04-23-26 Part Two -Trump And Spirit Airlines

Now, it's Red Eye Radio, Gary McNamara, and Eric Hurley,

“talk about everything from politics to social issues and news of the day,”

whether you're up late or you're just starting your day. Welcome to the show from the Relief Factor Studios. This is Red Eye Radio. All across America, we are Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Hurley and I'm Gary McNamara. Good morning. All right, you and I just discussing during the top of our right before.

The scuttled but that the administration wishes to bail out spirit airlines.

And we have said absolutely not what's being thrown out there is 500 million

for up to 90% government equity in spirit airlines. No, no, no and hell no. No, I don't want the taxpayer investing in what appears to be a losing business model. We don't want the taxpayer investing in airlines or grocery stores. But it's exactly, it's because you'll think about that and then the Democrats get in to power

and they come in to go, well, Mr. Trump agreed. Maga agreed. The government should own certain business. We should have equity in businesses. No, no, no and hell no. By the way, if you notice that when the president's done any of the other equity deals, you don't have, you don't see any support in the Republican Party for that.

No, you don't. Now in this one because he's good with the loan would have to be approved by Congress. Unless he would use the Defense Production Act, some of the speculated that he might use that.

The Defense Production Act to claim that the airline is critical to national defense.

However, as has been noted, spirit accounts for less than 2% of domestic travel capacity and is not essential for military readiness in the United States.

“So if he did that, the courts would challenge that. Why he wishes to do this?”

What spark in his head to say, yeah, I think this would be a good idea. I have no idea. I don't know. I don't know. It's beyond me, but I do not see Congress passing this. No, no, I don't see that happening. One of the things that is hurting the Republican Party and part of it is Trump doing right things, which is the war,

which I think is the correct thing to do if we finish the job or it's an airtight agreement that we get. And there's still a long way to go there is what we see right here with the let's bail out spirit airlines. You have so many of the populace, not us. We didn't vote for Trump because we believed he would give us something. No, you know, we weren't saying that, you know, we need to stop all foreign, you know, all of foreign aid and give it to us.

We understand the concept of a foreign aid and how little that is of the actual budget there. There are a lot of other reasons that we voted for Trump, but it was not that we were looking for a handout from our side. But one of the things that Trump was elected in is people have said, Trump cares about United States citizens. He cares about us, you know, before anything. Well, you start bailing out air, fail airlines.

Democrats are going to pound on you. He is giving, you know, half a billion dollars of alone.

That the taxpayer would be because if they go belly up, the taxpayer owns that. Exactly. And the Democrats would have viscerate. Will have viscerate him and the Republicans of the Republic. I don't think you're going to find a Republican that would agree with this.

Unless it's the the Congress person in the spirit airlines hub. Well, maybe, you know, but besides that, I just don't. You're not going to get a Republican on board. I have no idea why this intrigues him so much. Why this is even talked about or even mentioned or even the possibility of it.

“But if they're negotiating to do something on this, what the hell are wrong with you?”

Yeah, it's I, again, I don't see this happening because I don't see this going getting through Congress.

And it's not the first time we've heard it.

Tell me how that's a good move.

“You know, it's, it's, honestly, it's right.”

Look, we've talked about how liberals would love to take over the means of production. They would love to take over companies. Now, Trump does it. Of course, they're going to scream bloody murder about it. But then they're going to down the road if he were to get this done.

They look at it. Oh, well, he wanted to take over companies. I think it's okay. It should be okay. Why can't we do it?

And the fact is, is that there is a solution here. And I don't know if that is. I will say it is, it is either spirit goes away or there's an acquisition or there's a merger. It's a very tough business to be in. The airlines business is extremely difficult.

Building it on this discount level.

The way spirit did was always in question.

People wonder, well, can you actually make it fly, so to speak? Are you going to actually be able to keep this thing afloat with discount prices? And the fact is, you've got to be competitive.

“But there are costs that you have to cover and you can't maintain a profit without that.”

They have to be in business to make a profit. And if they can't make that profit, then they go out of business. Hey there, I'm Paula Pan. I help people make the smartest money decisions possible. You're not ever worried about your salary.

You need enough to make sure that you don't in a bad financial position. Once you have that, your salary becomes moot. What matters from that point forward? Upside games. Any type of ownership stake or ownership potential.

That's the money. Remember, you can afford anything, just not everything. A forward anything. Follow-and-listen on your favorite platform. You know, where I looked at social media yesterday and just everywhere.

I didn't see one Republican come out in favor of this. No one. I didn't see one. Every single Republican has condemned this. And of course, Democrats aren't going to be for it.

