From the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Show Getty Armstrong and Jetty Show glut Man, it's one of the sins. You realize, it's sin, gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins. Right, it's not just a sin, not a heir. I wish you wouldn't do that. It's to death. So it's not only just bad for you, it's a sin. God does not like God. Glutten me was displeased with me? Yeah, me too. I'm speaking to myself. Let's let's just tone
down the gluttony. I ate the last big plateful of mashed potatoes, gravy, turkey and stuffing last night, and let's just tone her down a little bit. Maybe something a little light tonight. Yeah, let's let's walk away from the Let's walk away from the table and not wabble away from the table for the first time in four days. How much apple Chris is enough? I'm asking myself, not you. Oh it's so good though, warmed up a little ice cream. Oh, there were references to how my gallbladder gave up on
me last year, and I'm running out of organs. It quit and walked out the Great Resigning or whatever they call that. Uh. So, here's here's a young man who's slim and find a physical condition not to mention a sharp mind. And that's Tim Sandford, Tim the lawyer. Tim Sandford is the vice president for Litigation for the Goldwater Institute, author of many fine tomes, including some of my favorites, The Right to Earn a Living and the Permission Society. Uh and and also a brand new book, which we'll
talk to him about in a couple of minutes. But Tim, how are you welcome? I don't know, man, I think I may have indulged in a little of that gluttony myself over Thanksgiving. Yes, I know you're not frightened by your maker, but it's not always the best health for all we went to. We we spent Thanksgiving in Hawaii. So I am I am now officially with the Hawaiian's called a pa or pig gorged myself at the lou House.
So hey, by the way, I saw that post on your Twitter, and you and your and that your wedding anniversary and the picture of you and Christine on the couch is a Simpsons drawing where'd you come up with that? That was awesome? I don't know. My wife contacted the artist and got that done Simpson's style portrait of our family sitting on the Simpsons couch. It's absolutely perfect. Well on my law. That is so cool. Wow, that is a cool gift. Yeah. Indeed, so, Tim, we have a
lot of stuff to talk to you about. A couple of big cases, one that you've been working on personally, and then your new book is out and we want to talk to you about that. But let's let's first bring the gabble down and talk about the cases. Now. For instance, you're working on an Indian Child Welfare Act case. We've talked to you about it, but for folks not familiar with it, give them the thumbnail sketch if you would.
That's a federal that that that law is a federal law that says how states have to treat child welfare cases like abuse and neglect and adoption and foster care if a child is biologically eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. So it draws this biological distinction between kids and says that states have to treat these Indian children differently.
And what's amazing about it is. It says they have to treat these Indian children worse because this law actually overrides the best interest of the child rule, which is the rule that governs how these kinds of cases are dealt with, and it forces state officials to send Indian children back to abused homes in situations that would not happen if the kids were white or Black, or Asian or Hispanic or whatever. And as a result, this law has led to the preventable murder of Indian children across
the country in case after case after case. So we've been challenging the constitutionality of this law, and that case went to the U. S. Supreme Court and was argued a couple of weeks ago. I went out to d C to to attend these oral arguments. The very exciting thing to witness, well, it was what's the argument for the status quo? Because it sounds horrifically racist, it really is.
But the reasoning behind it at the time was actually they thought they were doing a good thing because in the decades that preceded its passage, which was the states and federal officials, they had been engaged in this pro program of purposely taking Indian children away from their families in order to forcibly assimilate them with white society. And so that that was like that, you know, taking kids
away from their families for no good reason. And so they said, well, how can we stop this from happening? So they passed as law intending to put an into that, but as almost seems to almost always happen, the government went too far the other direction and ended up passing a law that actually prohibits states from protecting these children nowadays. In many cases, Wow, that's just the results are unthinkable, and just the logic strikes or the lack of logic
is so troubling. Um. But so that it's in argued, and you know, it's difficult to say how it went. But how did it go? Oh, it went pretty well, it was. It was four hours of oral argument, which is incredibly low. I mean, that's like nineteenth century style, back when they used to take all day, and the justices were all very attentive to the very complicated constitutional questions here, because it's not just that it's race based, it's also what are the limits between federal and state authority?
