05-06-26 Part One - The High Cost of War

For $299, you can buy a package with sushi.

Okay, and for $199, you can also buy a small ice cream. For the $199, you can buy it. Pretty good? Then you can buy the Snick Time Sushi Box, $225 for $299. Or mochi sandwich ice cream, $899, $199.

That's good for all of you for all of you. Now you can buy it for all of you. All of you. Who does fielder? 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 our Carly and I'm Gary McNamara, good morning, where you can thank you for being here. Hello! All right, so. What's the one thing I noticed?

$4.39. Yeah. We're going to guess on the way here in Texas.

“Yeah, I think that's the highest it's ever been.”

I decided, because I'm the only one of the crew that can do it, I decided to start walking to work. I actually, it's hitchhiking, while I was walking, I put my thumb out and it looks more like I'm walking and giving everybody a thumbs up, but I'm technically hitchhiking. I would have taken it right.

You know, there was a lot of talk about the true social posts that the president put out saying there's going to be a temporary pause, because of all the advancements. And we'll have the audio coming up here a little bit rubio talking about it about, you

sense, that they want to get rid of nuclear weapons, and it's like, yeah, they always say

they do, but they don't. And you know, you look at what's going on right now. And I read a number of things, saying that it's unfair. In fact, it was Mark Halpern. We'll play.

It was actually pretty interesting. And it brought up a lot of the points that we brought up on yesterday's show about what might be happening, or what he believes is happening. And it's effective and we're, you know, and it's, well, it has a great chance of being effective, and we really don't know, and everybody's jumping to the assumption that this

is taco from Trump, right now, when I look at that, I say, well, if he wanted to, he could have invented it, clearly he's, clearly there's a line that he is set, which is you need to get rid of the, you know, the potential to have any type of nuclear weapons.

“What I saw yesterday was, well, you know, Trump doesn't have a plan B, a plan, I think”

this is home in Jenkins, said in the Wall Street Journal, doesn't seem to have a plan B, a plan C or a plan D. And Mark Halpern pointed out, you know, on his podcast, a lot of what we said, he goes, well, number one, they're opening up the straight-of-hormous number two, there's the blockade, number three, China wants, he goes, this isn't talked about enough. China wants out of this, they want, they want this thing ended. Yeah. And so there's pressure

from China, and there's the negotiations that are going on, but it's a legitimate question, are we getting anywhere in the negotiations? We've seen the president say this over and over again, that the, when he said the Iranians want to deal, you know, we all laughed at that, what? And it's like, you know, don't try to sell that one. I will say this even Higgs said yesterday, when he said, well, no, no, the ceasefire is going on. I mean, there's, you know, it's, what's

going on in Hormous is separate from, and I went, stop it. Yeah, what did he say? We're below

the threshold. Yeah. And basically, our actions that we're taking now are still within the threshold

of a ceasefire, basically, is what he's trying to say? Right. And I'm just like, man, just stop it. You can, you can be honest with the American people saying, you know, we're here, here are the things that we're, here's the point. Mark Halpern explained it better than Higgs said.

“Okay, that's a good point. And that, and I think we laid out all the possibilities, and we don't”

know, of course, they're not going to talk about all the possibilities, because they don't, we, we don't need to know them, and, and we don't know exactly what's going on behind the scenes. But in our discussions, our approach has been better than, I think, the way that, at least, Higgs said this handled it. For the president, I have to factor in that it's this particular person, that it's Donald Trump. And I don't mean that necessarily in a negative way, sometimes it can be,

guessing is everything, keeping the American people and the markets guessing is risky. And you don't

know what's going on day to day. There's question marks, but here's, that's the thing. It's, it's, what we said with terrorists, whatever you're going to do with terrorists, do it and stick

“to it. Whatever it's going to be, 30% across the board, whatever it is, do it and stay, right?”

Make your case and then stick with it, stick to your guns. And, you know, one visit from from, almost at Prince Charles, King Charles, next thing, you know, we're okay to buy Scottish whiskey again. You know, and it's like, you know, there's this, there's too much emotional concern there. I don't necessarily believe that's the case and what he's doing with a rant,

because I do believe he wants the mission finished. Well, but I think we have to include the possibility

that the mission being finished could require boots on the ground, and I don't believe this president wants that. Right. Let me just play part of the Mark Halpern thing. It's a couple minutes, but it's worth listening to, because it covered a lot of the stuff. Now, yesterday, we didn't bring up the China thing, it's he brought up, but we brought up the other things that he had, that he had

“the president has talked about, and what we know that they're actually doing, but to hear it is,”

Iran. Here's the headline from the New York Times. And this is, I'm so glad, and not that long ago, because it fits perfectly with with what I'm going to talk to you about. Number three,

this is the headline. And this, this is, this is a perfect reflection of what the media and the

morning Joe crowd. I say that with affection and a lot of Democrats would say in the skeptic or Republicans, Trump looks for a silver bullet to end the Iran War. They may be none. Okay. The president is trying to ratchet up the economic pressure on Tehran, but Iran's government is unlikely to make a deal without a big face saving compromise. Okay. So, that's, that's the conventional wisdom that there's no silver bullet here. There's no plan.

Trump is flailing. He's, he, he made a, he, B. B. Let him down a Primrose path, and he's, his presidency is now on, on, on the, on the, on the, on the, on the, the decline on the, on the, on the, on, the threat of, of being ruined gas prices are up. Everybody knows this litany. Ladies and gentlemen, again, I'm almost embarrassed. I have to tell you this because, because, although I, I did reporting on it, it's, it's just plain as the nose on, on, on our faces.

Everybody knows this on everybody's faces. There's a forward track strategy now. Okay. The forward track strategy. Track one, the, the blockade and, and the, the attempt to score chips through. In other words, the Pentagon has a high degree of confidence. And as far as we know, it's for, it's been going on for two days, the project. And, um, and it's working in the sense that some ships have gotten through and, and the Iranians don't seem to control the straight

currently. Uh, and they don't seem to be interrupting the project. So, so, so number one, uh, uh, the four-prong plan is to, is to, is to control the straight and to, and to, and to ratchet up the ability to take ships through. Number two is, um, is the economic pressure on Iran, increased sanctions. And, and, and a belief that they believe that this plan may not be a good plan, but it's a plan that the Iran oil capacity is, uh, is, is right at the end of its robes.