You're bailing out. You're bailing out the fat cat, not taking care of the people you claim to care about. Right. Is what they're going to do if you decided to do this. Right.

That would be the political narrative from the Democrats. But the fact that he didn't read the T-Leaves on what Republicans think about this. Universal condemnation and let it go anywhere to this particular point. And if they were all rumors should have said immediately, no, absolutely not. But he started it.

He got it going. Yeah. And it was like, what are you doing? Doesn't make any sense at all. No.

Doesn't make any sense. Sense at all. But that's what you knew it. We went to social media. Every single Republican that commented on it in in Congress.

So I just was reading Ted Cruz absolutely not. Yeah. You're not going to get this by Republicans. No. And Democrats aren't going to do it.

And if you try to use it as, you know, and you see what is the defense act. Whatever it is. What it's called and say spirit that we need to do this.

Because spirit airlines is critical for military readiness.

You're going to lose that lawsuit. Yeah. You will. And it's not a, again, there's no. There's no way to convince.

Any true conservative that this is a good move. There is. Or populist. I don't know where you justify it. Yeah.

You can't, you can't convince the populist inside the Republican party. And this is a good idea because it's not like a private sector move where you go in and say, OK, I could buy a dog of a company that I believe I can turn around. Because at that point, there are considerations for, and there's a reason why a lot of times it doesn't happen in the private sector is because you're dealing with your own

“money or money that you have to leverage, which means you have to convince banks,”

investors in order to get that. You have to justify that at every point, either with yourself or the investors and banks along the way or all the above. With a government, you're spending other people's money.

investor himself, but it is not anything like the private sector investment considerations.

“You have to convince, again, banks if you're going to leverage, or you have to go through”

great thought to determine and go through the books of the company you're going to buy to

determine whether there's anything salvageable and where the critical mistake was.

And if you talk about, well, their mistake was being discounted on their pricing. Okay, so now you're going to raise prices and make them less competitive. Now, now how does spirit stand out? There's a reason why it hasn't happened in the private sector today. But it's going to happen, let the private sector handle this or let them go away.

Again, don't want to, I hate to see people lose their job. But it happens when companies aren't run in a good way. And don't have a sound business model.

“It just, it and also headwinds you look at the cost of fuel right now.”

Because you've got to raise the cost of those seats when that fuel goes up. There's no way around that. Yeah, you saw United. Yeah, like 25% yeah, it has to be up up to 25%. Yeah, it has to happen.

Well, that hurts a discount and he discount retailer. In this case, a discount airline company that hurts them because, again, their prices are going up. Well, and the other fear is to once you own the airline and if it is going to go. It's going to go bankrupt and it's not your money. And you say, wait a minute, we can't let it go bankrupt.

We've invested half a billion dollars in it.

We need to throw in more capital, to keep it going. You've got, you've got good money chasing bad money. You think of the GM bridge loans that turned into government equity in GM. You know, GM's a much larger global company, but even still, it wasn't the right move. And we know this because the private sector had buyers at the table.

The moment the government under President Obama started talking about basically turning this into ownership of GM. The private sector backed away from the table knowing, we're going to get kicked to the curb. Because if we come in and make our move and put our money down, the government comes in and kicks us to the curb first. So it's a losing proposition, but there were buyers at the table and maybe it wouldn't have been the same GM. Maybe parts of GM went to different ways, but it still would have been because they were such a major player.

Are still today a major player.

“That would have actually put them in a better situation, I believe, when you talk about profitability.”

What are we seeing right now with regulations? The EV thing where the OEMs have turned around and said, "We can't do this." You know, the closer they got to certain deadlines and marks on mandates, they said, "We can't do this." Well, it's a flawed business model that faces headwinds, in the case of a spirit airlines with fuel, and everything else that they couldn't withstand because the margins were so slim.

So when you go up on ticket prices, you become a lot less competitive by comparison to other companies out there. And people start making other choices because the other airlines have greater access to different markets.

It was just always going to be this way if there was going to be a spike in costs along the way.

And you can't change that and putting taxpayer money into it. This all of these reasons, everything we laid out here, or the reasons why we shouldn't put the taxpayer on the table for this. I don't want our money going down the drain. No, and government ownership of business is not something I support ever. We are Red Eye Radio, brought to you by FPPF Fuel Power Max.

Eidling a diesel uses about a gallon of fuel per hour, which can cost you about $180 per week at 450 per gallon if your truck idles to eight hours a day. Eidling easily can cost you a few thousand more in fuel alone for a year. Not including the added engine maintenance expense that results from excessive idling. In addition to operating costs, many governments impose no idling laws and regulations with fines as high as $25,000. Instead, there are many alternatives. And extra blanket for cold temperatures.

