04-30-26 Part One - The Corporate Tax Exodus

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, we is he. That's his pronoun, I'm he, he's he.

Hi, my preferred pronoun. He's Eric Hurley, I'm Gary McNamara, hi. All right, I just want to just a play this audio cut. It's not where we're really going to start out with, but I just, I've got to play it because it just shows you where the Democratic party is.

This is the relatively new mayor of Seattle, all right. And you know, big talk now about the, you know, the whole income tax for millionaires, yeah, yeah.

And here's what she had to say, here we go.

“I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are like super”

overblown, and if, you know, the ones that leave, like, bye, so. And this is, this is the first time I've seen it. This is what liberals think right now, whether it's Maine now, you saw Maine, yeah, instituting a millionaires, a millionaires tax, right. They don't, you, you, you see, they're not, they're not going on, you know,

this may, this may hurt our state, this will be capital moving out of our state. Yeah, they don't care, it, it never gets past the emotion. Their economics, and this is for a significant portion of America, yeah, their economics is based on emotion, instead of what is economics, right? And economics is simply one thing and one thing only.

How people respond to incentive, that's it. And that means how they respond to disincentive too, yeah, you've added that along the years along the way, as we've talked about it over the years, because it's important that when you talk about this, it actually applies here. The disincentive is the tax on the wealthy, the wealthy will get up and leave.

They'll take their, they'll sell their personal property. That will have an impact on the local economy, the money they spend locally, the people they hire locally. And then they'll take their business with them. Because if it's, if it's going to be this way against individuals on income tax,

well, we already know it's this way with corporations, big and small. So you start moving your headquarters to states where it makes sense where you can invest again in growth for the company and not sit and take the punishment. And for people that say what you just heard, the great, by, let's talk about this in 10 years, 10 years, by the way, that's not a long time.

A business plan, a five year business plan is actually kind of a short-term business plan.

“If you think about it, 10 years, I believe you're going to see within that time.”

A massive, massive migration, the numbers will be staggering in terms of the revenue. We're already seeing it. You can measure it in New York state. You can measure it in California.

I think the estimate is what we brought at the other dead in 700 billion in wealth has moved out.

Right. And so that affects the state and local revenues. And then when that starts affecting them, they start doing something else. What they'll do is they'll go after big business. We're going to go after big business.

We're going to start taxing corporations because that won't affect you at all. Well, of course, you don't hear it as much anymore, but we need to be like the Scandinavian countries that provide everything and it's like, do you not understand that you've already set the table here in the United States, the left has that all we need to do is tax the rich.

And if we tax the rich, everything will be paid for yet, if you look at it, maybe that's why they're not talking about it anymore. But when you look at some of the Scandinavian countries and they're, we provide everything. The taxes on the middle class are through the roof. Yes, of course. And they just, they ignore that part of it, but this is a Microsoft

President Brad Smith about what's going on in Washington state after you heard the Seattle Mayor say, by and everybody laughed, like we don't need you go. Yeah. Wow. But here he is.

He was for sauce president Brad Smith, signaled the shift in an interview with Cuomo News last year. I'm probably more worried right now about the business climate in Washington than at any point over the last 30 years.

them to stay, that will make everything harder. Taxing them to stay.

“I think he's being sarcastic, but yeah, it's, but it's simple, but they don't, because”

emotion rules their economics, no, what you've heard was, you know, when she said that,

you heard the applause and by, by and there, that there's, there's no critical thinking

applied there, it's all emotion, like we're glad to get rid of you. Well, your state will not be glad, your city will not be glad to get rid of it. You see, atle, by the way, I think the biggest move from there has been Jeff Bezos. He went down to Florida where he's building his new layer and he did that, why, a couple years ago.

Is that Larry or Larry in center? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, Larry. Oh, yeah.

Larry. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, he's one, Harold was cat away from being, you know, a doctor, but he's, no, no, but you think about it. You think about that move, because there was a, that kind of move, and remember, on the

business side of Jeff Bezos, how he wanted to set up a huge center in New York, and it was in AOC's district, and she came in and no, no, no, no, and he goes, okay, I won't. You think about the jobs of where the jobs of the future, because Amazon isn't just getting

you your widget at the door by 4 a.m. between 4 a.m. which, by the way, is always creepy when

somebody, you know, shows up on your doorbell cam at 4.15 a.m. putting something down and then walking back out to their car. But it's also about the future of AI, they're into health care, they're into pharmaceutical, they're into, of course, the entertainment stuff. It is a massive business.

So when you talk about a company like Amazon coming in and setting up, we have a, well, every major metro area or region has a massive, a distribution center for the retail side of it. But it's, it's, you're talking about the future of jobs. You're talking about creating a ton of jobs and wealth for your area, and of course, AOC wouldn't have that.

And when it comes to Seattle, when it comes to the, the, the, the left coast states basically,

all of them, they're all doing the same thing.

“I think, you know, Washington state, again, you pointed out in Oregon, how you get outside”

the further outside of Portland, it's more conservative. The same thing with Washington state outside of those metro areas like Seattle, it gets more conservative. But the, the leaders of those cities, those major metro areas and the leaders of those states, right now, we're setting policy in that is, they are proactively driving out money and

people. What I find interesting this week, and, and I just, I just brushed by it. It was some, some Democrat in Congress throughout that, you know, the minimum wage, we need to have a minimum wage for $25 an hour across the country. Yeah.

And I just went, wow, look at this, look at all the states that drastically raised their minimum wage, the states that didn't, and look where the economies are booming and look we're, right, all are moving, right, that, you know, you, as, as I said, when it comes to minimum wage, and that's including those that get, that get tips, right, it's gone from roughly, uh, 10 years ago, 4% of people were making, uh, minimum wage to now it's under

1%. Right.