Again, not every expert agrees with that, but, uh, you heard, uh, the Secretary Rubio say today, you've heard Scott Beson say it, you've heard the president say that Iran is on, on a ticking clock here, stands through the hourglass, uh, at some point that it lost a revenue, and the inability to keep operating their oil facilities without having to shut them down and do them damage, that that will put a lot of pressure on Iran. Okay. No, that's number two.

Number three is the Chinese track, little discussed, but the Chinese summoned the Iranian foreign minister

“to, um, to, uh, a peaking to meet with, I don't know who whom, but why the Chinese doing that?”

The Chinese do not want the summit to be canceled, and although the Chinese play footsy with Tehran, the Chinese want this thing over. Okay. So relying on the, the Tehran's patron Beijing to, to put pressure on them is another track. Okay. And then what's the fourth track? Negotiations. Okay. Negotiations. Now, in all four tracks, if they, if they work, if all four of them work in tandem, time is on the president's side, except for the fact that

gas prices remain high in the United States is, is, is spending a lot of my tax money on the war. If these four things are executed, there's no rush. There's no rush. The, the clock is taking on the Iranians, but it's not taking on the United States. There you go.

it, as you mentioned, over $4 a gallon, uh, now through November, uh, the, that's the political

pressure for the midterm, because the president needs this party for the second half of his second

term, and he needs his party to complete this mission before he's done, uh, as president. And that's, you know, I would say there's that pressure for, you know, for what Mr. Helpin said there at the end, uh, but maybe that's a given, in terms of strategic pressure, there is none. We own, we own Iran right now. I mean, in, in terms of what we have over them, we have all the power in this. The question is, what is, how far does the president want to go? How far does he

“want to take it? I honestly believe this is a measure that allows them, this, these delays, these,”

this, this pause here is allowing for the gathering of intel, so that they can determine exactly

what it would take for them to not have their uranium at all in their possession, uh, when this

is said and done. And that, you have, again, we mentioned yesterday, but it has to be, all of that has to be measured, and if it's undoable without a bunch of boots on the ground, uh, and, uh, and, and I don't, I'm not convinced that what's left of the regime is going to voluntarily work with the U.S. to, to hand that over. Then the other part of the other option would be, uh, and we mentioned, uh, Israeli intel being embedded in Iran for years, what that might tell us in terms of,

how, how possible it is to have an overthrow by those who had been loyal to the regime, but maybe converted at some point, and I have no idea what that looks like, it or if it even exists right now. Well, it, it gets to the, uh, it gets to the point that we've talked about. What is, as we know from the last two weeks, the goal is, which has been made clear by the president, no nuclear weapons. All right. You know, no nuclear weapons program. You can't have it. You can't

have a nuclear program. Right. And, and so, uh, remember, the president offered a nuclear program,

“a clean energy program for two of them, and they refused before the war actually began. Remember that.”

Right. Yeah. And, and so, uh, you look and you say, okay, that's the red line. And so, you asked the question, uh, will the Iranians concede to that? Here's Marco Rubio yesterday. Have a president said, you know, we're working towards a deal, and things are looking positive. Well, how, what is the specific has to be the red line, which is nuclear weapons, right? Right. Right. Here's, uh, here's the question from Catherine,

uh, Harrod Jester Day, to Marco Rubio. How long would it start with you first? I have a hearing trouble in the head of your list. Secretary Rubio, have you seen any recent indications that arise really to give up this nuclear weapons program that is credible, if you're a viable, and that would lead to an immediate escalation. Well, look, um, this is a long standing problem for them, right? I mean, they have

wanted it. They, they have always said, they don't want to nuclear weapons. That's because they've

always said that, they just don't mean it. And why do you say, well, how do you know they don't mean it? Well, we don't mean it because they do all, they're doing all the things and historically have tried to do all the things that you do if you want a nuclear weapons program. For example, they innovate and try to innovate long-range delivery missiles. That now in some cases are capable of reaching much of Europe. They, uh, in, they build these large underground centrifuges for enrichment

activity. There are many, there are countries in the world that are involved in the enrichment business, but these guys do it in mountains and in caves and in hiding. They've always had secret components of their nuclear program, undisclosed to the world. And we know for a fact that they retain highly enriched uranium at 60% that they did so, and that had no civilian use, not zero whatsoever. So they have an opportunity here to agree to something that will make

it clear that they're not interested in one thing is to say we don't want a nuclear weapon. Another thing is to do the things that prove you don't want a nuclear weapon. By the way, if what Iran wants is a civilian nuclear program for power plants and stuff like that, there are a lot of countries in the world that have that. And they don't enrich.

“They import the import the enriched material. You know, they could have that. That's what they wanted.”

But they're not acting like that's what they wanted. They're acting like that's what they wanted. That's my point right there, the president saying, you know, we're going to stop hostilities because, you know, things are looking good and everything else in his true social program in Marka Ruby of the same day is indicating, no, they haven't moved on the nuclear weapons at

what is what does the president want now? And the president has said, no nuclear program over and

“over and over again. So where are we seeing advances in the negotiations since that is really”

the one issue. Right. And I don't know. I, I, yeah, I won't tell you. But I mean, but that's because if it is actually happening, if there is progress being made, then it would be exactly, it would be Marco Rubio or someone else telling them, we, we know what you're doing. We, and you're only doing this for, for weaponry, you're not doing it for energy. And because we know what it looks like with other nations, as he just said, we know what it looks like

when you're building energy plants, which, by the way, could be some kind of offering for long term, assuming the regime is gone. The regime can't be trusted if any remnants at all remain after this is said and done. But whoever's leading a rat, whoever that might be, if it is energy, you're trying nuclear energy, you're trying to develop. That could be part of a cooperative agreement where there are other nations, including other Middle Eastern nations and

other Western, like I said, the United States offer that before. Yeah, that is that that would be part of that. And if you're not going to do that, if there's not going to be that kind of cooperation,

“the only way to get that uranium, the enriched uranium, and stop their nuclear program,”

is to take it. And in order to take it, you're going to use tremendous force. Well, I don't see

the if if the Iranians agreed, if the the the Iranian Revolutionary Guard agreed to it,

they the agreement would be, all right, we'll get rid of the nuclear stop, you can take it, but we remain in power. They're not going to give up the nukes and also give up their power. No, I don't think so either. And but but the the the the point here is what is the president negotiating, if Marco Rubius making it clear, they haven't budged on nuclear, what the nuclear program, what is the positive that the president sees is the question? Where is that? Not criticism,

it's just it's a question, right? We are run I radio. Brought to you by hot shot secret.

