Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Shoe Getty arm Strong and get Ki and he Armstrong and Getty.
But he should have taken it serious in allowed the United States to engage. President Trump is the only one that could have prevented this war from taking place. And President Trump now is cleaning out the mess of Biden left behind and and President Trump will get it done. He will negotiate an end to this war. He wants to see the war ended, regardless of how that takes place.
He wants to see a win for Ukraine and a win for Russia at the same time, because there's a lose lose going on for both growth countries.
Right now.
People are dying, and the President said he wants people to stop dying.
As Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, friend of the Armstrong and Getty Show, we're in the stage of Trump communication where Trump says something outrageous and sometimes ridiculous, and then his allies reinterpret it for us in a more sane way.
And I want to talk about, you know, some of the things Trump said and done lately is they try to move toward a solution of the Ukraine Russian conflict specifically, but first a general discussion with Mike Lyons, military analyst to Mike served with various military organizations in both the US and Europe throughout his career and joints US. Now, Mike, how are you.
Good? Good?
Thanks for having me back.
Oh, it's always a pleasure, thank you. So before we get into some of the specifics of the Ukraine Russia thing right now, you're a student of history as we know it is, I think beyond question that there is a serious change in the chemistry the magnetic fields. However you want to describe it post World War Two, NATO and the Western Powers. Where would you start in you know, telling a class about that.
I'd start at nineteen eighty nine, nineteen ninety when the Soviet Union falls as the West completely screws up what happened of the Russian Empire back then? And you go back at that point, had you know, NATO wins the Cold War and Russian's bankrupt. Ronald Reagan a lot of it has to do with what he wanted to do with Russia and decides and the Soviet Union breaks up, and instead of managing that properly and making sure that the Russian Empire had zero chance of ever coming back again.
The West decided to bring countries into NATO one at a time or so over the course of the next thirty years since then, and thinking that that was going to be a stable way to go, as opposed to recognize not recognizing that you can't have every member of NATO to be everybody except Russia, because that's how the First World War started. So we're seeing now the effects of lack of NATO doing anything in six when Georgia
gets invaded. We're definitely seeing the effects of fourteen when Obama and Merkele does do nothing when Crimea is taken. And then very clearly Joe Biden when he was president, was the reason why Vladimir Putin decides to go after Ukraine. And now we're faced with a NATO that's disarmed on the continent that if not but for the United States nuclear umbrella, that the defenses don't happen.
The last twelve years.
Historians are going to look back at the European countries and say they had multiple warnings to rearm and remobilize their forces to put some kind of leverage behind any kind of military operations, and they didn't. And I think that's where we're at right now, and that's why the messag is being cleaned up.
Which leads me beautifully to the next topic I'm on to address, and that is I've been reading a lot about the domestic politics and economics a lot of the European countries now, particularly because several of them are having important elections. Virtually all of the biggies are. And it strikes me, whether you're talking about technology or the economy in general, the politics, the freedom of speech policies in Germany, which has been much discussed lately, it all feels like shrinking,
not growth. Europe just feels like a diminished force that's continuing to be diminished with few signs of life.
Yeah, And the thing is, we needed each of those individual countries to have their own individual leaders that had that same vision with regard to where they were going, but instead each of them have been more aligned with i'll just say, more liberal tendencies of unlimited immigration. The free speech conversation that's taking place in Germany right now
is appalling. I mean, what happened over with the sixty minutes interview and they're arresting people for putting memes on the Internet and then trying to equate that summer reason like because of free speech, that's why we had the Holocaust. I can't even connect these dots, or whoever thought they were going to get connected is just virtually insane at this point.
But what's happened is and then go back to Germany.
You know, they've they've gotten rid of all their nuclear energy power plants.
The world runs on energy.
You have to you can't have a country unless you have that, so they rely on Russia.
So you kind of bring all this together.
I saw a good quote the other day that talked about, you know, when the Roman Empire fell, it's not because of the elites, you know, didn't improve their their their cost of living, or didn't improve their their lifestyles. It fell because the barbarians had hatchets. And that's still the same for today. You've got to have a military presence and show leverage and show capability of doing things.
And all of those countries, to include England.
England is no less guilty in any of these countries right now, and they really risk Europe in particular England, France, Germany. Some of these countries really risk losing their cultures, losing everything that's about.