“And the, the, the fact is it has no effect at all, except if you drastically raise it to $25”

or $30 an hour, which is now with the left is, is talking about, but all these things again, we live in a society. And even the populist right, which is not conservative fiscal economics, right, you know, which is, you know, which bought into, well, let me just say this, I don't care what kind of socialism it is, whether it comes from the right or left.

You know, the, we've talked about tariffs, you know, and, and tariffs may be necessary at times to negotiate, right, if somebody else is involved in unfair trading practices, but what Trump did, and it really disappointed me how many people, the claim that they were fiscal conservatives, or actually conservatives when it came, construction, so the constitution

That would be the one thing that we talked about when that happened, uh, when the Supreme Court came out said, no, he can't do it. And he can't do it. He cannot tax the president cannot tax American companies, right, only Congress can can do it.

Because he was doing it under one law. He was simply saying, I didn't like the phone conversation I had with this person. So we're raising the tariff 10%. Right.

He backed in, in the, in the, in the Supreme Court hearing in that first hearing, uh, for

the first case, uh, their, their counsel couldn't really couldn't make the case at all. And that was the problem. You didn't have a consistent setup for the, the reason the purpose of your actions and, and that just sent it, really get the, so by the time they got to the court. And it, and as we have said, over and over again, and we were right, yeah, because, and

I actually got into baits with people about this, which was insane. I said, you cannot raise the cost of doing business and making overall economy better. It's impossible. Right. That's basic economics.

You can't. Yes, you can. Yes, you can. Yes, you can.

“I remember talking to one person and they said, well, what do you know about economics?”

You're not, it's an easy, economic disease.

It's how people respond to incentive. Oh, it's much more complicated than that. No, it's not. No, it isn't. No, it's not.

If you, if you want to do, for example, uh, tariffs or whatever, because somebody's involved in unfair trading practices, you've got to tell the American public the truth. I don't care whether the socialist, uh, the, the, the, the, the socialist policy of somebody on the right, or somebody on the left, whenever you enact a socialist policy, you can't tell the truth.

Right. That's why Trump did not tell the truth over and over again, as his treasury secretary was when he was saying, well, no, uh, it's the export of the pays that the importer does and pay it. And then last week, Trump is saying, well, I'm going to remember those companies that

actually took the tariff money back. Right. Like it's as if it implied, you know, implied threat. Well, then you just admitted you weren't telling the truth, because socialist, if you enact

a socialist policy, you can never tell the truth.

Right. Well, you've got to change your excuse and report purpose behind it and every turn. Right. So don't don't sit there and think, oh, you guys only go after the, the, the, the, the people that may enact a socialist policy on the left, we don't care.

I could care. Josh Holley. Yeah. I could, yeah. Josh, I could care less.

Josh Holley's viewed as a conservative, absolutely not, you know, to say, never done that. Hmm. You notice it's really hasn't gone anywhere on the thing. Like the 10%, and you know, the reason why somebody told them, if you make credit card

rates 10%, you know, how many people are going to lose their credit cards, yeah, that's going to affect the economy in a negative way. It's happened before. Right. You know, when, when you started, when the liberal started creating laws, regulating credit

card companies, they drew down the credit lines of people and what happened, all the sudden payday loans, starch of payday loan companies, the stores, the payday loan stores started showing up in poor neighborhoods, then liberal scholar got all, got all bent out of shape saying, well, we can't do this.

“This is predatory, but you created, this is what the market's going to do, right?”

If you, if you take away the market over here, if there is a need for borrowing, then someone in the market place is going to earn industry is going to be formed to fill that need. And yeah, it's incredibly expensive. It's a horrible idea financially, but it's going to happen. And you can't stop it.

They keep thinking that they can, the government can come in and change that kind of incentive. That's the whole thing. Well, they don't, they don't realize that they can't change the incentive part of it. You, you can change an economy with government policy to, to the better or to the worse. You cannot change economics, right?

And for some reason, the American people and the significant portion of the American people, including a ton of Republicans believe, well, if they just did the right thing, then And everything would be fine if they do what I want. They're not going to do what you want. Everybody acts in their own self-interest.

Yep. But they shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be.

It shoulder.

“You have to understand how people respond to incentive.”

And if you reject that, in the case of looking at the Republicans now with the mid-terms, like we said to the Democrats last time, you know, ignore prices to your own peril.

And don't over-promise. Yeah. Yeah.

That started with the 24 campaign season.

There was no need to over-promise. You didn't need to come in and take ownership of what the Democrats did.

“The only thing you needed to do is promise you were going to work on getting the economy”

back in shape. You make you over all promise there. And so yeah, I don't care, but it's when you look at it and the liberals are just laughing now. Go, go, bye.

Go. You don't like it. We're going to tax billionaires. We're going to tax billionaires. We're going to tax, you know, whatever.

I've seen a representative of a tax group in California saying in that millionaires that the billionaires bill.

There's another one in the legislature at any time can use basically what they're calling

the Savings Tax now, which is well, that it allows them to go down further. Right. Yeah. I'll have to check to see if it's in that bill. I forgot the guy's name who was saying it.

I would just happen to go buy it yesterday. Let me just see here quickly do it. Carla Demail. Mm. Yeah.

And he's launched a stop the Savings Tax initiative. He's gone to Savings Tax.

“You're going after people to say it's a ready-made tax, which is well, right?”

Right. Whatever. When you earned it, when you earned it, you paid a tax on it. Now it's in Savings. They want to, you know, wherever it is as well, they want to come after that.

And you're saying it hidden in the fine print, they can expand it to hit your 401(k) home. Yeah. What he's saving. Whatever.

And that's the one thing that the left doesn't talk about when they look at well, these European countries do it and the taxes on the middle class are a lot higher, right? We are right. I radio brought to you by Hot Shot Secret. Hi.

I'm Jen Lumis. The Expert at JJ Keller, Compliance Safety Accountability, is the FMCSA Safety Compliance and Enforcement Program.

“It's goal is to hold motor carriers and drivers accountable for highway safety.”