“Hi, I'm Jen Lumis, a transport safety expert at JJ Keller. Drivers witnessed always be”

prepared for a roadside inspection. This means drivers should always have their personal vehicle

and company credentials organized and ready. The top two violations written against drivers every year are log general form and manner and log not current. Both are completely avoidable if the driver keeps the log accurate, compliant, and current at all times. Having the vehicle ready for inspection involves the driver conducting daily inspections and making sure any problems that are discovered are immediately corrected. Vehicle readiness also requires the company

to make sure that the vehicle is current on all scheduled maintenance and that the maintenance schedule is adequate. This will make sure the driver is being given a sound vehicle to start with. This temple is brought to you by JJ Keller and Associates. Visit us at JJ Keller.com. We'll be right back with more run I radio with every currently and dairy McNamara. We are when I radio and he is our currently and I'm dairy McNamara. So when you look at it,

really when you look at the situation, I grew with Mark Halper and that United States has as much time as they want strategically, you know, if those four points are being maximized as to

what the United States is doing, where again the problem is is domestically with prices.

Right. Republicans behind the scenes are screaming about prices. So this can't go on until November just basically what we're just having to status quo and the negotiation still go on and gas prices remain as I saw today in Texas for 39. That caught my intention. You know, you know, when I got in, prices are everything right now and prices are not GDP prices are not capital investment prices are what people feel, you know, every single day and that's a

that's the challenge. That's the problem. Rasmussen, which is the most friendly Trump holster Trump now it is lowest numbers tied for his lowest favorability rating.

in pro wrestling and beyond. You could pop up in WWE tomorrow. Would Saraje be there or would

“page be there? Hey, 1 hundred percent. So when you're setting up Logan Paul to frog splash you through”

the announced table, it's going through your mind. This should make every headline in the world and accepts right in Jelliro. We knew we had that kind of a moment mindset, motivation and what it takes to succeed. Insight with Chris Fanfleet, follow and listen on your favorite platform. You're listening to Red Eye Radio from the Ray Leath Factor Studios. And I'm Gary McNamara along with Eric Carly download our Red Eye Radio app today. You can listen

when and where you choose more on Iran coming up in just a minute. When it comes to supplements, you look for two things. You want it to work. You want to know that you can trust it. And you can trust relief factor. In fact, many of my friends on the radio have been endorsing relief factor for over a decade because it works plain and simple. And relief factor offers a quick start option. Did you know they actually lose money on this first order with you because

they want you to try it more than one million people have tried relief factor. And about 70%

go on to order more. And I'm telling you, I'm on board. As long as relief factor is around, it's going to be a part of my life because it changed everything for me. I take it every day. It's not a quick fix. It's drug free goes to the source of the pain, the inflammation. It works on that every single day for you. And I want you to experience what I've experienced with relief factor

“it's real simple. Again, their quick start option, just 1995. All you have to do is go to”

relief factor.com or call 800-4 relief. Use red eye in the drop down to get your 3-week quick start for 1995 at relief factor.com. See, the points we made last hour that strategically the United States is absolutely dominating in the military action against Iran and what's going on now. We had played Mark Halper. By the way, it was a long time Democrat as we know. A long time Democrat, when he pointed out what he believes are the four things that the United States is doing right now.

The majority of what we've mentioned on the air. In fact, as recently as yesterday did that and said, well, yeah, the pressure is on strategically and militarily. And economically, it's on Iran when you look at the conflict. When you look at the other variables, the president's challenge is domestically. And it's on prices. Not necessarily in what you're spending, even though because I look, there's the news yesterday with the primaries in Indiana that the president still

has a lot of power. But what the president believes, for example, it's not necessarily people are, and this is one thing that I've checked to when people paint all Republicans as simply tribal. Because they're not, they're not doing any, they don't agree with everything that Trump does. But they look at the other options. And when you look at redistricting in the number of of

“incumbents, I think in Indiana, I think it was five. I think I haven't checked on the, I know”

one was up in the air. But five out of the seven, the incumbents were out because they weren't for redistricting. Well, that's something that if you're Republican and you're voting in primaries, what's something that you're paying attention to and you look at what Democrats are doing and you look at everything from how they want to pack the court to how, you know, what's going on in Virginia. And of course, Republicans are going to respond to that. But the president, because people still

agree with the majority of what he believes and the option is completely and totally unacceptable and impure insanity, they're going to stick with them. It's not tribalism. It's based

as Trump has always been on the majority of the issues of where he stands, that the Republican

party and other conservatives. And if there's moderates left anywhere anymore, maybe, moderates and independence, you know, agreed to. So yeah. But his challenge is here is on this particular issue is domestically and it's with gasoline prices that accentuate the problem with prices across the board. And just in the last couple of days, you know, you can go on even, you know, CMBC

don't do it with the Biden administration is doing. If you want to sit there and say,

this is looking good. And this is looking good fine. But we know we have to get prices under control. Fine, do not dismiss prices. Right. And we know the president doesn't. Right. Right. Yeah. Because a number of times he's reversed the tariffs based on the fact that it's increasing prices.

“Right. That's what they did last December when they took, but the tariffs off 200 different”

grocery items. They did it for one reason, one reason only. Right. Prices. Yep. They know it's a problem and they stated that themselves. They stated, uh, and in December when they did that, it was to bring relief to American families. So that's the, that's the the the biggest challenge. And the other challenge is what is will the red line continue to be at the minimum no nuclear program? President hasn't budged on that. I, yeah. And I don't see any way around that.