And what are the what do the regulations say there's a lot of parts of the law that actually aren't defined, so nobody really knows what some of these terms mean and things. So it went back and forth. There were some really good arguments on both sides. I'm optimistic. I think that the argument went pretty well for US. I'm predicting it will be a five four. I think it'll
be close, but I think it. I'm optimistic that this case is going to to declare this law unconstitutional and forced Congress to say, look, with regard to children's race, we need to prioritize their best interests. You can't say, you know, like this law basically prohibits white adults from adopting Indian children. Children who are in need, don't They're not interested in color lines. They need protection and help.
And this law is a law that says that even when there are adults willing to help children in need, they're not allowed to if they're the wrong race. And that's really outrageous. How much of the oral arguments was that new Chatty Supreme Court justice just talks too much? Yeah, there there was a little bit of that. It wasn't too much, but you know, after four hours, I think we were also exhausted that when actually it was funny that Chief Justice said, thank you, the case is submitted,
which means everybody's done well. One of the lawyers had not had his chance to to finish up his argument, so he stood there with this funny look on the stays until the Chief Justice said, oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, and he went up to the podium and he said, I take the hint, your honor, and you could be yeah, wow, wow, Okay. Let's talk about another case that I was asking about a few weeks ago. Uh, that had to do with in forcing laws against public camping, blocking sidewalks, etcetera. In Phoenix.
As you know, every need not be reset. But everybody in every blue city in the country and some of the Purple cities is dealing with this horrific influx of
of junkie camps everywhere. What's that case about. Yeah, Unfortunately, Phoenix is now the location of one of the largest homeless encampments in the country, over a thousand people who are living in what we call the zone on several blocks of downtown Phoenix intens and on the streets because of a city policy to refuse to enforce laws against vagrancy and camping and pollution and these sorts of things, and as a result, it's destroying the businesses in the area.
These people who are trying to run a business in these several blocks that are now being occupied by the homeless are they're they're finding that they can't have they can't hire people to work in these businesses, they can't protect the safety of their employees. They can't even protect their own businesses from from from arson. There these people of setting fires to stay warm now that it's getting colder.
And one person testified at a recent hearing that he had to have all the wheel the windows in the building sealed because of all the urine soaking into the to the place where he works because of these homeless encampments. So several business owners have filed suit in the state courts here challenging that the city's maintenance of a public nuisance. A nuisance is, you know, when you use your property
in a way that damages somebody else's property. And the government is not allowed to run a nuisance anymore than anybody else's. And by maintaining this homeless encampment now for for a couple of years now and and basically attracting this this element to the community to destroy people's property. The city is engaged in a nuisance. Now, unfortunately, we had a hearing several weeks ago and then the case got reassigned to a new judge. So now we have
to have another hearing next week. Uh seeking a court order commanding the city to start enforcing its own laws. Well, obviously this could have far reaching consequences if it goes the correct way. To my mind, I don't know where you draw the line at nuisance, but maybe that would finally be the way you break up these camps. Right, that's that's right. And in fact, there is one precedent
already in place. Remember when when uh, I think it was Portlands, they were operated what they called chairs or chop or whatever the the yeah, yeah, to set up this autonomous community zone in the middle of the city and refused to enforce the law there. As a result, a lot of people suffered their their property was being destroyed and taken away from so they sued the city and the federal court allowed that case to go forward, saying that that was a taking of their property without
due process of law. So there is precedents on the book that says that when the government just completely washes its hands of its obligation to enforce the law and protect people's property rights, then it can be liable for depriving people of their constitutional rights. Yeah, that's interesting, cause I know I know business owners who feel like they can't They don't get near the as many customers as they would normally get because it's so hard to get
to the front door. And what's so frustrating for us the largely law abiding is that they're violating sewage laws, they're violent and camping laws, they're violating drug use laws, and just there's a lack of political will, or I should putting in the affirmative, there's a political will to ignore the law. Unlicensed dogs off leash. I mean, it's endless. Refusing to enforce the laws against pollution. It's illegal in Arizona to pollute the public waterways. Well, this zone is
within walking discnse of the Salt River. People are urinating and defecating on the streets and the sidewalks, and that when it rains that runs off into the river. Well, no private party would be allowed to do that in the city. Isn't allowed to do that either. How it's kind of surprised when you said it's been going on for years, because when you first set a thousand people, I thought, well, can't you just wait till summer and will kind of take care of itself. But it's been
