Who's Your Daddy? I'm Your Daddy.

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 he's strong and getty. Yeah. Tiger Woods is once again stepping away from golf after Friday's crash in Jupiter, Florida. He says he's entering treatment so he can quote work toward lasting recovery. His post on X reading in part. I'm committed to taking the time needed to return and a healthier, stronger and more focused place, both personally and professionally. It's been nearly two years since Tiger played golf on the PGA tour, though he has played in tournaments. The PGA supports a 15 time major champions decision and posted on X above all else. Tiger is a person and our focus is on his health and well being. Yeah, his statement like most things in his life was all about me, me, me. Here's what I'm going to do to make my life better. My life is my like that. No mention of the fact that he so easily could have killed somebody again by driving like a complete nut job out of his mind on drugs and could have killed somebody. Nothing on that to me, which means he's nowhere near getting over his addiction. The fact that he's something about the pain he caused his family, which is kind of automatic, isn't it? He, he said, uh, we, we would like privacy at this moment or something like that. But the, I'm going to work to get my blah, my, my, my and no, thank God I didn't kill anybody, which should be on. Anyway, I said what I said. Um, so we got the Supreme court oral arguments going on on the birthright citizenship case going on right now, and we can talk more about that later. Just saw this, that Gorsuch, according to Jonathan Turley, uh, has continued to express a degree of skepticism toward the historical arguments of the administration. Hmm. The historical arguments of the administration. Yeah. Keeping in mind that a guy like Gorsuch will ask the tough questions because he's trying to find flaws in his own argument. Often. But we'll see. Yeah. If you missed our fabulous preview of, uh, this case, it took place in hour one, right? Of the show. Yeah. Armstrong and Gideon Demand, subscribe to the podcast. So a quick follow-up then, uh, as we affectionately call it little bingo bango bongo stories that are definitely worth hearing about it, at least in brief. Uh, but Jack, following up on your discussion of being asked to leave the room so the medical professional can get with your child and take control of the situation. Um, the federal laws on this are practically non-existent. It's a state by state thing. Uh, but even more than that, it's largely clinical guidelines recommended by groups like the AMA, AAP and ACOG, which I could probably figure out what it stands for, but I don't know. Even more reason to ignore them. Uh, exactly. Especially when we've documented for you good people over and over again, how a lot of the big medical organizations have been completely captured by the woke class. I am, I got to admit, I'm full of embarrassment, full of embarrassment that I agreed to leave the room. I'll never do it again. I'll never do it again. It's taught in medical training again. The medical schools are, are famously captured by the woke. They were among the most susceptible to the woke takeover. Uh, in recent years, really more than that on university campuses, but it's taught medical training is best practice, especially for adolescents, adolescents, reproductive health visits and domestic violence screening. But it's left to provider discretion in most places. Now I cannot speak to Cal Unicornia. Now let me throw this in just so I don't come off as a complete monster. Um, if I had a teenage daughter who said, I'd like to talk to the doctor about something and it's, I don't really want you to, I'd say, okay, sure. Fine. Um, you know, if it's just, you know, the sort of thing you don't want to talk about in front of your dad, maybe, I don't know, I suppose I could happen. I don't have a daughter, but you know, the reverse, uh, just them automatically, as you said, I'll take the wheel now. I'm in charge of the whole parenting thing. You leave the room. F you. And I don't mean the person who asked yesterday. I mean the institution. All right. Here, here. Yeah. Uh, there is a hell of a lot in our lives that is crept in via the, uh, universities and medical schools in the capture of these organizations. Uh, more than I probably even realize and I'm pretty sensitive to it. If you'd like to look into the stuff, it's really interesting that that's quite a philosophical break. People who believe the family is like the sole important unit of our society and people who don't, it's pretty interesting. Agreed. So, uh, as a bridge to some of the other stories I wanted to bring to you, I was clawding the question of what's the basis of these practices, you know, state law, federal laws, you know, AMA or whatever. And it occurred to me that as always with AI in search, I might be getting a distorted result, which remount reminded me that, uh, the New York post had a really good piece about how a handful of woke Wikipedia editors have completely twisted Wikipedia into a progressive organization. You're saying, yeah, Joe, we know that, but what hadn't dawned on me. Um, and, and here, I'll give you the example, then I'll give you the significance. Wikipedia editors are editing the crap out of, uh, any coverage of Zoran Mamdani, for instance, his, uh, relationships with radical groups. Um, during one of his rap songs back before he was in politics, he's a