Them well, and every sign is that they have no inclination whatsoever to do the things that need to be done to fix it. In fact, the minute somebody suggests, for instance, hey, our welfare state is draining our coffers and we don't have the money to defend themselves, they get voted out of office. So I don't have a lot of hope. So let's get a little more specific about Ukraine and Russia. You can either address some of the incendiary things Trump has said lately or not. It's
up to you. But as the folks gather for various peace talks, how does the whole thing strike you overall?
Well, yeah, he said some outrageous things. Obviously, you know, the dictator here is Prutin, and Russia did invade Ukraine. It's unjustifiable, and the Russian aggression is something that has to be dealt with. The question is how what's the leverage that we can apply back in order to have them not do it again? And Trump's transactional view of this whole thing is it has to stop. Once it does stop, we create an armacist, but he's afraid of the same thing over and over again. We land European
troops there, we put American troops there. American troops will before this and they became really what will be a trip wire. I mean, again, I appreciate what the British Prime Minister was talking about sending troops to Ukraine.
I'd like to know exactly which troops.
There's less than one hundred thousand active duty troops that are in the UK Army right now, which is ridiculous for a country of that size for once was once a great power.
I mean, they might as well be Portugal, they might as well be you.
Know, some some mid Atlantic uh, you know, the Middle Eastern country right now. So so again, none of these countries have got really any capability to do this. But I think I think the question is I think we're going to get to the spot that everybody is you know, Pete Heiks that said the quiet part out loud. Russia will contain, will have the twenty percent of that they've kept, they'll likely keep CRIMEA, they will put up a border.
Lato won't be won't be bringing in Ukraine anytime soon, and they'll be lucky to get some some EU you know, kind of money they're going forward and to try to get the fighting to stop. I think that's where it's going to go, and that's that's where it should have went back when the first thing started four years ago, three years ago at this point.
And honestly, whatever's next is not going to play out in the next year. It's going to play out in the next thirty years. So we'll all find out together. Military analyst Mike Lyons online, Mike, we're really putting you through the paces today, and we appreciated another topic speaking of Pete Hegzeth and in Trump's order to take a serious look at the Pentagon, cut budgets, cut the fat.
What do you think of that in general? And you, as an experienced Pentagon hand, tell us about the efficiencies and inefficiency of the Pentagon.
Yeah, they go through this every once in a while. They've tried a couple of different administrations.
What you're seeing though, is Pete Heggsuff being very overly transparent.
He put about an eight minute video out.
Last night with regard to what that was going to be about, specifically left certain things out of its certain domains that won't be cut. But like anything else, there are things that are redundant within the Pentagon that it's an easy place for fivictoms to be built and for for kingdoms to kind of move forward as people try to stay in one location and don't change their jobs.
So I think he's looking to knock down some of those stilos.
Some of those stilos are calcified, I'll put it that way, in terms of where they don't talk and now eleven did actually a pretty good job of knocking those silos down when it came to information and communication, but they still get rebuilt and they still get re established, and
I think that's what Pete wants to do. Up He's up against a very strong momentum on the other side because there's people that are going to dig in pretty deeply and they're going to want to keep their victems and keep their dollars.
But when you think about if the Pentagon is the.
Most the largest discretionary budget that we have right now, and so if we can get some savings out of their ten percent, then I think that'll be a win, right.
And we have always said around here at the A and G Show that the kindest, best thing we can do for our actual fighting men and women is to ensure there's efficiency at the Pentagon. And the idea that scrutinizing the Pentagon or re ordering budgets to somehow weakening defense, I think is foolish. Final question, speaking of our military in these turbulent times, what do you see as our greatest strength right now as our forces exist? And what's your greatest concern or our greatest weakness.
I think our greatest strength remains this intangible of being an American.
I think anytime you see.
Americans in a situation where they have to rally and put themselves together, not just in the military, you see it in corporate America sometimes. But but there's this thing about being an American, which is why everybody wants to come here, why everybody.
Wants to be part of this thing.
When when when push comes to shove, when a mission has to get done, I remember, you know, my time in active duty, that that people would say, you know, this is we're going to get this done.
We're going to you know, look left and look right and take care of each other.
So I think our greatest strength is this tangible that runs in our DNA of of being an American and what that means and being on the high on the high ground and doing whatever it takes. I often think about, you know, I look at these videos and I watch the Russians leave their soldiers behind and things like that. I remember being in when I was at combat, thinking that, you know, you never see Americans surrender and things like that. So we have this intangible that's there, But then that
greatest strength is a weakness. If we still don't have the technology and don't have the equipment, and if we come up with somebody that has better, better kind of things, we're not going to no matter no matter how great that intangible is, it's not going to overcome that. So we still have to have military might, we have to have material might, and be able to put our money where our mouth is.