Bunk heaters and various auxiliary power unit options about in this day and age 2, many power just by batteries. Owner operator business 101 is provided by Overdrive's Partners and Business Program. Go to OverdriveOnline.com to the partners business section of the website for more details on this and many other topics. Brought to you by Shell Rotella with advanced synthetic technology is designed to help keep your rig running with more mileage and less maintenance. We'll be right back with more Red Eye Radio with every currently and dairy McNamara.

We are when I radio he is here currently and I'm hearing McNamara coming to find the bottom of the hour more on the southern poverty loss and her grand jury indictment.

But first we wanted to get to this is from the California gubernatorial debate yesterday.

All right. And this is something a lot of our audience can relate to.

“The question is should language proficiency for truck drivers be strictly enforced?”

And what was noticed by many people is none of the Democrats could answer the question directly. But here's billionaire being supported by Bernie Sanders and his anti billionaire pack billionaire Tom Styer on it. Mr. Styer, where do you draw the line on this should language proficiency for truckers be strictly enforced even if it means that some of them will probably lose their jobs. You have 60 seconds. I agree with what we said, which is we don't know the context of this stop.

But what I can say is this racial profiling is illegal.

Anybody talking about racial profiling? No, not even a part of the discussion. And this was brought up. This was a Megan Hayes and Kira Davis on the news nation talking about it yesterday. Here we go. And we found Delilah and her family on our show repeatedly Marcus is a truck driver himself. He understands this issue. Why can't Democrats just get on board with making sure that people driving very dangerous vehicles and getting CBLs have proficiency in English?

Yeah, it was a little bit surprising that no one had an answer or just couldn't answer their question straight forward. There mayhem was the only person who said that the DMV is in charge of regulating this and they should be able to decipher who gets a license and who doesn't get a license. So it was really shocking that they could not figure out a better answer for this.

“Maybe yes, you should have to read a road sign and be able to drive safely or driving a semi-trap.”

But this is I think sometimes where Democrats get themselves into trouble. They missed common sense. And I think that that was definitely missed and just lack of answer. If you don't agree, just say you don't agree. I mean, it's fascinating. And we have said it. You know, whether it's the. I mentioned the ACLU ad before. Right. You know, and the fact is Democrats cannot actually tell you when they're they'll say it. Then when they're campaigning, they just won't answer the question directly.

Right. Now they won't. And it's because if they do that, you know, we mentioned the willfully ignorant.

If you say it out loud first as a part of your campaign, then people have a chance to measure it.

“But once you've got the willfully ignorant on board, they're fully invested and they won't change their mind. That's what you're hoping.”

And that's their game is to get the willfully ignorant on board. And if you go out and just say something. And it's fact base as a part of your campaign and explain it. You're going to lose a lot of people in that initial onboarding. And that's that's just the game. They know it. Yeah. So you keep the willfully ignorant ignorant. And then when they're confronted with the truth, they've already invested so heavily in it. They're not going to change their minds now. Because I look off the top of my head. All right. I'm a Democrat. Okay. I'm really not. I'm pretending.

All right. And and here we go. Safety in the safety on the roads are imperative. We need to make sure that all of our drivers have the knowledge, the training and the understanding of all road signs. So yeah, it is reasonable. It's definitely reasonable that people who drive and have a, you know, CDL and drive a truck should be able to understand the language. Yep. And should be able to read and understand what the signs mean. Right. And of story. Where's the controversy? There is none. There is in the Democratic Party.

Of course, because they make it up where it doesn't exist. [Music]

The show that never stops, read, I, radio.

And we are a red eye radio. He is a cronion. I'm Gary McNamara. All right. The best headline that I saw yesterday was Damoglockman National Review. Southern poverty law center indicted for gain of function research into racism. Wow. That's perfect. Now, the, the, the one thing that that we have learned and this is, you know, yesterday when, when you were out and, and I was talking about it.

I, I woke up to the story. Yep.

“And I was, you know, looking at the indictment and trying to get a handle on it throughout the entire show, you know, what does this mean?”

And asking, as we always do asking so many, you know, asking questions when something, you know, first, first comes up.

Because my first question was, and I looked at, for example, the, the grand jury indictment and said, all right, I see the indictment. What is the actual crime? I know that they, they seem to be implying what the intent was, what the motivation was, that the motivation was that, hey, the racism is really not a problem. We got to make it a problem. If we're going to raise money and continue as an organization, racism always has to be horrible, it always has to be happening. And so they took that money and if you look at it and I thought about this during the day yesterday, which I didn't think as much yesterday when I was analyzing everything and it was all, you know, new and going through my head is that they were paying leaders.