going on for years. How do you How do you stay in one of those places in the summertime? Good? I can't imagine. And of course in the winter, they're gonna start setting even or fires than they currently are, which sets fires to the tents out of the time and starts to burn down the buildings. And we're talking about these buildings. Are these these tents are basically situated between the main campus of Arizona State University and the
state Capitol building in Phoenix. So you're talking about places we would really rather not have violent crime and arson going on. Tim Sandford's vice president for litigation in the Goldwater Institute. If you just missed our conversation with him about a couple of really interesting cases grabbed via podcast later, I'm strong and getting on demand. But now let's move on to his brand new book, Freedom's Furies. How Isabel Patterson, Rose Wilder Lane and Mine Rand found liberty in an
Age of Darkness. Uh, it's ladies night, tim Sanderford's word processor. What inspire Well, I it's just I have always thought it was a really interesting story that these three women in the year nineteen forty three, each of them published books that basically started the modern libertarian movement. And turns out that they knew each other and we're friends, and
they were all very interesting people. Rose Wilder Lane, for example, basically ghost wrote the Little House on the Prairie novels with her mother, Laura Ingalls Wilder, and of course rand started a philosopical philosophical movement that was very influential. She had been born in the Soviet Union and escaped to the United States as a young woman to to get
away from Stalin's Russia. And Patterson is not very well known, but in during her lifetime she was the most influential book critic, probably in a in in New York City, and a very powerful voice. And the three of them together, they were friends and and they decided to kind of push back against the New Deal. And so I decided to write a little bit about them, and it turned into a book that's more on the literary and political history of the New Deal and of their own writing
in their own careers than anything else. UM. I like the books pushing back against the New Deal because you know, it's regularly hailed in mainstream media's an obviously good thing for everyone in the country. UM how did how did they define their political views? I mean, what was the what were the main tenants of their political view? They consider themselves individualists, so they didn't really use the word libertarian.
Um Rand particularly hated the word libertarians. They considered themselves radicals for capitalism. That is, they were kind They were a kind of liberal in the sense that they were in favor of liberating individuals, which is what liberals used
to mean. But they thought the best way to liberate individuals was through the free market, to let people do their own thing and only bring that have the government become involved if people start violating each other's rights by taking their stuff away or beating them up or whatever. They didn't believe in government as a savior or a protector figure. And I think that's part of the reason
why they're being women. Was relevant because Patterson and Lane were born in six so they were in their thirties when the women got the right to vote in America, and so they they were very familiar with the way that being protected, or she did from from the the harsh things in life, is really a euphemism for taking
people's freedom away from them. And of course, rand you know, in the Soviet Union, they have been promised, oh well, where government is going to oversee an era of utopia and plenty, and she of course witnessed personally how that actually worked out, so that I think they were especially sensitive to the idea that being protected means taking your
freedom away. Interesting especially because it's it's fairly indisputable that when women gained the right to vote, sympathy in chreased a great deal for a more mommy ish government, a more caretaker government. That was certainly their view. That was certainly what Patterson thought. Patterson thought that she was very, very a kind of a cynical personality, and she thought that when the New Deal came along, the masculine virtues
all basically disappeared. And she late in her life she used to say, I grew up in a in a in a world where men were men. But she thought that that with with the coming of Franklin Roosevelt and the bureaucratic state that is supposed to protect everybody. That men just vanished from the earth, and what we were left with was guys who were just begging for favors and protection instead. And it disgusted her Lane. Of course, she grew up on the Western Frontier. She grew up
on the prairie. She hated it so much that she moved to Albania to get away from it. But she grew up in the West, and so she knew what it was from her parents and her grandparents, what it was, what what masculine virtues were necessary to settle the Western frontier. And Rand had this idea of what masculine virtue meant of, of being bold and uncompromising, self reliant and so forth, and she thought that was being undermined by the New Deal.
So they all, they all thought the American character of boldness and enterprises being destroyed by government intervention. That's fantastic. I love that. I promise I will read this book. And I, like I said, I love any pushback against the idea that the New Deal was just overwhelmingly positive for America. So the title is Freedom's Furies. How Isabel Patterson Rosewild? Their Lane nine Rand found Liberty and Age of Darkness will have a link at Armstrong and Getty
dot com so you can find it easily. Tim, We apologize, but we're up against a heartbreak and must bid you a fond Do you appreciate your time though, Thanks guys. Yeah, it's always great to talk. Thanks Tom. Yeah, you run into that all the time in mainstream media, that the the new Deal, you know, that's that's what that's what Biden should do. That's what you should do. This out of the Darkness art Strong and Getty