I don't see any way to to meet halfway on that. I don't think that's negotiable at all. I want to, we want to play this audio cut from Rubio yesterday because it's something that we've set all along. And it's something that's not talked about at all in the mainstream media, you know, the whole war powers act and the war powers act and the war powers act. And will the administration

“abide by the war powers act? I saw this the other day because we asked the question, because it,”

it seemed like that the administration was was as most administrations do, we respect Congress's role, and so we will attempt to abide by it. But we are under no constitutional. There is no legal thing. There is no legal implications of we don't pay attention to the war powers act. We've said it before. The war powers act is unconstitutional. Right. It is right. The, if, you know,

if they, if they attempted to enforce it, but they've never attempted to enforce it. Congress already

has the ability to take the funding away, but the president is not under any timeline, constitutionally, no, and, and it's this simple. Congress cannot pass a law dictating what the president's authority is under commander as commander in chief. Right. You cross the line on separation of power. Right. And it's, it's a separation of powers. But when it comes to funding, there could be issues there. Yeah, going forward. They, they can take funding away. They

“can't tell the president that after 60 days, you must do this or you're breaking the law. Right.”

He's not breaking the law. No, he, he is, he is not. The only way that you could change the only, the only way that the war powers act would not be unconstitutional is if it became a constitutional amendment. Right. Right. Right. And that's simple with the separation of powers. It's a pretty easy thing to explain and people would say, yeah, yeah, yeah, you're right. I understand the, you know,

that point, Democrats are never going to bring it up because they care less about the constitution.

They just want to throw out the rhetoric that the president's not following the war powers act. Well, they, they love having it as the, as the political football, which is, I suspect why it's never been fully on, you know, challenged in terms of its constitutionality because it crosses the line on separation of powers and there's no doubt. There's no way around that. But they love having their political football in moments like this. Right. I mean, if you

came out and said, we're going to move the prep and peach and remove the president from office because of the war powers act, right. You'd run into a, you'd hear the legal arguments of that particular point that, as we said, you can impeach the president because he ate a ham sandwich. Yes. Right. You know, you can impeach it. That's a court of pounder in this case. Right. But you cannot, there is no legal thing. You couldn't sit there and say the president needs.

No. The president has broken the law and needs to go to court because he's not abiding by the war powers act. There is no power in the war powers act. Right. But here's Marka Rubio talking about it yesterday. Here we go. Look, guys. I love talking about this talk. He's about the war powers act. Okay. I love it. I was hoping something would happen. All right. Hold on. Hold on. No, no, boy. You don't let me answer. I got to answer the question. Okay. And I love it. I'll tell you why I love it. Because even as a senator,

I said something. The war powers act is unconstitutional. 100%. Now, this is not the position of me, not the position of the president of the United States. Now, this is the position of every single president that has occupied this position since the day that law passed. It's completely unconstitutional. Now, we comply with it in terms of like notification because we want to preserve good relations with Congress. Right. And we do that. But even as a senator, I would say that the war powers act

is 100% unconstitutional. And look, I know some of you, whatever you want to say, but this is not

since the day that law passes. And infringement on the president's constitutional powers,

“we don't acknowledge the law as constitutional. Nonetheless, we comply with elements of it”

for purposes of maintaining good relations with Congress. And we want them to be involved. And we want them to be informed. I have gone on Capitol Hill. I don't know, four times this year for all senators and all House members and Intel Committee and gang of eight. We want them to be involved in this, but I want to be clear on the point of the war powers act. It's unconstitutional. And every president and every administration has taken that position. Right. Besides saying that,

he should say what we say. Here's the reason it's unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional because of the separation of powers. Right. Congress can not, if if the United States passes a constitutional amendment that was the war powers act, then it would be constitutional. But Congress can not

“pass a law dictating what the president's authority is as commander in chief. Right. And in the”

constitution, it's very vague. Well, because because the founding fathers and everybody since every president since Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative has ignored it. It has ignored it because at some point. But they they've ignored it because they understand Congress can't fight a war. Right. You need one leader. That's the concept of the commander in chief of the armed forces. Congress can take away the funding. You can impeach and remove a

president. But you cannot set the parameters of a war. I would love this just to be a mine bender. And this would be so, this would be so a Trump mood. Just as something to entertain the crowd, an executive order that states that Congress cannot change the executive powers when it comes to war.

See what I did there. And it's sending them basically like a dog chasing its own tail. They would

just send them into one. But it would be a boom. Boom. That would just, that would be hilarious. Think, think calculus will fry their mind. Oh, my God. Anyways, I do this executive order. Yeah, exactly. The executive order is saying the Congress can change the executive power. The executive power when it comes to war. Right. And so my executive order is legal. Just just because it would it would fry so many liberal minds. I would just first want to put a microphone in front of

AOC. As soon as it hit. All right. What are your thoughts? The president's a dictator. Yeah. Yeah. No, actually he's pointing out how you wish. Exactly. You wish to take the democratically, the democratically created power of the president in war and give Congress authority that they don't have under the democratically created constitution of the United States. Exactly. And the reason I came up with that, my tiny little brain is because how they responded,

including specifically AOC, when the abortion ruling came down because the court basically said,

we, we can't decide this. We're going to lead that up to if Congress wants to take it up. Congress can take that up. We can't make that decision here. And AOC came out the day. I think

“it was the day of the decision and said, that's why we have to take it up in Congress. Well,”

that's exactly what the ruling said. Exactly. I've had more fun arguing and everyone has been a liberal woman. Yeah. And they look at me and they don't know how to answer. Right. When you say, no, no, that's not what the Supreme Court said. Right. You know, the people of the United States have not been involved in this through Congress. Right. We don't get, we're not dictators. We don't get, we don't get to make law. We don't get to say that abortion is legal. We're not saying

abortion is, you know, illegal. We're saying that the Supreme Court, the president, was wrong. Right. States can do it if Congress wants to do it. They can pass a law. Right. There is no law. We can't create it. We're not dictators. It was the opposite of what the Democrats accuse them of. Every person and everyone has been a liberal woman. Yeah. Have looked at me. They're eyes glazed over. Well, well, well, well, it's still wrong. What is? You know what I mean? And then don't you have

an explained yourself. I don't know what you mean. And then they told you they're late for a no-king's

You broke up. I'm right. No, kidding. We are at our radio.