rapper. He was shouting out to five men convicted of financing Hamas men who were held liable in federal court for the murder of a boy from New York city. Uh, but they're cleansing all of that. Here's the problem. Wikipedia is one of the primary learning sources for AI systems. I noticed that whenever, uh, I don't know if every AI does this, but a lot of them do the chat bots, you ask it a question and you can see it thinking and the sources it's using and Wikipedia is almost always the first source that it's using to give you the information. Right, right. And the free beacon, the Washington free beacon has done some great writing on this too. Um, let's see, uh, look at some key pages on the site reveals the links to which Wikipedia editors are willing to go to shape Mamdani's public image and critically that of his wife, Rama do on G and her pro Hamas social media posts. And then a report by Washington free beacon found that DeWaji created a post on blogging site Tumblr with the photo of a terrorist with a caption echoing that person's words, um, and, and giving a big thumbs up. And then let's see, here's a post. If I told you that the New York times hired a recently graduated college student with only a couple prior articles written on the subject of food and cooking to be their lead on the ground reporter on the mass rape hoax in Britain. Would you believe it? And that's this guy who, um, who was repeating, uh, reporting on it. And then Wikipedia used that bias reporting and cleansed any, uh, unfortunate details from there, the, from the already biased, uh, journalism, so-called journalism. And again, it's being used to train AI systems. So that's kind of troubling. Uh, well, it's not kind of troubling. It's completely troubling, but moving along. This is just funny. Trauma is the new black is the title of this somewhat humorous post about how it starts with this Abdul al-Sayed far left terrorist adjacent Democrat running for the U S Senate in Michigan. He's running in the primary and he's doing very, very well. Uh, the funny story about how he's been boasting for years about doing time, quote, unquote, after getting arrested for blocking traffic and at a protest in 2018. I put my body on the line and took an arrest and I didn't take the politicians arrest where they like turn around and drop you off. No, I took the whole arrest. I did my time, except he didn't. According to police records, he was taken by a van to a detention center in Detroit where he was issued a citation for disorderly conduct and released immediately. He paid a $200 fine and the charges were dropped. But the tail's been a central component of his campaign pitch. He's told the story over and over and over again, Joe Biden like. And then what really amused me is they get into Democrats are bringing back the hardship Olympics in 2026 and beyond candidates across the country, asking their own lawyers how to get arrested on camera without suffering real consequences. And they go through how you have to lean into your childhood trauma. If you've had a really good life like Gavin Newsom, it's dyslexia and a rich absent father who, by the way, funded his entire career for Josh Shapiro. It's what he describes as at points and unhappy childhood home. Wow. Those of us who had exclusively, perfectly, every day, happy homes feel for you for JB Pritzker. It's becoming a billionaire orphan at 17 and combating fat phobia. If your kid is happy every moment of their childhood, you're probably doing something wrong. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they go into unless you really like doing laundry and mowing the lawn or a variety of things. Here's another story that I wanted to bring to you at least briefly. This should be a story everybody in America has heard. And it's incredibly important and nobody will hear it except you good people. The story of Argentina under President Harvey Mille. Their GDP expanded 4.4% last year. Further confirmation of Mille's success in turning around the economy. Highest growth in years apart from the pandemic bounce back and part of the unbelievable shift in South America's second largest economy since they abandoned socialism and went with free markets. Annual inflation was 160% when he took power in 2023. It's now at the lowest level in eight years. It remains higher than they want. What is the current figure? Oh, stop it. I don't want to subscribe. It's down to something like 12%. If I'm reading this, yeah, according to this, this chart, it is unbelievable success. Poverty has fallen to despite Mille sharp cut to subsidies that sparked mass protests. Still the self-described anarcho capitalists approval rating is struggling driven in part by accusations of corruption. Of course, as well as concerns over stagnating incomes and because everybody who is benefiting from the social state is desperate to get rid of the guy. But again, inflation has been cut by something like 90%. And then finally this. Fake cops, fake judges, the Hollywood style scam. Poised to go global. India is leading the way in these incredibly elaborate digital scams where you're contacted through various means and told you have to have a video conference with a court or an authority or an investigative body or whatever. And it's Hollywood quality sets where the judge is sitting there with his robes. They pan around. There's the bailiff. There's the court recorder or reporter or whatever recorder. And or if it's a cop shop, it's like a full police