I think those are the two biggest things.
Right, And that's so perfect. I was just going to interject it. In reading about Germany and the elections and that sort of thing, a German analyst was saying, what really weakens us and strengthens the Americans is that we have a culture of we'd better be careful, we'd better not Here are the things that can be wrong, that could go wrong. Rather, whereas the Americans have a spirit of let's try it and see what happens, learn from
it and go from there. And yeah, if we ever lose that including technologic as you're saying, and you know, we're screwed. Uh. Military analyst Mike Clons Mike, great to talk to you. Thanks so much for the time.
Yeah, thank you, thanks for having me.
Absolutely. Coming up in just a moment or two, a couple of interesting perspective studies I've come across in the last few days about the technical world, what it's doing to our brains, and how to unplug from it. I think you'll find it interesting.
Stay with us, very stars.
What's that for?
Call future done it again inside the Tady garden.
Well, look back on that moment and understand that's what started the Great Canadian American War Canada viciously and unprovokedly is that a word, Uh, scoring against our poor goalie in overtime and brutally winning the hockey game, which did not start with a bunch of fights. By the way, I was hanging out with my buddy Gordy, who is a former elite hockey player, not quite NHL, but very very good hockey player and still as part of the world of sports. And I said, hey, they're going to
be a bunch of fights to the night. And he said, no, no, no, no, too important a game. It'll come out just win. Scores have been settled. Now let's play hockey. And he was absolutely right. He also pointed out that hockey is the only sport where there are absolutely rock solid rules unwritten but you cannot violate. About fighting. You watch an NBA fight, guys are are sucker punching each other and punching each
other from behind and swinging wildly like lunatics. In hockey, you tell the guy we're fighting, he says, yes, you drop your gloves, you slug each other in the head. If you can, you can't. It's very hard to fight on ice. If you've never tried it, don't, but trust me when I tell you it's very difficult, especially when somebody's grabbing your jersey and pulling it up and the rest of it. The minute anybody's getting hurt, the referees
dive in and break it up. And the minute anybody goes to the ice, the other guy says, oh, it's over, and they back off. You'll never see an NHL player like pounding another guy who's down. They just don't. It's very honorable. It's like the dueling culture thing we were talking about yesterday. You don't have to be in favor of it. But it's not like straight thugs beating each other to death on the pavement or anything like this. Very very different than that. It's a gentlemanly punching another
man in the face. Anyway, I thought this was good, interesting, thought provoking because I worry about this all the time, not just for the younger generation, although I certainly do, but also about myself, and that is our addiction to the endorphin bursts of in put after input after input from smartphones in particular, technology in general. Here's a story about how popular these unplugged nights are among young Brits.
Offcom is the name of the organization. They unplug and they get together for offline nights, they call them, and they do whatever, whether it's drinking or dancing or even playing games or whatever, just talking to each other, no tech allowed. Katie joins us, Yeah, I love this idea. Yeah, yeah,
me too. And they you know, anybody old enough to remember this doesn't need a description, but they mentioned one group that was playing games and scattered around the room table stacked with board games is an excited hum echoed around the walls. Here's this twenty five year old engineer that he found leaving his phone at the door, freeing. I didn't realize the addiction. Then too often I feel the urge to look at my phone and scroll. He
talked about fomo, but this is growing in popularity. I don't know if it will achieve any sort of critical mass, but it's definitely a response to what we're all feeling. I think. And then this, which is of similar content obviously, but a big study out multiple universities across the USA and Canada worked with hundreds and hundreds of iPhone users, average age thirty two to test how we're moving Constant
internet access would affect their daily lives. And I'll squeeze in the analysis real quickly as we look forward to a chat with Lanhi Chen in just a moment or two about domestic policy. Blocking mobile internet for two weeks led to mental health improvements with an effect size larger than typically seen in antidepressant studies. Improved sustained attention comparable to reversing ten years of age related decline and increased well being in ninety one percent under participants in at
least one key area. There's more to it, and we'll dip back into it. But it's like better for depression than drugs and better for memory than being ten years younger. Holy cow, stay with us, Lanhi chennext, Armstrong and Getty.
Cut jobs, save the government money, sant Americans a check for the difference. That's the Trump plan being floated at least, But is it realistic? Is it feasible? And might it hurt your wallet more than it would help?