And in some cases, the heads of these groups, it's not that they got an informant to go in there and as a low level person and move their way up and pay them to do it like law enforcement would do.

“But, and so I was looking at the legal case and saying, but the legal case is is, you know, you always need to know what the motive is, but when it comes down to it, I asked a question, does it matter what the motive was?”

Because once you made up, once you made up, the groups that were fake, you incorporate a group that were fake. Yeah, the show company. To move the money through, you were attempting to hide the money for some reason. Right. And that's where the money laundering would come in. That's your intent. Yeah, that built your intent right there that in a case. Now, here's my question. This has not been answered. Did the leaders who got the money from those groups? Did they have any idea that it was coming from the southern poverty law center? Did they know?

Because if they weren't this, this is to me where the Department of Justice probably has a great point. If they knew it was coming from the southern poverty law center to send information back, so they knew what was going on in these particular groups. Well, then, for example, the leader, as was pointed out in National Review, one of the leaders of the Charlottesville thing, wouldn't have remained on the payroll for six years after. And so why were you paying the leaders into the leaders know that the money was coming from these groups? And so they had, because they saw the checks were cut by these groups. It did not say southern poverty law center. So they were just being funded.

“Or do you fund the leader or pick out a leader? Because that's the incentive for the leader to keep recruiting, to keep stirring up the the racist pot to do all of this, because you're funding the leader. Why are you funding the leader to do what?”

Or the leaders of these these organizations. So one of the things that was was was brought up is, you know, the the possible civil lawsuits from if a donor decides to do it. Because you say, you know, what is and the the fraud is the fact that when you thought you were giving it, you thought you were giving it to an organization that was fighting racism and they're giving it to the racist and the racist leaders of these groups. Why were they doing it?

You know the fake hate crimes that exist out there. Yeah. We've said it for the longest time if you want to find it as we noticed they expanded what hate was hate used to be neo Nazis.

“You know that that were anti black anti Catholic, you know, and I mean, they were specific in the things that they were and they were they were they were absolute racist without question right then as that started dying down in America.”

And it has died down in America. We're not the same country. We were 100 years ago or even 80 years ago. It's completely and totally changed except for the democratic party that is institutionalized racism to identity politics. But other than that, the average person isn't as racist. You can't convince people, you know, except if they're extreme narcissists that they are, you know, genetically superior to somebody else. And narcissists would say, well, no, I'm just superior myself. I don't need, you know, I'm not going to say other people that share my same genetics or close to my same genetics are a superior. I'm an narcissist. I'm superior to everybody.

“Right. So when you so when you look at it, you saw that.”

That if you were an anti abortion group, you became a hate group. If you believe that it was wrong to mutilate children.

And you believe that there's a mental health problem with the transgender movement you were considered part of the extremist hate right. So all these things, if you were saying illegal immigration is wrong. And they were called xenophobic and a hate monger. Right. They expanded the definition of what hate was to people that politically disagree with us on things that have nothing to do with hate or racism or sexism or whatever, and they actually became in their promotion of the democratic party in ablers of the identity politics of judging people by groups.

And not as individuals. They became what they claim they hated.

And so they had to keep expanding and attempting to dial up the racist out there to make it appear as if it's a huge problem.

Yeah. Right. No. And it seems to be from the Department of Justice. Right. And again, the funneling of the money, you can build intent right there fairly easily this idea that oh, we're just setting it up so that we could share information with the police. Can't even demonstrate one contact any meetings with the police as to what that would look like as to what that would be. Because if the police had gone to them or they had gone to the police saying, hey, we think these people that we've met might be into some wrongdoing or the police came to them and said, hey, some people connected with you or that you know might be doing some criminal wrongdoing.

We'd like to set something up. That would be different. Other dubious recipients this international view with leadership positions in extremist groups allegedly included a former imperial wizard to the United clans of America, a person who led the National Socialist Party of America and was a former director of a faction of the Aryan nations. A former chairman of the National Alliance, the reported president of the American front who was a convicted felon for his participation in a cross burning and a clan member who was the spouse of the exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux clan.

“A marriage between two clan members. Hey, love is love, right?”

That's from national view. In other words, this wasn't just a matter of paying the small fish in these groups to rat out the big ones. If you're going to be married, I think it would have to wouldn't it have to be to another clan member. Or somebody who they has to even if they're not an official member share those.