“We lined up and for your calls. 866, 90-red eye on red eye radio.”

We're in our radio. And he's our company. And I'm Gary McNamara. You know, that's, I, I would say of, of everything that we talk about. The, the fact of so many Americans that don't understand our own constitution is something that constantly frustrates me all the time. Yeah. People that sit there and, you know, that, that, that claim, you know, on the left-year-old time democracy, democracy, and then don't believe in it. And it's just

and, and to find out how ignorant people are or dismissive they are of the constitution. And at the

same time claiming that, that they're about democracy, when the constitution came about

be through the democratic process and they just ignored that to me, that, that's a, that's a, that's a, that's a scary thing for me. It is.

“Now, for the our news is brought to you by how product is that how products.com.”

This is Red Eye Radio on Westwood One. 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 and me.

Hi. I'm Gary McNamara. He's Eric Hurley. Hello. All right. I was thinking about something on, on the way in. On the way in with my eyes watering like crazy. Oh my gosh. And they have to be, they have to be red as hell. And, and this goes back to what we were talking about last week in the Killswitch.

“Yeah. We, allergies by the way are just the grass pollen. It's just through the roof here.”

Yeah. Also, the weed being sold on the streets this this time of year is just horrible. Make sure eyes water and you're, oh no, I'm allergic to weed. Yeah. Oh, wow. That's going to be a problem. No, no, but well, ragweed. I'm allergic to ragweed. It gets me a big time. Right. Not a cedar for me. They all get me. And I, as I'm along was right. That stupid movie he made or the trees were killing the

happening where the trees were killing everybody. Yeah. I laughed about that until I really developed my allergies and ragweed to some extent, but mountain cedar and then it hit me. Oh my gosh. It was a, that movie was ahead of its time. Well, it's funny because when I was a kid, I was wearing a mask before it became popular. I used to have to wear a, a pollen mask at night when I was a kid. Oh, wow. It was so, the ragweed pollen, which really, when I grew up in

Western New York, would hit from basically middle of August to the first, you know, the first freeze.

Yeah. And, and it was horrible. I mean, it was horrible. And then that started going away and as I get older and I moved to Texas. It's like all three now affect me not to the degree that the ragweed did because it's not, it's not nose and congestion anymore. It's just water rise. My eyes and my nose just nonstop for me. And so there I am wiping my, you know, wiping my eyes all the way in because I'm almost crying. You, you ever find yourself crying? Um, yes.

And all the sudden you'd be doing something in a tear comes down your eye. No, nobody would look at you and go, are you crying? Well, because I get sympathy or something out of it, but no, it's really just a pollen. No, I was in the story yesterday and I was walking around. I'm like, look, it's going to, I had my sunglasses on because they're prescription so I need to read labels and the whole thing and I didn't bring my other glasses in. And so also it looked like I was trying

to just hide something, you know, because I was wearing sunglasses indoors. But then all of a sudden tear started coming down my face and I'm like, no, I got to wipe this off. This looks like I'm crying. Well, you just brought up the thing that I thought about, you know, with the kills which is we talked about last week, which, and thanks for a couple of responses that we got on it where people said, we thought that was done. We thought the kills which was over, which is if people don't know

in the 2027 vehicles, I don't know whether the technology is going to be ready, but there are

there's going to be all sorts of new contraptions, monitoring your eyes, your iris,

“your facial features, your movement, your your head movement, your heart beats.”

How well you can sing exactly. And to find out whether you're impaired in any way, physically, naturally, physically or because of artificial joy. But even if you're tired, whatever, and so the whole thing is, well, do they have this thing figured out and what was interesting was when we actually looked at the figures they're talking about? Well, this look, it's going to be 99% accurate. But we figured if it's 1% not accurate, that would be over three

billion times the cars are shut down in this country a year. Yeah, because they there would be a

kill switch on it. Right. Now, they don't know. I don't think it's going to make it to 2027. I don't think they've got the technology because I don't think they don't think because I think they would have to appeal basically to to the administration because it was an administrative move. They would have to appeal to the administration and/or lawmakers to shut it down or to get an

“extension. Well, no, I don't think they're ready. No, that's what I mean, in order to be compliant,”

they're going to have to get an official extension because what we know now is anything that we saw in the information we got was last week that it's not any of the technologies that the different OEMs are looking at, including one that would regulate, would monitor your heartbeat. It'd be in your chair and it'd be a sensor in there. How much is that? How much is that going to add to the cost of the car? Nobody has talked about it because we don't have a universal system yet,

but my, I'm going to get this out first because this is the question I thought of.

If I were sunglasses, how can they monitor my eyes? The facial recognition software goes through glasses, unless you get a very specific type of class. Not the facial recognition, but the monitoring of your iris, which is different than facial recognition. Well, but no, facial recognition relies first on the eyes. And so that, it's that kind of software that that would be used, sunglasses wouldn't cover it up. They can do it with sunglasses on. Now, so they can monitor what

whatever they, I don't even know what they're looking for in the iris, they just said we can look at the iris. What are they looking for in the iris? They're looking, while they're looking for, for movement of the iris, they're looking for also the number of links along the way. They're looking, you know, for a number of things when it comes to the eyes. There, there are companies who have created because it's kind of a libertarian move with facial recognition

software being everywhere. They've created these glasses that actually do work. And so people are putting these glasses on when they go into, I don't know if it's airports or certain resorts have facial recognition software. There, there's a concern now that it's so widely used that retailers are using it. And one of the stories that came out over the last few weeks was that if retailers were to implement this, they could essentially tailor specials

for you based on, now they can always, they can do this anyway based on your shopping habits

when your card is linked to your account, if you link your card to your account, if you've got a Walmart plus or Amazon account or anything like that, then often there's a card linked to that and they know your buying habits, right? Even if you go in store and you don't use the app, you're using that card, which is linked to the app, which then the app sends you specials

