars. Oh, great. Like California. The whole point of our gas being so high, a lot of the taxes is hoping that you'll stop driving. You'll start carpooling, you'll get an electric car, all that sort of stuff. But when Trump launches this war, then you scream and yell about the price of gas like you care. You love it being high. You want people to stop driving gas-powered cars. Oh, they're just so utterly dishonest. Oh, it's discouraging. God, I was driving over the weekend to San Francisco and back and they've expanded the diamond lane, the carpool lane. It used to be just a very short portion of my drive. Now it's the entire way and it's just empty. There's nobody in it. Oh, and it's seven days a week. That's why I was so mad about it. It's all day Saturday too. So on Saturday, you have the carpool lane. So you're taking away, in some cases, 25% of the lanes because there's only four lanes that anybody can drive on. And so traffic is horrible on a Saturday at 11 a.m. Because a quarter of the lanes you can't use, it accomplishes nothing other than making... Every responsible study has shown that it either accomplishes nothing or makes pollution worse. That's correct. Well, what a... It's like a superstitious gesture by the environmental left. It does nothing. Well, that and it's the goal is to make you miserable enough that you'll take the train or carpool or some BS that they think they're going to make us do, which we never are. So birth tourists, Chinese oligarchs, popping out kids in America for the citizenship, birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court. The oral arguments were yesterday with the president in attendance. We'll talk to Joe Lupino Esposito of the Pacific Legal Foundation about how those arguments went and how he thinks it might turn out. Yeah, it's the opposite of what I want, I think. What do you think, good? All right, stay tuned. Armstrong and Getty. There are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose... What business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation? Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us? I think it's... I'd quote what Justice Galea said in his Hamdan dissent where they had... Where like their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment. I think that shows that they've made a mess. Their interpretation has made a mess of the provision. Some of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday with notably the president in attendance weighing the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship and that sort of thing, it strikes me that it's such an interesting topic for a lot of reasons, including the utter change in the way the world works and immigration works and you can jet around the world in a single day. Anyway, to examine this question and how the oral arguments went, who better to talk to than Joe Lupino Esposito of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Joe leads a team dedicated to developing solutions and advocating for change in federal law that respects the Constitution and is lined with PLF's legal practice. Joe, welcome. How are you, sir? I'm doing well. Thanks for having me. So, did you find the oral arguments pretty interesting yesterday and what did you make of them? Yeah, you know, they were pretty exciting. Obviously, like you mentioned, the president being in the room, that's pretty tough for your boss looking over your shoulder there. But I think John Sauer did a very good job with a very difficult question and really an uphill battle for the president by trying to attack the idea of birthright citizenship through an executive order. So, really, the justices were engaged on a whole bunch of different levels here, but primarily it seemed to really come down to this issue of what was the original intention of the 14th Amendment, who was it really meant for, what was the context of when that was passed, and then further, have there been any precedents that have gone forward since that date, like in the late 1890s, the one I kept mentioning was the Wong Kim Arc case. And that was another one that they wanted to kind of re-cabin. And Sauer's argument essentially was, we need to look at it a different way, and then I think you will find that we are on the right side. So, that was his take, and he got quite a bit of challenge on that. Well, wasn't the original intention for children of slaves, and unless you're 200 some years old, there are no children of slaves that apply, so then where does this break down? Right, exactly. And naturally, the essential question, right? And during the arguments, I don't recall which justice brought it up. I might have been Justice Alito had said something along the lines of, are some of these rules of the Constitution, these pieces of the Constitution, sort of a rule for all time, or are they very specific? So, if you have a law that says there's no theft, but microwaves didn't exist, but you get your microwaves stolen, well, it's still a good general