Where He's gone too far?
A slim majority using presidential power fifty two percent say he's gone too far There cutting federal programs.
Fifty one percent of Americans say gone too far. This is the.
Chainsaw for bureaucracy, turns off change saw a variety of opinions and thoughts there having to do with domestic policy, budget cutting, bureaucracy taming, et cetera, which is one of the major initiatives going on in the Trump administration right now.
Who better to discuss this with than Lanhi Chen, David and Diane Steffi fellow in American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution and the Director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University Lanai.
How are you great to be with you?
How are you just terrific? Thank you. Earlier in the show, we were comparing and contrasting the democratic reaction to a lot of the cutting and restructuring and examining the giant bureaucracy, which has been essentially any cuts are a horror in a constitutional crisis, with Lincoln's statement that we absolutely have the right to amend to reconstruct and you know he didn't say this supposedly, but cut or grow government in the way we the people see fit.
It's quite a contrast, it is, And I would just say this, I mean, I think there is a fair amount of hysteria over some of the activity that we're seeing, and the effort I think that's underway by some in the media is to try and define some of these cuts as existential. We're deeply problematic. So let's just step back and take a look at one of them that they talk about. For example, the IRS. This is one
of my favorite ones. The IRS has reached record levels of staffing in the last couple of years, and they have significantly expanded their workforce. So they went from about seventy thousand employees to one hundred thousand employees over the course of a couple of years. Now, the cuts that DOZE is talking about sixty eight hundred employees, we're talking about sixty eight hundred probationary recent hires that they're looking to essentially trim from the IRS bureaucracy. We're talking about
between six to seven percent of the workforce. And it doesn't even account for this significant, as I said, increase in the workforce we've seen recently. So people just need to look at the facts and try to figure out exeguly what's going on here, because fundamentally there is this notion and that well, no, we can't cut anything. This is going to cause a degradation of service. Look, the
service of the IRS wasn't all that great before. So the notion that we have this challenge that's being created because of the things that government is doing, the things that DOGE is doing in particular, it's just not true.
Well, and the idea that to even autit something is improper or threatening is just it's it's obscenely backward. One of the things Kim Strassel's writing about is how the Trump administration is taking a serious look at the agencies that Congress created to perform executive functions, Like, well, they administer laws, but they're free from the executive branches control.
It's like Congress created its own executive branch. And any thoughts on where we are as a country with that, and what are the chances of doing something about it.
Yeah, that's another great question, because you've got a whole host of agencies that are they're called into pendent agencies, right, they're created Usually they end in a B or a C so commission or board, and these are the organizations that essentially are part of the executive branch, but they
have some independent authority. So they've got, for example, board members or commission members who are appointed by a president for a set amount of time, confirmed by the Senate, and they're supposed to sit for that set amount of time. And the idea was, well, you've got some of these institutions that are supposed to create some separation from the
rest of the executive branch. And this doesn't make a whole lot of sense though at some level, And so what this administration, what the Trump administration is now trying to do, is to say, for example, hey, if you, as a commission, a supposedly independent commission, issue a new regulation something that you're saying people can or cannot do, you need to take that regulation and you've got to run it through the White House. We've got to know what it is that you're doing, even as a quote
independent agency. I don't think that's unreasonable, right, because the independent agency has elements of independence. We understand that because they're regulating, let's say, for example, whether a merger can go through or not. But at core, what the White House is saying is, if you're going to regulate, we
have to know about it. And again, this is one of those things where there's been a lot of writing in the media, a lot of misunderstanding, this notion of Trump's trying to take over the entire bureaucracy, when the reality is there's certain things here that independent agencies, for example, been doing for a long time where we probably do need a little more political oversight. And so, you know, people again just got to understand what the real story is versus what the media is reporting.
Sure, and we've been plenty harsh about the unchecked growth of executive power and how the gigantic executive branches come to be. In many ways, it mimics all three branches. It writes rules and laws like Congress, then it enforces them like the executive branch, I guess, and then decides on your fines. And here's the appeals and everything, like the judicial branch. And so obviously it needs to be
looked at. And the other aspect of this that has never talked about in the media is that the president, as for instance, they're howling that Elon Musk is unelected, you know, like the president's virtually the only person in the executive branch who is elected. But the idea that a huge chunk of the executive branch wouldn't be answerable to the voters at all, except, like, you know, three steps down the line. While I fear unchecked executive power.