“for things that you like to buy. Well, also then it was, the concern was, and I think this is coming”

from a group of liberal lawmakers primarily, but that the retailers could go in and raise the cost of things based on what they think you can afford versus what other people can afford. I don't think any retailer in their right mind would ever do that the moment they were found, found doing that. It would be disastrous, but the point being is that facial recognition software has been in play for the longest time. The casinos have been using it for a long time because there's

a ton of liabilities when it comes to that. There's, of course, for security, TSA and everything else, and so someone developed these glasses. I don't know how effective they say they're effective. I don't know how effective they are on facial recognition. Now,

finalize the rule or refine the rule or issue, this is what they always say. We're issuing

“clarifications on the rule, so they change the rules as they go along when it's an administrative”

move. FMCSA or whatever it is that's governing this, they would come in and say, "Well, if it detects that you're wearing something that keeps the system from reading your head moment or anything else, then it would also shut down." So if you decide you're going to try and skirt the system that you're going to try and throw it off in any way, then it would shut it down. If this thing gets through, I don't see this thing going forward. The reason is people would stop

buying cars immediately. It becomes a very creepy privacy issue. You're sharing the road with other

cars, with other trucks and cars, and they have the right to govern traffic on and cars on the roads. But if you're talking about going into it with no history of any kind of DUI conviction or anything else and it being such an imperfect technology, there's no way you're

“going to get away with this without a challenge, and I believe ultimately this will fail.”

You have, remember, I just happened to go to look at the latest on the automobile kill switch mandate. Again, this came actually in 2021. We talked about it a couple of years ago, which required all new passenger vehicles manufactured after 2026 to be equipped with advanced impaired driving prevention technology, recent voting in January of this year. The amendment to repeal the mandate failed in the house to 164 to 164 to 268 57 Republicans voting against the

repeal. We talked about that. The point is the public may not want it, but there doesn't seem to be any inertia from the side. For example, you had I think a dissentist has come out against it. Let me just see here, Chip Royce come out against it, dissentist has come out against it, pushing to repeal the requirement calling it a or welling and move that makes the dashboard a judge jury and an executioner. But I can't find, think about this, think how controversial

this is, I can't find one poll on it. Well, I don't think most people are even aware of it. Yeah, I don't think that buying public is aware of it. Because the moment

you started introducing that when you do a test drive, because think about this. The first

part of buying a vehicle is a test drive. You get in that technology is going to be in play. The moment that technology is in play, you're looking over at the sales person who's right in shotgun and going, nope. I've stopped the test drive for much less. Unless it's passive, you don't know what's working until it stops. You get in the car, most people get in the car, you get in a car today. You look at all the technology on it. If you have an old car and you

get in, you're so confused to begin with. When my, I've got the, what do they call it, the immersive, it's called the immersive dashboard through my windshield. You see it on my one vehicle, which is 2017. But when you get in a pretty complicated situation and you put on your navigation, it looks like you're in a cockpit of an airplane. There's just stuff all over the place. It took me a little while to get used to it. Right. And so I, you look at all that going on,

is the system going to be passive. You just get in the car. You don't know what's even there. Until it tells you you can't drive. Well, based on your vehicle. Well, and, and again, that's, I mean, because with so many parameters in place, there's a great likelihood that at least half of test drives would render some kind of action by the car. And if that is the case,

“that's a non-starter. So are you saying people are going in to buy their cars drunk?”

No, I think they're looking around. I think they're doing exactly what they do when they drive.

has this, and it will be, and they changed it because there was a complaint that a slamer used

to pop up on my screen in my truck, which is only two years old. It was that would, it would pop up on the fly. Pay attention to your driving. Well, you just distracted me from my driving with this prompt. Now, now it only happens when the, when the vehicle's in part. So it comes up and it says,

“and you have to, in order to get your screen back, you have to click OK. It's a disclaimer. That's”

all it is. We, we want, hey, we told the people that they're going to have to use this responsibly, and that's where it ends. And, and quite frankly, that is where it ends. It's, you know, I went by, I was, we all do it. You pass somebody who's weaving in an out of line. It's like,

oh, that person's drunk. Nope, the guy was texting. And then, not one minute later, I pass him,

not one minute later, he zooms past me at at least 90. And then I'm thinking to myself, well, you know, that's just an accident waiting to happen. But there is a line that you cross if look, there's levels of enforcement that distracted driving is against the wall, texting, while driving is against the law in most of not all places by now. In fact, the finds are very heavy when you get into a school zone, uh, in, at least in our state. And so, there are levels of

enforcement that enforcement requires manpower, uh, humans to witness this outside of that vehicle. Now, you're asking the enforcement to be the vehicle you pay for. Well, that changes the dynamic of the relationship when it comes to owning a vehicle.

“I remember the first time when I got my 2017 vehicle and it's got, you know, all the,”

had all the latest stuff at the time, which is what they basically have today. And I'm driving down the highway. I'm going 70 in the wind's blowing. And I'm like, is that the wind or set my

alignment. So, and I had the car for a couple of years. So, I'd never experienced this. So,

I took my hands off the wheel as the car's going down the, the, the highway. I mean, there's nobody around. I mean, it was, yeah, you know, it's middle the night when I was going home. Right. And, you know, what's, we have guard rail. So, yeah, exactly. Well, exactly. When I, but I couldn't, I couldn't smash into them because they told me guard rail under repair. No. Uh, I still don't know why those signs exist. I really heavily on guard rails.

“When the, I hate when they have that damaged guard rail sign. I'm like, why? You know,”

point out the damn pod holes, but you're pointing out something that I don't plan on hitting. Well, now I've got to finish my cereal before I get to the guard rail. The guard rail. But I took my hand off the wheel for, and it was like, you know, three, and I'm monitoring it, seeing if the car is moving at all. My car, okay. It's not the alignment. It must be the wind, all of a sudden, in my windshield, this huge red sign. Put your hands back on the wheel. I'm

like, whoa. Yeah. Well, it's you. Yeah, got to be a 10 and 2. Or as I say, keep your news that eight and four. There you go. We are right. I radio this morning's USDA farm report is brought to you by house products tested, trusted guaranteed since 1920. Another potential freeze event midweek. We are looking at two more mornings of potential damaging cold extending deep into the planes and the Midwest. Those events are likely to unfold on Wednesday morning and Thursday morning.