CSA does this by assessing the safety performance of motor carriers and drivers. Motor carriers are assigned to score. The carrier is then grouped with other carriers who have had a similar number of safety events. Carriers scores within the group are then ranked, low scores are better. So carriers with the highest scores are those that are most likely to be targeted for

intervention by the FMCSA. Interventions range in severity and may include warning letters, roadside, off-site or on-site inspections, civil penalties, or operation out-of-service orders. This tip was brought to you by JJ Keller and Associates. Visit us at JJ Keller.com.

See you at Invutch with what I radio, toll-free at 866, Mindy Red Eye. Where when I radio, he is here at Carley and I'm Gary McNamara, Kim, and good morning.

So much for being here is always coming up on the bottom of the hour, the Supreme Court decision.

Not complicated, I mean, none of us were surprised by what came out of it, and it's a really simple thing to explain. In fact, there was one mainstream media outlet that did a fine job explaining it. Yeah. Interesting.

How big. How big. But we may not have to say anything, and I'll just let you know, we'll play a phone in the bottom of the hour. It was actually from CBS.

I'm like, all right, Barry Wies, there you go. When I saw it, I went, Barry Wies. There you go. And the basic concept is to Supreme Court for the last 20 years, saying constitution doesn't allow doing things by race and of story.

You don't want to wonder, though, and nobody's talked about this. And it just popped into my mind, I didn't do any type of research on it. Could that mix the Texas, uh, there was a Texas case that did come up several years ago. No, no, no, they're redistricting on it because they knew one because they wanted to make more Hispanic, but they said they're doing it based on the voting pattern.

Well, when I mentioned that was the difference, right. But when you mentioned Hispanics does that mean you can partially use race or not. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats jumped on that. Hmm. Yeah, I guess we'll see if we can.

4, 5, 8, 9, 8, 9, 9, 0, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 4, uh. Schloss mit dem ewigen abtippen von Kartenhummern. Thank you for watching. And I'd like to thank you for watching my video.

our red eye radio app today.

“You can listen when you choose, all right, I had brain freeze or dinner at the last”

segment. Yeah, the Texas case is sort of in settled by the Supreme Court. And we had we had talked about being said, you looked at me and you said, Gary, we talked about it off the area yesterday. It's like, yeah, oh, that's right.

I read a whole bunch of stuff on it. I just completely forgot. And it was a cool one. But, but they rule on the fact that it was based on the census, the movement, and politics.

Right. Even if the result was more Hispanic districts, that was not the justification for it. It was based on the voters and voter behavior and, you know, and the movement, the micro. And you can see that.

I mean, in in most states.

“And in Louisiana, it was basically the courts even saying, no, you need to have a second.”

The courts basically designated it.

Yeah. We have to have another minority majority district. Right. And they view that said, no, can't do it, but if you want to know what the Supreme Court decided yesterday, I mean, this was really interesting.

CBS's Jan Crawford actually analyzed it very well. Yeah. Here we go. Well, Major, we just got this ruling within the last couple minutes. The justice is in a six to three vote, a decision written by Justice Samuel Elito for

the other five conservatives are striking down a second majority black district in Louisiana, a ruling that state officials focused on race, and that amount of to an unconstitutional racial jury member. Now, this decision is a major one under the voting rights act. It will go well beyond Louisiana.

It's going to make it based on what we're seeing so far. But we'll make it harder for state officials to draw up these so-called majority minority districts, which have been used for decades, and have increased black representation in minority representation in Congress. And it also, I think, will call into question about a dozen or so existing majority minority

districts, mostly in the South. Now, those districts, as you know, major, have been away for Democrats to pick up seats in some of those states, those red states in the South. So this ruling is a win, I think we can say, for Republicans, but legally, this is a Supreme Court that going back 20 years or more has been saying in case after case a consistent line

of cases that the Constitution is colorblind.

“And that's why we've seen the Supreme Court do things like throw out affirmative action”

and college admissions. This line, this line of cases very consistent with the courts ruling today.

Here's what Alito said, allowing race to play any part in government decision, making

represents a departure from the Constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context, compliance with section two, thus could not justify the state use of race-based redistricting here. The state's attempt to satisfy the middle districts ruling, although understandable was unconstitutional and racial gerrymandering.

Yeah, I mean, again, if you look at the history of these cases, when it comes to redistricting, it can have an effect. There can be enough facts on the racial groups and the demographics in whatever district. But if the intent is to create a district, basically based on a majority of minority or whatever it is, then you can't do that.

It's based on the movement, the migration of the individuals there and also representation of those individuals and not based on race. Because this is where, and they'll surprise that the Louisiana decision was 63, because that's the very basis of identity politics that it should be based on skin color, should be based

on race, ethnicity, and the answer is no, it shouldn't, and it can't be.

So the decision was so simple for me, I mean, it was like, well, yeah, I mean, it was, I thought it was very clear. You're going to see redistricting till the end of time, that's just going to happen. But it's based on again, representation and not representation based on race. So we'll see where it goes, the case in, or the legislators in Florida have already started

plan goes through, that was announced the day, the same day that the Supreme Court issued

their decision on Texas.

“In fact, I think it was not long after that decision came down, that Governor DeSantis”

in Florida announced that one, and so they started moving right away on that, the legislated body has, so we'll see where that goes, but yeah, not surprised by it at all. No, the Louisiana case was, again, I thought pretty simple, and it turned out, again, it being 63 shows me that, again, it is, it is simple based on the fact that those three, of course, liberal justices are looking to keep identity politics alive and they

want the voter race, you know, treated that way, and they shouldn't be, it shouldn't

be based on skin color, you know, there's, because you can have the conversation about voter demographics, what it comes to polls, right? Because you get into an area, you get into a state, you get into a region, you get into an area, or district, and you want it, if you're running for office, you want to address the concerns of the people in those areas.

You know, when Ramos Wally went to Chicago, this was in early 24, and he said, you know what, I'm going, I'm going to go to neighborhoods and have conversations.