rule. These are the things they bring up over there, right? I love their analysis over there. That's great. That's fantastic. But, I mean, it's true, right? So, like, is that a universal rule? So, of course, from the other side, they're saying, well, look, in the 1890s, we were still obviously had some children of slaves at that point. But, you know, we're looking forward into the next century, where this won't be. And in that case, they said, ironically enough, per the clip you guys just played, it was an issue of somebody who was a Chinese national, because at the time, under the current laws that were in place at that time, Chinese immigrants could not become citizens. They were restricted from becoming citizens. So, the argument was, could their child become a citizen? And at the time, they said, yes, the 14th Amendment guarantees that. But the question there, of course, was, well, what qualifies the pattern in the discussion was around the parents and their domicile and their allegiances. And that's what we heard a bunch about in the argument yesterday. Right. The question of domicile, meaning where do you live? Where is your home? Is such a different question now than it was then. I mean, I could, on a whim, be in London tonight, stay there for a couple of weeks, you know, with my pregnant wife, and we could give birth in London, because I think London's cool, and then fly back. And so, all of this was unimaginable. So, the whole question of what does domicile mean was pretty key, wasn't it? Oh, yes. Yeah, I got mentioned dozens, it's not a hundred times yesterday. And it was interesting, because we saw even some of the more less-leaning judges questioning Trump's opposing counsel, you know, with the ACLU saying, you know, I don't think they mentioned domicile so often just for fun. You know, how are you going to get around this problem? And it was a more difficult question for them. The way they would turn on that, of course, is to say, well, the question has never been about the parents. It's always just been about following the soil. If you are here and you are born here, that's how it goes. Of course, on the other side, you know, John Sauer and the administration would say, well, look, in other cases, we've drawn out certain exceptions, as if those are just always assumed. So, things like diplomats, children, or if somebody's born on Indian land or of Indian parents, a tribal land, these are always the exceptions that have been drawn out. So, why wouldn't we kind of come to the next conclusion and say, well, this is yet another example, because things have changed. But of course, that led to probably the best line of the oral argument where John Sauer said, it's a whole new world. And John Roberts replied, it's a new world, but the same constitution. So, that's where I think they're going to have a lot of trouble. Okay, fine. So, if we want the result of people can't just have babies in the United States and they're automatically U.S. citizens, how do you get there? Right. So, that's kind of what will be interesting to see how the court comes down here. I think, depending on how they want to break down their opinion, I think you'd probably have a nine-zero saying, well, this can't be done by executive order, no matter if you like it or not. Okay. Say, well, is the door open for legislation to say, look, we can draw some exceptions here. It is not a pure guarantee. It is not just simply we follow the soil, you are here and you're born. Because it's obviously not true now. We talk about these situations like diplomats, children, right? So, it's not universal as it is, but now how much can you actually limit that universality? Are the exceptions that we've already found the only ones? Can Congress continue? That probably wouldn't be on point for this case, but if somebody wanted to write a concurrence, somebody like in Alito that seemed to be leaning towards the president position, but maybe not fully there, could always write a concurrence saying, look, I think the door is open if there were some actual law made around this. So, that's one possibility. Who knows if that could happen, but that seems to be the opening that could exist here. Joe, why don't you count on Congress and I'll count on the Easter buddy, and we'll see who gets satisfied first. Joe Lapino Esposito from the PLF is online. Go ahead, Joe. I was going to say, I mean, that is one of the biggest issues at the PLF. We talk a lot about separation of powers and who has the right role of doing these things. And that's always the issue. It's like, well, Congress can do its job. I know that's a lot to say that, but technically, that's the way they have it set up. So, that is really the essential problem that keeps coming up in a number of issues, not just in immigration. I was interested to read that there are quite a few countries like the UK that did away with this a while back for a variety of reasons. So, it's not like it's a crazy idea. No, I mean, again, as