If the executive is in charge, they can do good things and be rewarded with reelection or their party or reelection. But if they do bad things, they can be voted out. Right now, if the giant, sprawling executive branch does bad things, what the hell do I do about it?
Well, This is the most important thing that people don't realize, which is that there is actually check on what the executive branch can do. And that's Congress.
Right.
If Congress actually did its job and was functional as opposed to just being a bunch of people running around yelling all the time. If Congress actually yeah, if Congress actually functioned the way Congress is supposed to function, that's your check on the executive branch, right, that's your check on what the executive is doing. They have the oversight power.
They can have hearings, they can run legislation, they can do all sorts of stuff to constrain if they're really worried about if Chuck Schumer and Democrats and the have Hakeem Jeffreyes and all the rest, if they're really worried about what the executive branch is doing, if they're worried about what those is doing, they have the ability in Congress to try and work together with Republicans there to
figure out a way to conduct oversite. They can conduct oversite on their own, by the way, they don't need Republicans to do it necessarily. So the idea that there's no check on the executive first of all, you're right, the voters can set a check. But more importantly, Congress needs to do its job, and Congress completely seated the playing field in a lot of waste the executive. This is not a Trump problem. This happened during the Biden administration,
has happened during Obama. That the Congress has just gotten less and less willing to do its job. And that's problem.
Is it just that if they're not on the record having done anything, they can't be blamed for anything going wrong. Where does this cowardice, laziness, whatever it is come from.
Well, part of it is that the incentives for members of Congress are really different now than they work for you know.
Now it's all about.
How many likes can I get on social media, how can I generate a following on social media? How can I do all of that, as opposed to you know, where I think there were members of Congress that did the hard work of actually trying to get things done. You know, I think it's been a few decades since we've really seen a lot of that activity. But I think part of it is the incentive structure has changed.
And then part of it is, you know, unfortunately I do think we're electing in a lot of places more extreme members of Congress who are really more interested in advancing ideology than actually passing legislation and getting the done. Now, some of that's the reflection of us as the American people, becoming more more polarized and more ideological in some ways.
But overall, I do think that the composition of Congress, the nature of Congress who were sending to Congress, all of these things have impacted quite frankly, Congress's ability to do its job and congress members of Congress's willingness to do their job.
Wow, that's a big and that's a big and we don't really have time to talk about how to reform our entire primary process. Yeah, and the rest of it. Actually, you know what I was going to ask, and I'm debating, can you hang on for a few minutes through a break?
Yeah?
Absolutely, Okay, because what I was going to ask, because folks like me and perhaps you are more than willing to geek out on the you know, the inside baseball structural stuff a government and then forget to explain what a success reigning in the giant bureaucratic state would look like to real human beings in their lives. So why don't we take a break, catch our breath, and let's talk about what it would look on look like on
main Street. If that sounds good to you, be here, beautiful Lanhi Chen of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, more to come. Thank you for tuning in, Armstrong and Getty here. Jack is off for today, but we're pleased to have terrific guests like Lanhi Chen of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Alanhi,
thanks for hanging around. We really appreciate it. And so for folks just tuning in especially, we've been talking about and a lot of this has gone on unnoticed or untalked about by many people in the media in the midst of Trump cutting, you know, transgender polo matches for
Dubai or whatever the heck. A lot of the serious looking at and rejiggering the administrative state, all these commissions and boards and making everybody go through all the rules and see if any of the rules violate the Constitution, exceed legislative power, go beyond the clear words of the Congressional Statute, harm the national interest, a stripping down of the gigantic administrative state, and those of us who've been
praying for that sort of thing are super excited. But as I said before the break lawn, he can we help understand, help people understand rather how that helps their lives, you know in everywhere America.
Well, look, we want an effective and efficient government, right and obviously everyone wants government to do things that's supposed to do. But when you have I think there's a couple of issues. One is when you have government that's grown so big and particularly has so many people that it becomes kind of a constituency in and of itself, right, that it becomes about defending the institution, which really means making sure that nothing ever changes. What you end up with, fortunately,
is a situation where government doesn't have to improve. I mean, let's just compare that to a minute to let's just think about a business.
Right.