No, it's, these aren't red areas, it's a very blue area, we, we have our friends at the

Chicago Republican Party that listening, they have their office there in Chicago, they're uphill, daily battle, and God bless them for that, but he went there and wanted to, just

“have one on one conversations, and he told them, I think that was in February, 24, and”

he said, you know, I'm going to be coming back later this year, and he did turn the Democrats convention, which was in Chicago, and he said, I promise to come back and have more conversations with people here in these neighborhoods. He's very good at doing that. He's extremely well-versed at having those conversations, and so when you go into a district,

when you go into an area, certainly, you want to talk about what's going on in that area, and it's really not based on skin color, it's just based on the people that live in that area, and it may happen to be that it's mostly minority or whatever, but you want to address the issues at hand in those local areas, and if you don't have those conversations, you're going to be about the fray, and you're going to operate like a lot of liberals

do, because they really don't care what's going on in your life. I firmly believe you and I have talked about this, they have absolutely zero concern for people. They want numbers, that's it. You know, when I think when we looked at one of the Illinois districts, I think this goes

back a few months ago, and we looked at it, and you saw where it goes, how it looks like almost a snake going through, and we had talked about that district, and I said, you know, look at the original intent of the founding fathers on the house, and yeah, it was about, you know, that this is the part of the legislature that is on the population, but the actual representation, and you said this earlier, and I believe this is what the founding

fathers were looking for, you wanted, you have the Senate, which is the two representatives of the state, and it gives each state in one part of the legislature equal representation. And the reason it did it is because they understood that if you have, if you want, if you want other states, remember, they're only 13 states. If you want other states, if you want other areas to join your country, if you're going to

expand, you cannot say join our country, but you have no representation, because all of the urban centers are going to control everything, within there's no reason for you to join, and they understood that when you feel as a geographical particular area that you have

“no representation, that's what causes civil wars and how they know that, because it created”

a civil war. Well, remember, and let me, I just want to go ahead and finish, but the house, they looked

a state that actually have similar problems, similar challenges, and that's the goal to

“have areas, geographical areas of these states represented, which is why you have so many”

more hundreds upon hundreds, over 500 members of the house. It's become because of gerrymandering, you may have no similar interest in a suburb that's somebody, 30 miles from what, because I'm at the edge, where it goes into country, where I am in the middle of a suburb, I may have nothing to do with 50 miles away, somebody who lives in a rural area, and so the population centers get represented, but those rural

areas do not, and I don't believe that that was ever the intent of the founding fathers. Right, again, and Robert Reich, I remember, as it goes back a few years, you went on

social media, ranting about, it's not fair that a state like Wyoming has two senators

and California also only has two senators, it's you're missing the entire point. He either knows it, and he wants people to be a clueless, or he's clueless. I can't tell you which, I think he's clueless, because I think if you try and make that

“point on social media, and he did, then you have to know, and you know you're lying,”

you know the boomerang is coming back at you, you know you're going to be corrected immediately on social media, which tells me he's absolutely ignorant as to the foundation of this nation, when it comes to the Senate. And so when you look at it, in the perfect example, we gave of the tyranny of the majority, which is one of the reasons that the bill of rights exists, it's why the separation of

powers exist, and it's also why we have a Senate and an electoral college, and when you look at Virginia, Virginia is a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority, that the 51% are saying we want to completely eliminate any power that the other 49% of the voters could possibly have. We want their representation gone.

Now we know without question, because of the way that our government was set up under the original constitution that that was the exact what happened in Virginia was the exact fear of the founding fathers of the tyranny of the majority. Yes. Right.

And so I think it really, when you look at Virginia, an absolutely excellent example of what the founding fathers were fearful of, which everybody should be fearful of, of course.

“And that's why the bill of rights exist to let the individual matter, who's in power,”

these are your individual rights. They can't take this away unless they change the constitution. And that's tough to do because you need so many states to do that. That was almost like the, what do you call it, I forgot, I can't think of the name of the word I'm trying to use here, not fail safe, but maybe it's a, you know, fail safe.

This was, this was the option, this was the makes it so the tyranny of the majority cannot happen. Right. Right. You know, on, you know, on that level, but you see it in the states.

And so we'll see what that, you know, how the courts actually look at Virginia. But that's the goal. The goal is exactly what the founding fathers were absolutely scared to death about. Well, yeah. I mean, that's the idea.

And saying the 49% had no power, this idea of states, you know, bonding together

basically, and and and circumventing the electoral college is, is absolutely unconstitutional.

And goes against what the, and is also what the, the founding fathers, you, you, you, you can add that because that's separate from the redistricting that's where they're joined the compact to say what our people vote for for president doesn't matter. It's what the other majority of the states under in this compact decide to do. That's it.

We are right. I radio. Coming up, more with Gary McNamara and Eric Carley, it's red. I radio.

I radio.

He's her crony and I'm Gary McNamara.

“Yeah, I think I'm so glad you mentioned about the compact because when you look at, when”

you combine the two, and we said it earlier a couple of weeks ago, but these were things, I think that we need to repeat over and over again for people that may not, you know, be listening all the time. We, you know, we require you listen five, you know, all, you know, all, you know, all, you all day, all day, all night, every night, and then throughout the day because we have

a podcast. But with, but with the compact and also when you look at, again, redistricting, they're trying and succeeding in saying, we don't care what the people of our state think anymore. Exactly.

We just want to retain power, right?

How to be our news is brought you by how product is at howproducts.com. This is Red Eye Radio on Westwood One. Now it's Red Eye Radio, Gary McNamara, and Eric Carley talk about everything from all the text 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 Carley and I'm Gary McNamara, just tons of audio here. Lots of audio.

We got audio. Well, this is really interesting, again, maybe we may be jumping all over the place, but it all relates, but this is in California, Spencer Pratt, who was running for mayor of Los Angeles, I guess he was on one of the reality shows or whatever, but he's running as a Republican, but his house was burned down.