With USDA, we are all just Brad Ripy say this pattern follows a departed cold front across the east south and lower Midwest. As a cold air settles in for Wednesday morning, we could see minimum temperatures dropping to the freezing mark or below as far south as the central Great Plains. Again, this is an area that has been exposed to multiple freeze events over the last several weeks. With hard freezes forecasted for the northern plates and upper

Midwest as well, moving it to Thursday morning. We get to cold air deepening a bit and we could see temperatures add or near the freezing mark as far south as Western Oklahoma, North Eastern to Mexico and the northern Panhandle of Texas. I'm Rod Bay reporting for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. This report brought you by Senax, Fules and Loops. Coming up more with Gary McNamara and Eric Carly, it's Red Eye Radio.

that the entire kill switch story isn't a monster story.

“Yeah. No, I mean, I think that's why I think the reason it's not”

is because I think too many people don't even know about it. But even though. But with social media, why isn't it all over the place? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what this should have been viral back in 21. What it hit? Yeah. I think it was kind of. And we were still in the COVID years, so it should have been big then, maybe. I don't know, maybe.

I'd like to see some polling to see how many people don't even know it exists.

, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.

Catch Red Eye Radio Live every night on the Red Eye Radio app available in the App Store, Red Eye Radio.

“Where were I radio? He's currently an I'm Gary McNamara.”

You know, interesting, Eric, when the different debates happen in California, and again, coming from my perspective is not the perspective of a liberal in in in California, but when I watch it, I'm just like, yeah, every time you either have either the Republican candidates, Hilton or I've got my blank on the other,

the other guy to share that, that, that, you know, they say, these are the people that've been leading your state. These are the people that created all these policies. Right. Right. And they're telling you how they're going to fix the policies that they endorsed and created. Right. But they don't endorse and, you know, endorse them anymore. But this one was really interesting, because this is back before these are actually

the Democrats arguing for a little bit here after Basharra talked about the cost of living in California is because of Trump. Democrats disagreed with them. Here we go. So Mr. Mayhand chose to divert from answering the question about affordability to launch attacks. But I would simply say to him is, let's focus on who's raising the cost of living in California the most. And that's Donald Trump. The price of gas has gone up one to two dollars,

because of Donald Trump and his war in Iran. The price of goods, groceries, have gone up in California,

“because of Donald Trump's illegal tariffs. You see, all they can say is not true. That's what they're not true.”

We had the highest gas prices on average over two dollars rest of the, then the rest of the nation for a very long time. And it was another Democrat. Yeah. And so it's, it's, you know, to me, it's just a zoo. I look at it. I'm like, okay, you, you really aren't making any points here. You know, here is Steve Hilton yesterday, one of the Republican candidates. Here we go. No. It's classic Democrats isn't it what you're hearing? And if it moves tax it,

if it still moves regulated, and if it stops moving, I guess they want to subsidize it. Look,

the truth is on this, we have to have a bit of humility. This is a very fast-moving

technology. And actually, even the people involved in it disagree about its exact consequences. Here are two things that we do practical things we could and should be doing better today. First of all, the real blue collar jobs that are coming from the AI revolution, they're not happening in California. They're going to Texas and Arizona. Same with conductor manufacturer. We could get that back by removing regulations. And secondly,

thank you so much. Our school system is not educating our kids to be able to thank you very much for the help of a congresswoman. Yeah, I mean, look, it makes all these great points. What has happened with California is, again, what has happened with all the blue states, a series of decisions that start with the voter. These are decisions that have been made that can be reversed. You can decide not to do them anymore and change

the future as he points out there. But I don't expect it to be widely heard and widely accepted in a state like California. I mean, I'm glad Republicans are, you know, at least showing up and talking about these things. But I don't expect this to be the case for the future of California.

interesting because you see that Gavin Newsom does not pull well. But think about this. If you're

“Gavin Newsom, you have to sit there and be going, what in the hell is going on? How, how can I not”

be winning this? How can Kamala Harris be trouncing me? Yeah. She's clueless on there. And that's the thing. Everyone knows every Democrat knows she can't form a sentence. She writes, she's clueless on how the world works completely. And not only is she clueless, she comes across as clueless. Now,

Newsom is clueless, but he has that very sophisticated way. The George, as I've always said,

the George Clooney way, the Obama way of being able to phrase things without saying anything. Now, we know their clueless. Yeah. It's obvious their clueless. It's obvious they don't live in the real world. But they look at and go, yeah, but we're all Democrats. We're all clueless. It's who can present our cluelessness in a much better and sophisticated way. And so Newsom's looking at Kamala Harris

“going, how the hell can she be leading me? No, that's it. And that's what it is. You see the voter”

base and their series basically, their pattern of behavior. And it's not going back to reconsider all the bad decisions. It's just the opposite. They're going further in the direction of the radical left and what is created everything in California and these blue states. It's not going to reverse in our lifetime. I'm convinced. If I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, I'll celebrate being wrong. Well, when you look at, look, things have been much higher in California for a significant period of

time as we all know. On the national level, and this is why we even wore in the Republican Party in the administration, ignore prices to your own peril. But there are places in this country where prices don't matter. Where like, and now, everybody's talking about in California and trying to blame Trump, as you just saw, Basharra try to do. This is Steve Hilton talking about prices. And I looked at this and to me, I'm like, well, if prices is number one across the country,

and finally, if California has hit that limit, if finally California, people are saying,

my God, what are you doing? Billionaires are moving. This means that we're going to have to pay more. People aren't stupid. People look in their, they may be BS, but when it comes to their own economy, and when it comes to the fact that they may be taxed, they're very sensitive to that. And when you have billionaires moving, and when you see, for example, when you see spam burger in Virginia, okay, now we want to go after gym memberships. We want to, you know, tax gym memberships

and tax things at the middle class uses as we have said before. One of the things that Democrats

always used to say is, look at the Scandinavian countries, look at Sweden, look at Norway,

look at all the socialism, and how it succeeds what they failed to mention is the middle class on the poor pay way more in taxes than they do in the United States. There is no free lunch. It's like the the couple in California after Obamacare was passed. We love Obamacare. We completely support Obamacare. We didn't know we were going to have to pay for it. Our premiums of skyrocket, we can't keep our own doctor anymore. Yep, but we still support

the person who lied to us on this entire thing. We still support him. You sit there and you go,