a policy matter, I think that is definitely an open question. Do we want to do that? And just not knowing offhand if their constitution or otherwise had said something that guaranteed it, obviously, it's a higher threshold. If the court does find that it is in the Constitution, then I would have to be a higher threshold of actually getting an amendment, which talk about impossible. That's impossible. So, that would be a much harder slog. But if they leave the opening because of the handful of exceptions, that's something they can do because, I mean, politically, I'm not sure how popular it is, but it probably would be very popular. And it seems to be popular in areas in Europe where this is the case. Yeah. At the very least, you could outlaw just outright birth tourism citizenship. So, a more general question. There's this ludicrous narrative frequently in a lot of the mainstream media saying that there's this six to three conservative deadlock. And when so many of the cases are in really interesting combinations. Now, control a Magakort. That's right. Yeah. That's ridiculous. How would you describe the six conservative justices and their overlap of agreement and disagreement? Yeah, you know, I think most analysis now actually puts it more as like a three, three, three court, right? So, obviously, you have the three liberal justices, then you have Kavanaugh, Roberts and Barrett in one camp, and then the other three conservatives in the other. But even so, you have a number of cases that are perhaps a little bit more libertarian leaning, where you'll see Gorsuch and Alito and Thomas, or Gorsuch on one side and Alito and Thomas on the other side on a number of cases. So, that's often how things can split, particularly in like criminal law cases. Alito is almost never going to be on the same side as Gorsuch barring it being a nine zero decision. So, those are kind of those rare examples where you see that pop up. But again, even just this week, we've seen where the liberal justices are setting with the conservatives. The case in California regarding conversion therapy, you only had one dissent from Justice Jackson, and frankly, kind of a slapdown from Justice Kagan and her concurrence saying, I don't know, in so many words, I'm not quite sure what she's talking about. It was pretty interesting to see that. So, this leads me to, and I know the answer to this question, but I want to hear you say, does it drive you nuts, the mainstream media coverage of all these cases? Because it seems to me like whenever I look into a decision, the general headline around it isn't even close to the reason they decided it one way or the other. No, you're exactly right. It's very frustrating. We see this all the time, and it seems like the media often wants to only talk about the cases when they are five, four, and six, three. I mean, sure, like that makes it more exciting. If it's nine zero, I guess the issue wasn't that great. But sometimes those opinions where they are eight, one, or seven, two, nine, zero, are really important to look at because those are the ones where you should really kind of zoom in and say, well, this is the thing where everybody can agree. This is where the law is at. Like this thing should not be a controversy. So, it comes to it, like again, just using this week's example, the conversion therapy case. There's not a ton of debate here on whether or not that was a good idea. Just as Jackson, notwithstanding, you had sort of an idiot coming along on this, I wouldn't say that because we have cases in front of the court. So, Joe, enough said. Well put. Joe Lapino Esposito of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Hey, Joe, we're kind of up against a break. Let's talk again, outstanding job. Love the conversation. As usual, everybody we talk to from the Pacific Legal Foundation is terrific. Thanks, Joe. And thank you. Oh, Hanson, the goldest of gold stars for him. Oh, love. Because he rolls. On a stage is wonderful. And he rolls with the silliness, which I really appreciate. Roll with it. Is she an idiot? I wouldn't say that because we have cases before the court. Now, I cut him off. He was about to make clear and she has a learned justice and her credentials are fabulous. Was he about to say that? As far as you know, he was. Yes. I want to, I do not want to damage the man's career. See, I'm not a lawyer for your chuckles. I'm not a lawyer. And I, so this stuff drives me crazy. And I understand why it's got to be this way. But I just want, you know, just things we all agree on for the most part. It shouldn't be able to just show up in the United States and have a baby and you get all the rights of a U.S. citizen. So let's just make that happen somehow. But I realize you can't run a system that way. Well, you can run a Congress that way. They can write that law. They just don't do anything but fundraise and tweet. Oh, well, it worked pretty well for 250 years. It was a decent enough run. All right, stick around. Much more