station. And granted, it still takes a bit of, are you serious? You fell for this, but it's incredibly elaborate, high budget, live video conference scamming that's going on. And this is one woman's a former assistant professor at Rutgers University's medical school and she got duped. Really? Yeah. Hollywood level production that mimics the machinery of the state, tricking people with fake police stations and courtrooms. Wow. I would never fall for this, but a lot of people do. I don't think I would either. You just dialed me up from the courtroom. Yeah. But here's the thing. It started appearing in US immigrant communities, not widespread in Western countries, except in the immigrant communities in part because there aren't scammers that are proficient enough in Western procedures and that sort of thing. But again, in immigrant communities where everything's a little more informal and weird in their court systems, they fall for it's crazy. Blasting off to the moon later today, we got a Supreme Court case going on right now. And Donald Trump's actually in the room at the Supreme Court to listen to the arguments and other stuff to talk about. Stay here. So far, the US does seem to be winning. We know we like to win here in America, but China has landed a robot on the far side of the moon that never faces Earth. And that's something that the US has never done. However, we are the only country to send humans to the moon. And NASA hopes to do it again in 2028, two years before China plans to. The US also wants the permanent moon base and humans on Mars starting in the early 2030s ahead of China. Yeah, I was listening to NPR's take on the moon mission today, first time humans are headed toward the moon in a half a century. And it was all identity politics with no mention. I haven't heard hardly anybody mention the space race that's going on between us and China. That's clearly what's driving this. NASA didn't decide to do this so that they could have the first ever female black whatever. That's not what's driving or it shouldn't be what's driving this stuff. We're in a race with China for superiority over the next frontier, which is clearly space. That is a bizarre take by an organization that claims to be a news organization that they'd look at that angle. Well, as I've been saying for years, and I've never heard anybody else say this, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think what killed NASA off was doing all identity politics and everybody in younger generations lost their wonder. You can't get people motivated over first Jewish female astronaut. The way you can exploring new frontiers, which just, you know, grabs the imagination is amazing. Well, that's one of the insidious things about woke ism and leftism in general. They don't see the universal. All they see is the intersectional. Every kid ought to be thrilled and amazed by giant rockets blasting off into space. But no, no, this mission only be excited if you're an Indian American lesbian. It's coming though. And I hope I get to see it in my lifetime. The claims on planets or space by various countries and just might makes right. No, no, no, no, the moon. It's our moon. At some point that's going to happen, or at least this chunk of the moon. No, no, no, you can't because right now there are no rules. Right. China could go up there and take down our American flag. Only if we can stop them would we stop them. Well, and justions have not been had. As you point out, space is so clearly the next frontier of warfare or the avoidance of warfare. Yeah. How much time I got? Are we out of time already? Oh, one minute. OK, I'll fit this in. Just came across this article that some people are reacting negatively to. Some popular graduate degrees may have zero or negative return. A study finds. What? In terms of finances and the pushback has been imagine studying something just because you find it interesting rather than because of, quote, return, which I am fine with anybody studying anything because they're interested in it, but just don't make me pay for it or pay for you if you can't figure out how to make a living. I mean, you need to tell me how to run my country. Permanent student types. If you can find a job that pays your rent and pays your food and you wanted to get a degree in, I don't know, pottery making, go ahead, knock yourself out. But don't expect us to pick up the slack if you can't make a living doing. Or pay for your bills. If you decide to take out a loan and decide that wasn't the best idea I ever made, it's just going to say we're not bailing out your loans. You took them on, take them on, pay it. Supreme Court oral arguments going on right now. We can check in on that, among other things coming up. Armstrong and Getty. I just came across this tweet a couple days old from Nate Silver though. Funny though. We understand these are challenging times for the literally dozens of Americans who are rooting for Duke. That is funny. Apparently, Trump has left the Supreme Court. CNN says Trump leaves Supreme Court as justices, justices express deep skepticism of his birthright citizenship case, which we'll get into more of that in a second. But apparently that's the first time a sitting president has ever attended the Royal arguments ever in our nation's history. Wow. Interesting. You're not supposed to be able to leave unless I mean, you can't once you're in there, you have to stay in there. Yeah, you can't come and go from the Supreme Court now. You've got to