He's living in a trailer. There's actually gotten a lot of attention, because you're saying, "What's an effective political ad?" Listen to this here. Okay.

Taking this from a news nation's broadcast, fine. Okay. Here we go. This is where mayor Basel is. You notice something for here.

“We're in the key of Romance $3 million mansion sits.”

It don't have to live in the mess they've created, where you live. This is where I live. I let my home burn down. I know what the consequences of failed leadership are. Yeah.

And then they go back and do the only play to clip of it when back into it, but it shows his trailer. This is where I live. This is where they live. Here's where I live, and it's a trailer, and it's like, wow, what a relatable ad.

And then everything else seen. Here's where she lives, here's where the people that make the laws live, they don't live here. all the homeless, all the garbage, everything else. And then went to the, to the, you know, to his, his, his trailer. This is where I live. That's I think the point where you go, oh, whoa, he's a little bit in a trailer. Well, there's, uh, there's that. And, and it's also, uh, the plight of everyone who lost their home, but not even the, the actual individuals who lost their home. But it's well known that many people,

that many people did in those fires. So, by the people that lived there, even if they didn't lose their home, they know it was so poorly handled by Mayor Bass by Governor Newsom, the whole thing was just bungled. That's not leadership. And it's also another example that the left doesn't care about you. They don't care about you. They don't care about solutions. They don't care about anything that's going on. If, you know, again, it's not affecting them.

Uh, one of the, you know, high points in that or low points in that, uh, was when Newsom was on the phone and the lady approached him.

“The mom approached him and said, and he pretended, I think he pretended to be on the phone. He goes, I was just calling President Biden and she says, show me your phone. Show me that you were actually on the phone with President Biden.”

She was calling him out on that, but that was just one moment, one clueless moment, because you, you look by comparison other leaders in the wake of disasters.

First of all, the policy needs to change when it comes to what they have available.

Storing water in California and everything else and, and how you handle it. Some wildfires are going to certainly happen, but how you can respond to them and how you can prevent them from being so catastrophic is up to you.

You look by comparison to Governor de Santas. I mean Florida is Hurricane Central, tropical storm central.

And each time you see people out there, the citizens of Florida. Have you seen any major major complaints at all? I mean, I'm sure there are a few, but I mean, it is, it is not this uprising that de Santas doesn't know what he's doing. He hasn't been responsive. It's just the opposite. He's doing his job as governor in the wake of any kind of natural disaster.

That's a real estate problem. You know, yeah. Wow, that's, you know, something that's, I, you know, beyond his control. Yeah, that's, again, that's the right. And that's the problem that they have in California is and what you just heard from Spencer Pratt.

And this is a great example. It's a great connection because again, you don't have to be one of those who lost a home. You understand what has happened and the mess, it became a national story. We understand it. We don't even live there.

And so for him to say, you know, this is where I'm living. Look at where they live. It didn't affect them.

“Well, that's why he went from the, the garbage, the homeless neighborhoods.”

Yep. Everything, he went and said, look, my point is they can't do anything. Right. It doesn't matter whether you're poor, middle class or rich, they fail. That's what I got out of it.

I was, yes. He tied it all together. Well, remember the, and I think it was state money. It wasn't, I don't think it was LA money, but it was, it's all part of the same problem. But how much money did they spend on the homeless thing and then nothing was done.

It was, it was like 12 billion.

Oh, that's why everybody laughed at the debate. Yeah. The, the first debate. Yeah. When they were like, oh, he's a, I give him an A for credit.

And then Basharra came out and, and reevaluated apparently in the last debate. We, you know, the, the grade that he gave him for homelessness. Yeah. Well, I give him an A for effort. Yeah.

Right. But in the real world, can we tell you something? You don't get one. Nobody gives a damn what the effort is. No, they care about what the results are.

Exactly. You know, in school. Yeah.

“I remember I was punished if my, if the teacher said, didn't matter if I got a A or a B or whatever.”

My parents were not happy if the effort was average or below. Yeah, exactly. But that was really the last time that effort mattered. Well, because it's because your parents knew that if you actually made a true effort, you were capable of succeeded. Well, and, and that's, that's the different end.

Right. Yes. And their hypothesis of me as a, as a young person as a teenager was completely correct. And it was when I went every, every year I had to, I ended up in summer school because they said, If I got to be in a class or a C, and my effort was below average, I made me go back.

But it was in between 10th and 11th grade. Yeah.

And I just probably, this was all, and I believe it now that this was really always where I should be.

Because I was was was never part of a click was never part of a bowing down to authority. If you told me, my brother was the same way as I was. I am when we were kids. A authority told us to do something. We would do the opposite.

Yeah. It was like, you know, and a brand, when you're young, it's, it can be very irresponsible. You're not doing the right thing.

“But it can actually benefit you when you get older and do this job, where it's like, I don't care what you have to say.”

About, man, whatever, I don't care. Are you close family or friends? No, I don't care. Yeah. And so you actually, you actually get a thick skin, but it's when the entire year.

And I believe it was chemistry and trigonometry I was taking. And at the end, I got an F in both. And that. So I had to go to five weeks of summer school. So I failed both classes, failed both final exams. They sent me to summer school.

Yeah, five weeks later. 100 in the final chemistry exam. 98 in the trigonometry exam. And I got a's in both classes. I remember being so proud, I'm coming home to show my parents it.

They were living. They were not happy. You think they go, they went, see, you can do it.

Why are you so stupid?

Why are you so stupid, son?

Gary, Michael, why are you so damn stupid? Right. You're putting in all this extra effort. Right. And you need to do it.

You could have had a summer of fun. And you had to go to class. What the hell's wrong with you? Right. Like what our production staff says about you when you're not around. Exactly.

You can talk in front of my back. They even use your middle name. Gary, Michael. Gary, Michael. Well, I had to put that in because I was supposed to with my mother.