“what are you doing that case? I go back to the guy that called us one time. Remember that”

call the guy who called and we convinced him. He said, you guys are right. The private sector does provide. We went through all the waiting times, for example. Yeah. Oh, you see the poll, not the poll, but the study on waiting times, the United States with Obamacare, have gone up significantly. Yeah. Yeah. But and we've said, you know, it's like, yeah, but you get care. Well, if you have to wait six months to go to a specialist,

you're not getting care. No. And when it comes to medical things, people want the once they find out their ill, they want the treatment as soon as as as as possible. But I'm going to make it back here to the prices here. I want to play this cut from Steve Hilton and he makes a very great point. This is the best point that you could make. Now, your California citizen. Now, you know,

everyone knows when the thing ends. And you know, when this thing ends, or the strain of

“hormones is open. And we see that you've got countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE now saying,”

we don't, you know, we want to be able to just sell more oil. The United States going in that direction, you're going to see a drastic decrease in it. We know it's temporary. Right. But here's Steve Hilton said he goes, look, this is California's problem. This isn't Trump.

Prices have always been high. Yep. Here we go. Mr. Hilton, go ahead.

It's not Donald Trump who's given us gas prices $2 higher than the rest of the country. It's Democrat policies, which Antonio and all the Democrats here support. It's not Donald Trump that's given us the highest housing costs in the country. It's Democrat policies that all these Democrats support. Donald Trump is the president in all the other states of America, where the cost of living is way lower than in California.

Obviously, it is way past time for changing California. And endlessly going on about Donald Trump doesn't serve the needs of the struggling families and small businesses. And you said, everybody knows that. Every Democrat listening right now in California to our show or independent. Yep. Know that. Yep. They know it's the state policies in California. And the Democrats sitting on that stage that caused it. And they still agree with all

these Democrats all agree with the policies. They've enacted. They're not saying, look, we need to we need to back off on the cloud change regulations. They still endorse everything that has given California a much higher cost of living.

You and I always go back to and we had said this for the longest time. We said,

remember how they do the poverty level. Right. Right. And we said, they do it wrong. Poverty, well, the poverty level is lower in California because people make a lot more money. And we said, that's not how you figure out poverty. How you figure out. You've been saying this for years. Yeah. How you figure out poverty is not what the average salary is. Right. It's what, you know, what the salaries are, whether you want to do median or average or whatever,

based on what the cost of living is there. And once you pay for all of the goods and services

“that are necessary in life, that's how you would figure it out. What is left over?”

Yeah. That's how you figure what the poverty rate is. Right. And, you know, that's the only fair, and then the member of the Census Bureau did that. They changed and California went to number one in poverty. Right. And we said, well, that's the point. Right. No matter what you make, it matters what you have at the end of the day, once you pay for what we would view as necessary to live the life that you wish to live or just an average. I don't want to say that live the life you

wish to live. Just be able to live and survive. The matter of the Census, the Bart Bay Area Rapid Transit Strike. And they said, look, 50 to $60,000. We can't, as the workers for Bay Area Rapid Transit, we can't live in this area for 50 to 60 because that was the proposal on the table. I think there's

no way to survive that. And it's always been the case. And Californians know it. But the majority of

Californians today have not changed the way they vote. They still vote for the same policy that keeps them higher than the rest of the nation. I don't get it. But they're doing it. And it's, I don't, I just don't believe it's going to change. Not in my lifetime. We are Red Eye Radio. Get in touch with Red Eye Radio, toll free at 866, and mighty Red Eye. We are Red Eye Radio. He's our honey and I'm Gary McNamara. Chad Bianco was who I was trying to

“think of as a sheriff of Riverside. Yeah, he's the one that's running. And I think very articulate.”

Now I look at the California debates when I say, wow, okay, it's everything that's wrong. I saw the CNN poll that showed most Californians believe that what they pay for gasoline is not worth the cost. Yeah, of what what they claim is being done. You know, the whole climate change thing. Well, they made their point. The Republicans have made their point. You know, in these debates, but I just want to play this audio cut here from Katie Porter, who's running. And this is just

great. They look, look at how blunt she is when it comes to free healthcare to illegal immigrants.

undocumented immigrants statewide. Yes. Yes, and, and that's by the way, what I think California's

deserve as answers to these questions. There you go. As clear as you can get. Now, by the way, we've said this before. And we've given this advice to all liberals, you can have your free healthcare, you can give your free healthcare to whoever you want. You can tax all the rich. You can skyrocket

inside of your state. All the taxes that you want. Yeah, you can provide everything to everybody

inside your state. Why aren't you doing it? Why aren't you demanding that the Democrats who have led and promised all this stuff on the federal level that they can't get done? Why aren't you

“demanding they do it on the state level? Right. Right. We live that that's why we, you know,”

federal isn't that's what it's about. You as a state can do what you want. Why won't you hold the Democrats feet to the fire and say, give us free everything like you do on the federal level? Right.

We know what the answer is because you've got to pay for it. Which means $29 a gallon,

which means you really don't care. Right. Because you can only care if you're willing to pay for it yourself, then you care. Yes. If you're saying no, somebody else should pay for it, then you don't care. Right. You just want free stuff. Right. You're not a more moral person that a conservative that says, by the way, there is no such thing as a free lunch. So he's going to have to pay for it. Right. I want somebody else to pay for mine. That's greed. And government

“is not the most efficient system to ride anything. Right. You can have it. No, what you want?”

It's not. We'll get it. This is Ridae 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? What's at this by 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. I got my book in show. Following, listen on your favorite platform.