assume that doesn't apply to a president during wartime. What if I make some decisions on the whole war? You got to stay till lunchtime. Sorry. Just the rules. Chairman of Joint Chiefs is texting me. Your phone's supposed to be off, buddy. OK. What if you have to go really, really bad? What if you raise your hands say, excuse me, Mr. Chief Justice, I got to go bad. It's going to be, I mean, it's either here or in the bathroom. I'll leave that critical decision up to you, Your Honor. I wonder if Trump is going to say something about what he was hearing from some of the justices he appointed. He's going to. You said he said some bad things about the justices. Last night, I didn't hear any of that. Oh, it was terrible. I think we have. I thought we had that tape that audio. I don't see it. They're arguing whether over the whole birthright citizenship thing applies the way it's being applied. Anybody that comes to this country, you have a baby here. They're a US citizen with all the rights and services, taxpayer funded services that come with that for the rest of their lives up to and including some birth tourists, Chinese oligarchs surrogate, who as I put it indelicately earlier in the show, gets off a plane, squats on the tarmac at L. A. X pops a kid and then gets back on the plane, goes back to China. That kid's a US citizen. I would care a lot of laughable. I would care a lot less if we weren't such a welfare state. But you get into this country any way you can. And you have a kid here, that kid. Now I have to feed in the house and Medicaid and take care of their medical bills for the rest of their life as a taxpayer. Correct. Kind of deal with that. Well, we take care of illegals too in the blue states. But what are you going to do? You're going to vote in the next election. Anyway, are we ready for a little audio? Just to give you a sampling of what it sounded like. This is my man, Neil Gorsuch, with the advocate for the administration's position. Who's domicile matters? I mean, it's not the child, obviously. It's your parents who have us focus on. And you know, what if, is it the husband? Is it the wife? What if they're unmarried? Who's domicile? Well, in the executive order, it draws a distinction between the mother and the father. That's really the mother's domicile. I think that would matter. Well, but 1868 matters, you're telling us. So what's the answer? The 1868 sources talk about parental. I'm not aware of them drugging a signature between mother or father, but they say that the domicile, the child follows the domicile of the parents. And how are we going to determine domicile? I mean, would we use contemporary sources on what qualifies as domicile in a state? Or do we look in 1868? And do we have to do this for every single person? And again, I don't see a strong distinction between those because, of course, domicile is a high level concept has been pretty consistent over centuries, which is lawful presence with the intent to remain permanently that domicile. When you've come to a new nation, you say, I'm here for it to stay, you become part of their political community and you become akin to a citizen. And that's reflected very strongly in the case I cited before. John Sauer is a brilliant attorney with a terrible voice. He really needs some sort of AI system. The concept of domicile is a high level theory between his voice and my not being particularly bright. I didn't really get much out of that. Well, yeah, it's it's not a question of bright. I was regretting not setting it up more thoroughly as I was listening to that. The question, oh, man, I don't even want to get into the weeds. The question is, is the person passing through or do they live here? And that's a distinction that the lawyers are saying matters because the law was never or I'm sorry, the 14th Amendment was never intended to reflect somebody who like came into do business with a cotton company and then immediately sailback ding. I'm sorry, the guy with the horrible voice, was he arguing for the president's side or for the other side? So he's arguing for the president's side that people shouldn't be able to come here. And that it was all about slavery and we don't have slaves anymore. So this is all stupid. Right. Yeah, essentially, let's let's go with clip 103, where he's explaining that there are all sorts of weird wrinkles and how people come to have kids in this country. There are five hundred, five hundred birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China, whose what business is to bring people here to give birth and return to 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 descent, where they were 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 made a mess. Their interpretation has made a mess of the provision. Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course, we're in a new world now, Justice Galea pointed out to where eight billion people are one playing right away from having a child who's a US citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same Constitution. It is. And as Justice Galea said, I think in the case that Justice Galea was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statutory interpretation. I think the same principle applies here. And I think we quote that in our brief. So Gars is saying it's a new world, but we have the same Constitution. He's making the argument that drastic changes in. For instance, the ability to travel shouldn't matter. No, it's funny. It struck me and I'm learning more and more about law school because my daughter is in it right now that a lot of classes you do your reading and there might be a lecture or whatever. Then the professor says, Mr. Armstrong, and you stand up and you're like, oh, boy, they say, and they ask you a probing question like that. You know, it's still the same Constitution. Why would we change the interpretation just because of the presence of airflights? And you've got to explain yourself and your understanding of law and that sort of thing. And so it strikes me that the oral arguments are like a law school class. A lot of the time they're just quizzing the lawyer on help me think through this. Think, you know, think through this. I didn't get Robert's point, honestly. What the administration is saying is that the world has changed so wildly that the court decision subsequent to the 14th Amendment in 1898 and then 1910 and whatever else, they're irrelevant now. We've got to go originalist and look at the framing of the 14th Amendment. What did they mean? Not what some court in 1898 thought they probably kind of meant in the modern world. Now, we've got to go back to the source and look at the source as the only lens through which we look at the modern interpretation. Why do you think Trump was in the courtroom today? I don't know. Part of me thinks he was he wanted to intimidate a little bit or remind some of those justices I appointed you. All right, I'm your daddy. She was your daddy. I'm your daddy. And part of me just thinks he thinks it's really, really important and he wanted to hear it. That that second part could be true, although that would have been true for lots of presidents and cases they wanted to turn out a certain way. And they didn't show up over there. Yeah, the tradition was you would never do that because it could be seen as one branch interfering with the other branch or intimidation or whatever. I can't imagine I buy it entirely. He doesn't have any power to intimidate anybody, though he can't remove him. He can't he can't damage them in any way. Well, if he whips up like the magabase against them, it could physically be dangerous or undermine the court, which I know Roberts is really concerned about. I don't know how he could whip up the magabase against them any more than the. You know, the people who hate Trump have whipped it up against. Justices on the conservative side already. Yeah. You know, the funny thing about Trump is he's so president upsetting in a lot of ways that when he upsets president, it's just it's not that big a deal. I mean, no sitting president has ever attended Supreme Court oral arguments on a case that he was party to. Yeah, well, he does all sorts of crap. Yeah. And it just happened and how how shaken does the world seem to be? Looking around. I think we're OK. I'm not saying I like it. So it's April 1st. You know, you do on April 1st, you go to a loved one. Who you have earned their trust over many, many years of being a certain kind of person. Then you say something crazy to them. That's a lie that causes them disturbing, frightening, seconding. Yes, it causes them some unpleasant feeling. And then you say April Fools. You say to your husband, I've been thinking about it and I want a divorce. And then when he's done crying or whatever. Yes. You say April Fools. Right. It's funny. Maybe tell your little kid. Maybe tell your little kid you're moving and you're going to have you're never going to see your friends again. And then you say April Fools. I'm just doing this routine because I from a child, I've never understood April Fools. I just have never understood why if you do something and I react scared or hurt or whatever. That I'm a fool. I'm the fool for believing you. You're only introducing terrible things that turn out not to be true because that's almost a happy ending. How about really good things that you then reveal? Nope, it's not happening. You fool. Schools out today, kids. Schools out today. You can play all day. April Fools get ready for school. I feel like Joe and I did that way back in the day. I don't even hardly remember though. 103 Rock is now 103 country playing all your country. It's all. Meanwhile, the country station or across the street is 103 country and 101 country is now 101 Rock. All your lifters are out. They call under anger. They call under anger. They call under anger. They call under anger. All your lifters are out. They call under anger. You say, we're kidding. I worked for a station that decided to fire the morning show on April 1st though and being the phone screener during that debacle and trying to explain. No, this isn't a joke. What? Yeah. That was bad timing. Yeah, no kidding. Given the history of morning radio. Did we do the fake parade thing once? That's kind of a thing lots of people did. I think we did that once. It was kind of fun. Have you ever heard that before Katie? No. We pretend there's a big April Fool's parade downtown and you go live down there and there's bands and all this and there's no parade. We describe the floats going on. You're serious. It's kind of fun. This was years ago. Yes, Michael. You guys don't remember the April Fool's joke you did? Oh, right. I actually do. Michael, tell the story before we go to break. I had just started with the show. And what happened? Okay, Katie. Glad I asked to come here. Yeah, I had to reach over and nudge Gladys. She fell asleep. I'm sure she's alive. I was with the show maybe eight weeks and I'm running the