Right. It's a good thing. Your first name isn't George.

“There would have been a lot of confusion there, huh?”

Well, not back then. Well, back not yet not back when you. Oh, yeah, because you would have been living on your own by then. And so my parents were, and yeah, I was a, you know, stupid teenager. I will say this though.

Hmm.

I was affected by if I had a great teacher, I would always do well in class.

And again, it's all, it's still my responsibility. Yes. But when you're a teenager, you know, you've got to be, you've got to know how to relate. And I had every teacher that I could relate to, every teacher that made learning fun. I remember the chemistry class.

She ended up, the, the woman ended up getting out of teaching and I knew that because when I used to go through the Buffalo airport. Her picture would be on there as a real estate person. Right. Oh, she got out of teaching. Yeah, but she, remember the old overhead machines?

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. She would just start writing on the overhead machine. Here we go. Here's today's lesson and just write it and then it would appear. And you're just supposed to copy the notes.

Right. There was no, and it was like that. And I remember then I went to summer school. And it was, uh, it was like, okay, let's see how natural gas work. Here's a Bunsen burner.

“Let's keep the, let's keep the flame about a foot away.”

Right. All right. Here we go. Yeah.

You want to know how that happens?

Sure do. Uh, all right. What else do we got here? All right. Let's go outside here.

Let's take this vinegar and then baking soda and put it together and shoot this rocket up into the air. Yeah. It was hooked. Yeah. You had me.

You had me because this was fun stuff. But then you got into it. And that's that was the, the chemistry class that I did great in. And, and even the trigonometry teacher was, uh, was a heck of a lot of fun. He related.

I never forget. He related mathematics. To, he loved fishing. And I wasn't a big fisher, but, you know, fish are perfect. Was a fisherman fisher.

I wasn't a big fisherman at all in my life. Even though I'm boy scouts, I did a little bit of it, but I really didn't care. It was just too boring. But when he said he goes, okay, here's this. Here's over here.

And he threw it, you know, a sausage triangle and all this stuff. He was able to get me interested by talking to a 15, 16 year old mind. Yeah. And it, and it actually worked. Yeah.

And there, there. I've had teachers over the years. Uh, I talked about, uh, Mr. Valdez coach, Valdez and elementary. Uh, Mr. Young, my geometry teacher. Uh, Mr. Stone, I had two Mr. Stones.

(laughs) An algebra teacher. But my chemistry teacher, Mr. Stone. Uh, he was great. And I was great at chemistry.

I, for some reason, I picked up on that. I, I don't know why. Um, and we learned about, you know, you mentioned natural gas. And Texas, uh, we would go out to our fracking site. And so we would just talk,

(laughs) This is how we get it out of the ground. Um, but no, we, it was, and then, then you'd turn on the, the, the, the, the spigots and the flames would come out. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, exactly. Remember that BS? Right. Yeah. And it's, we had, um, you know,

if it was about, you know, potential, right? Your parents knew what your potential was. You know, you got it. If the effort, an A for effort. And I give them an A for effort.

Well, no, no, no. If he didn't, if the effort doesn't meet the potential, that's the problem. Right.

“And I think that's what that ad, you know,”

uh, uh, shows in, uh, in California. Yeah. They're not, they're not getting the job. Done. Spencer Pratt's, uh, ad.

Uh, and, you know, when you look at it, when you, when you look at the fact of, I don't understand why Kamala Harris is still at the top of the heap. But when you see Newsom being so low. Yeah.

For what they thought before the dentist debate a couple of years ago, they thought he was the guy. He had the look. You know, it's like the Democrats are. Shh.

We need to find a straight white guy. Well, well, to, to promote this stuff.

Well, and, and, but for him.

“To be completely ignored when you think about it on the national level for.”

Uh, the, uh, the prominence that he has in American politics is really pretty amazing.

And you sit there and they go, well, they believe he can't get the job done. And they know they can't sell California to the American public. But it's like, yeah, but they're, they have Kamala Harris. Right. Right.

Right. The, the state government. That doesn't make any sense at all. Right. Because clearly.

When it comes to framing a sentence, even if it's a line of horse manure. Yeah. Newsom is much better than a Kamala Harris. Right. She can't even tie a couple of sentences together.

Does she even, does she have a podcast?

She doesn't have a podcast. That would be so horrible that she did. No, they, she, how could she do it? She can't do it. She can't do it.

But I can't imagine. Maybe they would have, they would have been audio clips. Oh, we would be playing audio every day from. Wouldn't we? I mean, because the audio I just saw with the last couple of days since the last, well, since

the last poll yesterday, I was going on the internet. It was like, okay, here's, here's Kamala speak. Yeah. And it's all the examples. It's, it's just horrible.

I've heard it's like, okay, that's going to come back out again.

“And with, and with Newsom, you know, it's, I think liberals look at it.”

Where's his signature move as governor? What is, what does he, I mean, where's, where's the mark that he's made? What does he known for? There's a curve California. That's it.

Exactly. There is no signature move. Where has, where has he shown competence? That's nothing. What is this signature thing?

Because, because you can, You can look at, at, at the scientists. It's leading by example by doing the job as actions as governor. Which has helped to change that state into a red state. You know, if you look at, at what he has done,

It's doing the job. Well, and you look for Newsom. He's worried about, you know, his hair gel and his podcast. And when you look at, for example, catastrophic things that happen. Yeah.

Like the, the wildfires. Yes.

“And you see the video that came out, whether it was bass or whether it was news.”

It was horrible. Yeah. And you would talk about, you know, Floor to be in the hurricane state. When there's a hurricane to Santa,

This is off. There's people behind him. Yep. They answer the questions. What you see is the imagery of competence backed up by the reality of competence.

Exactly. We are right. Radio. This morning's USDA farm report is brought to you by house products. Tested, trusted, guaranteed since 1920.