Yeah. Wow. My gosh. You know, when you're looking at two when you see, for example, that they came out and said, well, we did it, but we wouldn't do it again, but we did it because it was a totally moral thing that go, then why would you stop it? Right, if you wouldn't do it again, if you wouldn't do it again, why you saying you're glad you did it?

“Right, if you wouldn't do it again, you should be saying we did it and it was the right thing to do and here's why, right?”

We wouldn't do it again. It's the kind of thing you hear when people get caught. No, the Babylon bee can't play it because it's just so bad, but I mean, it's so bad because it's so great.

Yeah, basically southern poverty law center with that music.

They've built the music in the background. It's like the Sarah McLaughlin ads. Yes, you know, yes. And they've not sat music in the background. Well, it mirrors also the ACLU ads and the southern poverty law center has the ads too.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, it is long form ads that are running during the day, I just write them. Yeah. And so they're trying to make an emotional argument that racist need your money.

“Your donation every month goes to help racist, right?”

Because racist are marginalized too.

Again, it's a parody, right, that they don't come from the Babylon bee. Yeah, that they racist are marginalized. Real, marginal. And they also are marginalized. And then, and there is no money in racism, so we need your $19 donation.

Right. The one guy that they use as an example, Randy, a local racist. He has a great, a local racist. And then he speaks and, you know, again, he slumped, he slumped over. Yeah, you know, he's like slumped over.

Because I just have money in racism.

I can't, he says, I can't get my KKK road dry clean. He's can't afford to get a dry clean.

“So they need your up the Babylon bee did a great job on that.”

Just pointing out the absurdity of this whole thing. Again, it's, it's a parody. And, but it tells the story, as it often does through the comedic genius there, the Babylon bee, telling the actual story, unlike the, the activist media, the liberal activist in, and newsrooms across America.

This, honestly, is not surprising. If you think about all the money that's been poured into organizing, yeah, everything that's been going on, you think about how bad it has been. What we have dealt with the issues that we have dealt with. Right now, the, the liberal activists are fighting for the rights for children.

To mutilate their own bodies. And if you're against that, you're a hate-monger. You're a hate-monger, and if you're a, the parent of that child against it, you're abusive. Yeah. So this is no surprise in the line, in the long line of things we have learned in recent years, of, of how extreme.

The radicals are. And I don't think we're anywhere close to being over on this. Neither do I. We are Red Eye Radio. Get in touch with Red Eye Radio, toll-free at 866.

Mindy Red Eye. We are Red Eye Radio. He's her probably an Hungarian McNamara. Okay, but my favorite babbling, be headline of the week. Democrats propose 100% flat tax.

That's beautiful. And that's the best. Maybe before we get out of here, because I know you're not going to be in for tomorrow's show, because if you're in for your brother is Saturday, just let your family know that everybody here, the entire staff, you know, there in our, in, in our thoughts.

I lost my older sister years ago, and it was very, very tough on my parents. It's just not, you know, and anybody who's lost a child understands that. And I know some people that've lost a child, and it's just so devastating. But we grieve with you. Thank you.

And we're saying prayers for your family and everything else. And just just know that you've got a heck of a lot of support.

I greatly appreciate that.

I, I, I always lean on my faith.

I do that in good times and bad times. This is no different.

“I, and I also, you know, thank the audience who's already started reaching out to me.”

And, and, and thank you for that. We, great, I greatly appreciate that. It means the world to us, the fact that you choose to be here for our,

we have a little program every night in, or download the podcast means a great deal to us.

We, we don't take that for granted. And for anybody listening, that may be going through any grief based on a loss or anything else. Our love, our thoughts, our prayers are with you too. So thank you. [Music]

[Music]

This is Ridae Radio on Westwood One.

“Hi, I'm Joseph, I'll see how I hosted the Steking Benjamin's podcast most economists agree small amount of inflation is actually good.”

2% is what you're going for. Why is everybody freaking out? Oh, because it's the fallout. People don't track their budget. You have this slow slipping that happens every month.

To all of a sudden you go, man, I don't have any money. The reason is now two people go to a restaurant. The bill is $60 for two. Two guys walking to a restaurant. They start screaming.

It's not hilarious. $60. Steking Benjamin's, follow and listen on your favorite platform. Vince Conez is redefining News Talk. Come Vince Conez hosts of the Vince podcast.

I'm bringing you the truth beneath the headlines of all of the nation's top stories, in-depth interviews. We feature newsmaking interviews with the top guests on the whole planet. And I'll ask the questions you only dream of other interviewers asking.

“And a front row seat to the most important conversations of the day.”

This is show with an obsessive focus on what's good for America. You are going to love Vince. The Vince show. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.