If you think about a business, the reason why businesses improve, really the only reason why they improve is because of competition. And you've got a marketplace where you've got different businesses competing for people's support and for people's business, and that ends up forcing them to improve and to change and to evolve. Think about government for a minute. What forces government to change and evolve and get better. The answer is nothing on a regular basis unless you apply some
sort of pressure. There is no competition. There's no other government out there that's going to do national security, that's going to do processing to make sure that we have clean air and clean water. That you don't have that unless you apply some political pressure on government to do better. And that is fundamentally why we need to think about some of these changes that are going on. You know, are some of them unorthodox, Are some of them going
to raise eyebrows? Sure, but fundamentally, the only way government gets better is if you apply some pressure on it to be more efficient and more effective. And by the way, here's another thing, Joe, that really drives me nuts is transparency. If you look at, for example, in California where I'm sitting, the lack of transparency we have into what government is doing and spending money on is remarkable. And at the
federal level we've got some similar issues. It's not as bad as it is in California, But why can't we, as the people who fund government, have a better idea of what government's spending our money on. This is something that's always drove me. Thats is why I ran for controller several years ago. It's why I continue to believe we've got to push this transparency message because if we don't know what government is doing, it can ever get better.
We can't ever make it do the things that's supposed to do, and instead it ends up doing things that after the fact we read about it, we're like, what our money's been going to?
What?
Because no one was able to see along the way where all that money was going. So anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, but I really think transparency is hugely important.
Well so, and how that lands on main street though is number one. We're not being stolen from and our tax money merely distributed to cronies. That is what I would like very much. But secondly, wouldn't we see less regulation therefore more efficient economic growth and change and that sort of thing and rising wages? I just think I think scaling back the administrative state would have a specific material benefit to average Americans wherever they are.
Well, yeah, I mean, look aside from people getting better service and having a government that's more responsive. You're right, I mean, not to get too wonky about this, but there is always this worry about government crowding out the private sector, and what that means is that the government becomes so big that it starts to make it difficult for you know, private entrepreneurs and small business owners to
do what they're doing. And the more debt we take on, the more people are going to have to pay in taxes to pay off debt. And why we why do we carry debt? We carry debt to have a bigger government. And so yeah, there is a real impact for people on main street, and that is that if government gets bigger, taxes go up and people pay more because we have to pay more to support the mechanism of government that's
been created. So there is a direct effect on our pocketbooks and something that that people.
Need to be aware of. And just you know, a personal example. I've been very fortunate, Jack and I have done well in this business. I'm reasonably financially comfortable, but my taxes are breathtaking. And if I were not paying those taxes like that, It's not like I would go out and buy a yacht. I would love to invest
in smart people with great ideas. That's what I would do if I was not spending X amount of money on taxes and help them grow their businesses and hire a bunch of people and to get start an insurance plan and the rest of it. So yeah, the idea that government crowds out free enterprise and private enterprise is
absolutely true. So Alanie, we appreciate the time and thoughts anything else on what the Trump administration is doing domestically that's got you excited or you're feeling really good about.
Well, Joe, I mean, look, I think the some of the stuff that the doge is doing in terms of right sizing government, I think that's long overdue, quite frankly. But what I would also say is we've got a president. I mean, whether you like what he's doing or not, he's doing something okay, And I think that that is fundamentally what in many ways in our in our country, we feel like we've been lacking this. We've been lacking
this kind of leadership and direction. And we can have a real debate about whether all of these things are right or wrong, whether we like everything that's happening, whether we think the direction that's that the US is taking
around the world is the right one. But fundamentally, we have an action oriented executive branch and an action oriented government, and maybe we can kind of wake everyone up and sort of say, listen, there's some things that have to get done here, and there's some ways in which we need to push forward to improve our country. And I just think that we can have a real debate over these things and this level of activity and action that is truly exciting to be and you know, let's see where it goes.
Lanhi Chen of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Lonie is always a pleasure. Thanks so much for the time.
Yep, great to be with you. Thank you.
Likewise, thanks and to Chuck Schumer and those who have been denigrating the Supreme Court and talking about how it's illegitimate and the rest of it. The plan is all the stuff we've been talking about to really look at the foundations of the giant, obese Washington Colossus and dragged
to the Supreme Court. Questions like these commissions and boards and departments of since they're no longer doing what Congress told them to do and they're not accountable to the executive agent, the executive branch, can we end them or how can we trim them and restructure them? And if it runs a foul of any constitutional principles we have, thank God and Trump. Frankly, we have a lot of constitutionalist judges who are very, very protective of the bones
of the Constitution, the original intents of the Constitution. So I think it's the perfect circumstance. We've got an agent of change and agents of stability that are going to work together to make the government better for all of us. Hey la hey, law I love it. Stay with us, Armstrong and Getty