New avenues of financial support to build up the nation's fertilizer production capabilities. That was part of the announcement this week at USDA headquarters on such efforts. Both short and long term. Agriculture, Secretary Brooke Rollins explains. Fertilizer projects investing over $1 billion in the United States infrastructure.

Maybe eligible for assistance from the Department of Commerce's investment accelerator, which is currently overseeing $750 billion available. And through the energy department.

Energy, dominance, financing program, financing critical materials projects.

Notably, just provided an over $1.5 billion loan for an Indiana ammonia project. Additional efforts focus on streamlining. The permitting process for constructing and upgrading fertilizer facilities. I'm Rod Bay in reporting for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. This report brought to you by Senax fuels and loops.

We'll be right back with more Red Eye Radio with every currently in Gary McNamara. We're running out of radio. He's here running. I'm Gary McNamara. I got to tell Eric yesterday. I mean, social media. The battle on B, parody sites. I mean, it was just.

It was gold yesterday. It was gold Gary gold. First off, this I saw in social media. I don't know about you, but Holden's heroes to me is one of the best programs based on World War 11. I mean, that's.

That's just. That's going to be so much fun. This one from the Battle on B. Trump presents King Charles with the gift of a toothbrush. Oh, man. Oh, that's a British thing. I know exactly. It's a thing. And the the other one I just love was. This is all over social media. It was showing all the Democrats standing and cheering for King Charles. And it's like, yeah, Democrats cheer for a king. Yeah.

Well, it would have been great. I'd like to thank all the Democrats for showing up in this brand of Kings rally today.

Kings rally. I love it.

“Catch Rennie Radio Live every night on the Rennie radio app available in the App Store. Rennie on my radio and he's our crowning. I'm Gary McNamara.”

Don't let our Rennie radio app today. You can listen when and where you choose in a minute and a half more on voter ID in California.

You know, Gary, there are a lot of things in the world that are out of our control. They always say control what you can control how about pain.

Pain doesn't have to be in everyday part of your life. Thanks to relief factors. There are so many things that I can tell you about relief factor in my life that I've taken control of because I've taken control of my pain with relief factor. I'm getting back to doing projects on a regular basis instead of scheduling those projects around my aches and pains. And that's what I love another thing I love about relief factor. It is 100% drug free.

“4 key ingredients that work on your body's natural inflammatory response. That's what we're talking about. You take it every day. I take it every day and I want you to get the same benefits. So here's what you do.”

Go with their three week quick start at just 1995. Go to relief factor dot com or call 800 for relief relief factor dot com or 800 for relief. Use red eye at the drop down for your three week quick start at 1995. So we were on social talking about social media and some of the parody sites two more from the Babylon be ready. Okay, what do you got polls shows majority of Democrats believe Lincoln assassination was staged.

And then the one my favorite one because it shows just as jackson it looks like she's whispering to.

His Thomas. Oh, whispering to him. Is it too late to ask who Jerry Mander is. Yes, if you know he was the beaver. Yeah, that's right. And Jerry Mander as the beaver. So that's got. All right, one more because we didn't get a chance to talk about this yet. And this is where they've gotten the votes to have the. To have a voter ID on the ballot November and California will be interesting to see because the billionaires thing is on there will they vote for voter ID and to tax billionaires or will they vote for voter ID and not to tax billionaires.

“We said they have the vote. They have the signatures to get it on the signature. Yeah, that's what I meant for an initiative and right. Yeah, it will be interesting to see because we mentioned yesterday said they have the votes.”

Yeah, it has to be certified right. So then, uh, starting with the billionaires tax we talked about that yesterday and something that that you had brought up that in the past there have been propositions and I was thinking about this as we were talking about yesterday and then you brought it up. They've had propositions that were basically anti business had they passed and they failed. Yeah, and in in recent years, like in this century, in very recent years and we went over them when they happened was a 2022 I believe so I can't remember.

I remember what they were it was, but it's a surprise. But I remember you and I said my God is California gone conservative right and so the billionaires tax, you know, are there enough people that realize, look, you know, if on the federal level, we want to move towards a higher tax on the rich. That's one thing, but if we start going after their wealth. It's only going to ruin the state. If there, there may be, and I don't know, it will be interesting to see where the sentiment is because the whole wealth grab, whether it's California or any other blue state or area is is emotionally driven, it's that, you know, that this false idea that you can grab enough of their wealth.

The practical sense of it, again, the actual effect of it, when you get down to the local level or the state level, you know, away from the federal tax is, well, wait, this could hurt our state and maybe we shouldn't do that. It's almost like, I'm not almost like, but in a way it compares to them trying to do healthcare in each state.

“It's time they got around to funding it. They knew we can't do that. We can't raise like gas taxes to 20 bucks a gallon or whatever it would take in order to fund it.”

They could fund it. We said that. They can. It would require massive taxation and they know the people wouldn't stand for that. So will they in this case in California on the billionaires tax will they will they get away with that or not.

Now with the with the groups claiming that they have the number of votes for the voter ID tax, of course, CNN as Senator Alex Badea bought it.

All right. So of course, this is a California thing has nothing to do with Trump. He's the citizens of California. Yeah. And of course, he's got to mention mentioned Trump. This is a whole thing on Trump, which of course, maybe you can make the case on a national level. You can't make the case in California. All right. Here we go. Donald Trump and Republican Party, desperate to hold out to power and look every because their record has been so bad. They're only hope is to rig the elections. That's right. They're doing this. But there is this effort in California that is focused more on voter ID. What is wrong with the concept if I show up to vote at my polling place that I have to show an ID when I have to show an ID to buy alcohol, I have to show an ID to get on a plane.

I have to show an ID through so many aspects of my life. What's wrong with showing an ID to vote again? They go back to its solution and search over pop in California. Our elections are safe. They are secure when to keep them at least the fact that it's safe or possible. Well, but this could also keep eligible people from voting if you forgot your ID.

“We've got to in you it, you know, the week before now it's almost had been expired.”