board for them and they're doing their thing and they pretend to get in a fight, I believe. And they said... Better argument. Better argument and they storm out. They said, that's it. We're not doing this anymore. They just left me there. Right in the middle of a segment. Oh, I forgot. What did you end up doing? I can't remember. I don't know if I cracked the mic or if I went to a commercial or I just... I can't remember. Oh, my gosh. This audio has to be somewhere. Probably. It's on a reel somewhere. Oh, yeah, like really. Like literally a reel of tape. But that is similar to what I was mocking before. So here's some people that I work for. We're now going to make it clear that you can't believe anything we say. Or that we think cruelty to you, causing you emotional pain for our pleasure is perfectly on the table. This stress, terrible stress, gut-wrenching stress. You're a young person, you've got a job. I just met you guys. I really didn't know them very well at all. Well, we were horrible people. Now you feel like coming here, you guys, knock it off. We are much better people now, I think. Oh, my gosh. I don't know. Less fun, evidently, listen to the you. We're less fun people. Oh, my God. I apologize on behalf of younger me. Oh, I still look back at it with joy. There you go. Cool. Okay, we got more on the way. Stay here. I use AI chatbots a lot for all kinds of different stuff. And I just came across something delusional spiraling, which they've just discovered in AI chatbots. We'll talk about that in hour four. Really interesting. Wow. Plus, Canada's lost its damn mind. Join us for hour four. If you don't get hour four, you can't be here. Just grab it via podcast. You ought to follow us. Subscribe to Armstrong. You're getting on demand. A couple of quick notes so that I think are worth squeezing in. First of all, Jack, I'll bet you'll get this. I'm putting Jack on the spot. What is wrong with this sentence? It's a story about our good friends in Washington state who have their first ever income tax. It happens to start now with income over $1 million. Here's the sentence. Tell me what's wrong with this. The law signed by Governor Bob Ferguson creates an income tax for top earners beginning in 2028, the 9.9% tax, blah, blah, blah, income over $1 million and will be used to fund child care programs, free school meals, tax credits for working families, and tax breaks for small businesses. Well, I don't know. There's probably lots of things wrong with that. One of them would be what the money gets used for. It'll just go into a fund and get spent. I knew I could get on and money is fungible. Please, you can give me $1,000 and tell me it's for eating out with Judy. I might spend it on my wife eating out or on golf or spend less on golf because I got more over here. It's a money is fungible. Or a medical bill you just got hit with or whatever. Right, exactly. Oh my God. I swear that and everybody falls for it. That happens to be an article in the Wall Street Journal, if we're going to say. To be charitable to people, it's like Social Security. I think we make an assumption that it goes into a specific account that it can only be used for that purpose, but that's not the way money works. It's not the way you're so secure. Social Security is the greatest example of all. We all assume it's going into some sort of an account somewhere that is just for Social Security. No, it just goes into the general fund of money and it's getting used for the war and for social programs and for national hot dog day if there's some reason the federal government needs to spend money or whatever. And then when you retire, the federal government says, where the effer are we going to get the money for a Jags retirement? I guess we'll borrow it. That's the way it actually works. All right, moving along. I thought this was interesting. I'm super excited about Cuba. Nobody's talking about Cuba, the crumbling of the evil communist Castro regime and the prospect perhaps for reform there. I'm on fire for Cuba right now. I'm reading, listening to Cuba Libre. Fantastic freaking book about the rise of Fidel and Che and taking over the country and the before and after. It's so good. So anyway, Trump the other day, a little remarked upon, let a giant Russian tanker carrying 730,000 barrels of oil dock in a Northern Cuban port to bring a little relief to the fuel star of the island because he's got enough balls in the air with a plate spinning. What's the expression? It doesn't matter. There's so much going on with Iran right now. Cuba's regime is about to collapse and it looks like the Trump administration was saying, we can't deal with that right now. Oh, you think that's why they did it, to like keep the regime healthy for a little while? Well, yeah, that's the way White House officials said the move does not mark a policy change and the Trump administration is deciding on a case by case basis. Quote, Cuba's non-functional economy cannot be fixed unless they undergo dramatic political and leadership change, blah, blah, blah. But not now, not right now. That's the way I interpret it. And then maybe we can get to this next hour. Super, super wise article by, I think it's the nephew of Martin Luther King, Jr., Isaac Newton Ferris, Jr. You're not protesting like Dr. King. It's a very serious bit of writing and very eloquent. If you missed a segment, including about delusional spiraling and AI, get the podcast, Armstrong and Getty On Demand. Armstrong and Getty.