to come. NASA launched his first crewed mission to the moon in 53 years. At the rocket launch from Cape Canaveral, did a quick fly by over kid Rock's house and then headed for the moon. The four astronauts on board are Commander Reed Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, mission specialist Christina Cook, and Canadian Space Agency mission specialist Jeremy Hansen. Wait, hold on. Wait, wait. That isn't right. I don't see Katy Perry in there. Is it really a space mission if Jeff Bezos hasn't welded a terrified Gale King into a Metal 2? Why is there a Canadian on our spaceship? So yesterday I announced breaking Fleetwood Mac news in that a stalker had thrown some sort of liquid substance at guitar player Lindsey Graham, who was an old man at this point. Lindsey Buckingham. Lindsey Graham. Why don't you say that? Yesterday too. I did that too. Yeah, yes. Lindsey Graham did not sing Go Your Own Way. Lindsey Buckingham did. Lindsey Buckingham is not a probably closeted South Carolina senator. He is a very heterosexual as he got with the young Stevie Nicks. Lindsey Buckingham. Anyway, so this happened on the Santa Monica Pier, Los Angeles, and this crazy woman. So you want to be famous, do you? She's 54 years old. She's convinced that Lindsey Buckingham is her dad. And apparently authorities have gone through it well enough to determine she's not, because this has happened over and over again. She's been stalking this poor guy for a long, long time. She threw something. Even if it is your dad, don't be thrown mystery substances and liquids on your dad. It's rude. It's a good point. The police are aware of her. Lindsey Buckingham is very aware of her. She tossed an unknown substance element and ran off. The Los Angeles Police Department confirmed that the attack did happen. Buckingham has three children with his wife, and they go through that whole thing here in this article, but this woman, the accused stalker, first began interacting with Lindsey Buckingham five years ago when she started calling the musician and his wife dozens of times, leaving long messages claiming to be his daughter. I wonder how she got his number. That would be, you'd start off being annoyed, and then pretty soon you'd start to get frightened, and she just kept calling, leaving long, rambling messages. Well, and if I'd been a touring musician for many years, I'd start off thinking, boy. You're old? You're, let's see, that was the Tusk Tour. During this initial period, she also threatened to kill the family, blamed Lindsey Buckingham for facial deformities. She suffered as a child, and demanded money. In 2022, LAPD officially instructed her to cease contact with the family. She stopped messaging them, but secretly continued to contact Lindsey Buckingham's adult son when after him. The harassment intensified in 2024 when she said Buckingham a photo collage of their faces followed by showing up at his home. You know, you get a picture of, here's everybody in your family, you know, that kind of threat that is. She swatted the family in 2024, making a false 911 report that led to Lindsey Buckingham being handcuffed and led from his home. Oh, until they figured out what was going on. Then he got a permanent restraining order against her. I didn't know that was a thing, a permanent restraining order. She can't come near him for the rest of his life. And that's what she was in violation of the other day, apparently. She lives in her car somewhere. They haven't found her. Wow. What, that's suck. Oh, there's no reason in with a crazy person. Now, I do assume, because it doesn't say anything in there, that with all of these different incidents occurring, they've determined that her claim is not real. Oh, yeah, I think, yeah, you would check that box. Because as you said, you're a, one of the most famous rock stars on planet earth. She'd have been born in the seventies. There has to be at least the chance. Conceivably in a moment of weakness. Exactly. You found yourself that you're highly embarrassed about and ashamed of. Oh, terrible. It was a lapse. Yes. But it does happen from what I'm told. Anyway, yeah, how, how troubling. Oh, speaking of crazy people in LA, next hour, maybe you don't get next hour, you got to subscribe to the podcast. Armstrong, you're getting on demand. You remember the subterranean sword junkies in LA? Well, the woman who was featured on that news report, her family's come out and made a powerful statement. What they said will shock you. Okay. Stay with us or come back. And then you're going to explain the whole China versus US space race. I'm into that. Yeah. Yeah. This is a serious, serious thing. And gets no attention around the why we're going to the moon. We're not a serious country. That's the, that's the entire point of why we're going to the moon. Yes. Is the, is the military race with China. No, we're not obliterated from the moon by China. If you miss, thank you. The podcast, Armstrong and Getty on demand. Armstrong and Getty.