You know, he said, as soon as you said, it's safer. It's better and it's safer.

And he changed the topic immediately. This is how bad it is for Democrats. If you challenge them at all, which is why we played. Oh, and I apologize. Representative Dilar, I said, blue hair. I'm being told it's purple. I got you Gary, it's purple. So I'm seeing people correct us all the time. Okay. That's not blue hair. It's purple hair.

Okay. All right. Sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you for correct me. Hey, I'm color blind. Oh, okay. I'm lying.

But they can't, you know, when you had Lee Zeldin hitting her on the fact you're even out the laws.

You don't have to laws, you know, I'm telling you what the laws, you know, I follow the law. You're saying what you wish it should be. It's got nothing to do with me. You guys are the ones in Congress. You're right. The law. You do it. I'm telling you what the laws and what the Supreme Court precedent is.

And it's clear you don't know what the law is. You don't even know what the law is. You're making it up as you go along. It was really embarrassing. We played it the other day. But here's the same thing.

It's better. It's safer. What do you mean safer? Well, and they changes the topic. Right. Because you can't make the case. That the odds, you know, if you look people look at people aren't stupid, what are the odds?

Right. Right. Right. If you have no voter ID, you can just walk up and vote. Is there a greater chance? Whatever that chance is, is there a greater chance of fraud than if everybody has to show voter ID.

And it's an enhanced license.

“Which means you have to have a citizen of the United States to have that license.”

Right. And so you're trying to argue something that you cannot win with the biggest simple ten on the planet. Well, because there are not many moving parts in this. No, they're just aren't.

It is a very simple issue that they're trying so hard. You know, for a while, they had built steam.

They had built some steam and momentum on look how hard it is to get a license.

And remember, that's when our state enacted if you're Indigent and you can't afford it. We will wave the fee. I don't know how that works.

“I think there's a, I forget what the fee is.”

16, 20 bucks or whatever it is. And so if you're Indigent, then the state will help you on that. So there's that excuses off table, right. And then the results from elections where voter ID was implemented. Turned out.

It didn't impact it negatively. Like they said it was going to do. No, the complete lie of Georgia. Of course. Which actually got the all star game moved.

My gosh. Yeah. That was unbelievable. And it was everything was to come to the whole Jim Crow. Jim Crow.

Oh, I know. I did see an article yesterday. War knocks back now saying this is Jim Crow. Voter ID. He's been all over the place.

Okay.

“He's been and we use him as the, as the example.”

He's got a, he's got a full 360. He's not going to. No, all the way around. He's a full circle here because it was back then.

When they were started to lose the argument the first time.

He said, well, I don't even know anybody who's against voter ID. I don't even know any, basically. And it's like, have you met your party that he was. Ah, that was. I don't know if it was when it was running or after he was seated in the Senate.

But he, he was. That's what he said. I don't even know. And now he's, you know, back to Jim Crow 2.0. That's, again, they forget the internet exists.

I couldn't believe more not. Yeah. Back again, I said, you know, it's one thing that we've been accusing the Democrats of doing a 180. Now they're doing, now they're up to a 360. 360.

And it's because these issues do have these cycles.

They, they believe their.

Gaining momentum, but it's such, again, it's such a basic thought here. You don't, there, there aren't any moving parts. Many moving parts. There's, it's very simple. What are ID is very simple.

Every American understands. You should have to show who you want. You know, it was interesting. At the shooting at the White House Correspondence Center. Some liberal writers and publications were writing about what?

The one security fail, which was what? That they didn't ask when you presented your ticket for an ID. Yeah. To verify you were the ticket holder, right? And you can't make this stuff up.

I mean, this is, this is, this is the frustration that people have on the right when they look at the left. Yeah. And say there is no consistency to your argument at all. None. And then remember, what was it the, some of the, the Democrat conference,

State conferences that have been going on. Right. And it's like they've been requiring ID. Yeah. It's like, you're requiring ID for people to show up.

“Well, mom Donnie with, you know, if you want to shovel snow.”

Yes. Several, you know, forms a few forms of ID. To shovel snow. To shovel snow. And then the liberal standing up and cheering a king.

King draw. Oh, yeah. That was great. I mean, that was the best day. It's just, it's comical.

We really do love our job. And look, I would like for them to change. But I, I want them to change right about the time I'm ready to retire. And, and that's not anytime soon. On, on their hypocrisy, especially.

I, I want them to keep going in their own words. Because it makes it so much easier for us. It makes it so much easier. We can play their audio all day long. They give us plenty of gold.

Certainly do. We have run I radio. You're in touch with what I radio told free at 866. Might be right I. We're run I radio.

I'm Gary McNamara.

Well, the Saudi Arabia well-funded,

made it official yesterday. So live is dead by the end of the year. Yeah. They're money out. Yeah, their money is out.

“And it's interesting the part of that story is that the PGA isn't necessarily going to welcome all those players back to open arms.”

They gave some of them an opportunity to do it. And they didn't do it. And they said, sorry. It's different now. We gave you the opportunity.

The windows closed. Yep. You saw Brooks Kepka.

They believe it will cost him $90 million.

Wow. To come back into the PGA. Woo. Woo. Woo.

Woo. Now it's going to pay.

“I think the money doesn't go to the PGA.”

Whatever money goes to charity. Okay. All right. Yeah. But and then he doesn't get like they have equity now.

You can build equity. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. He doesn't get that for five years. Wow.

So if the total that he would lose would be like 90 million.

Wow. Wow. Well, soon to be RIP, LID. Yeah. Yeah.

[MUSIC] This is RID, I radio on Westwood One. Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Many people seem to be incubating a rage looking for somewhere to go.

“Are there times when you think the country is out of control?”

Do you see all these things and you wonder what in the world is going on? It wasn't this way five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Do we have the will or not? But we are Americans. And I believe we absolutely do have the will.

I do this show for you. And when you're not interested in anymore, I will just go away. Got my book in show. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.