05-11-26 Part One - The Virginia Vote Pushback

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.”

We are Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Hurley, and I'm Gary McNamara. Good morning. Hello. Let's go back. Let's see what a prediction was made six years ago. All right. Here we go. Bernie Sanders. Six years ago. I've lived a little over six years ago. Here we go. The scientists are telling us that if we don't act incredibly boldly within the next six, seven years, there will be a work global damage done, not just in Nevada, not just in Vermont or

Massachusetts, but to the entire world. There you go. Anything change? All there's been damage done. It has nothing to do with the environment. It's the radical left that's doing

the damage. Well, we just, this is just a continuation of what we've always said. When every

doomsday scenario that is made, and they've all been doomsday scenarios, when not one of them ever come true, when are you supposed to do, when is it okay to say, well, if you've been wrong, if you've thrown out over the last couple of decades, 50 doomsday scenarios, which you say

“absolutely is going to happen or are going to happen, and they don't, when do you lose credibility?”

You never do on the left because they don't care about the truth. Credibility only matters if you care about the truth. And they've never cared about the truth. They just want the willfully ignorant to move on and go about their day and not look into the facts, not check them on their false predictions over the years. Decades for decades that they've been doing this. Yeah. And they don't care about the truth. Somebody mentioned that I saw it over the weekend again.

Seems like more people are picking up. We actually played a few weeks ago and when what's his name, Gore was out there saying, one of the concerns we have now was for global cooling. It was like, yeah, right. Yeah. Well, you know, that's, of course, they're going to have to change their tune. They, they, how many times have they changed their tune? It was global warming. It was climate chaos. It was temporarily displaced climate. No, wait.

That was for illegal immigrants. It was global chaos and, and global,

“what was the, what was the catastrophic, something they had something with catastrophic in it?”

Change the definition every day. That way, no one gets to double check you. When you, when you can make a boy, a girl or a girl, a boy, just by saying so, the definitions or what you call climate change or whatever your next thing is or your big thing is, doesn't matter to anybody. You can, you can call it whatever you want. You can call it something different every day and that's exactly what they do. They change the meaning of words or they

think they do. That's the attempt. Change the language control the language, which is why it was so important for them to control the language on social media for so long, they got away with it for years with help from the FBI before the Twitter files came out, before Elon Musk stepped in and overpaid for Twitter. Well, it was one of those weekends that the things that were being said, what was it, what was it last week that AOC said,

because she had another one that came out after that, where she talked about the fact that the revolution, the American Revolution was against the billionaires. Yeah. It's like, what the hell do you talking about? Right, but you said someone, but you can't earn, there's no way to earn.

Oh, that's right. You can't earn a billion dollars. Oh, my gosh. That's no way to earn a billion dollars.

There's no way to earn a billion dollars. She was eviscerated for that, but yeah, but Democrats probably agree with it, but of course that's not true. Of course you kind of you make a widget. In fact, if you make a widget that becomes popular, it's, you know, if you get to that point, yeah, you can make a billion dollars. It's not that hard. You can put out crappy music and make a billion dollars. I was reading a, uh,

Here in Texas, and she created Poppy Soda. I think I've seen it on the shelf. I think I've heard

of it. I've never tasted it. I don't know what it tastes like, but she went on Shark Tank.

Next thing, you know, her company sells for $1.95 billion dollars. And the point of the article basically was, well, I don't need, uh, some people talk about quality

“of life. She said, no, it's okay to live in chaos if that's what you run on, basically.”

If you're, if, if that's what you're going to do, you know, if that's going to be your life, chaos, and, and, and, and the sense that your life is always about business and, and you don't need life balance, life, work balance or any of that, and you just run on it. If you look at these billionaires, they may, they may not have said that, but that's pretty much how many of them operate. Jeff Bezos is selling his $500 million dollar got. He realized, no, I don't need a got.

I don't have time for a young. Well, you know, you, you, you go to this mindset of, because let's say we took, or somebody took all of the wealth from the billionaires just one time and it was going to be a one time thing. They took all their bills, their billionaire wealth away. It was all of it is going, right? It's the, the government gets it. The people get it, whoever gets it. Well,

first of all, it'd be a massive, catastrophic. Well, it hit on the economy. But here's what

would happen. You're going to a depression. Eventually, those individuals would become billionaires again. Yeah. If you take their money away, those same mindsets are still at work. That means

“you have to take away a significant portion of stock in American companies. Oh, yeah, the effect.”

I mean, the effect would be, the effect would be absolutely catastrophic. And one example of that is the current president. He's gone through bankruptcy how many times. He's talked about it. He wrote about it in his book. He said, one time he said there was this homeless guy across the street. He was in New York and there was this homeless guy across the street. He said, that guy's worth

$900 million more than I am because he had just filed for bankruptcy for $900 million or something.

And he was making the point, you know, that guy's worth $900 million more than I am because I'm $900 million in the hole. And that guy's not in the hole, probably. So now we see the president doing very well with his media company and everything else. And those running his companies for him, these are the types of individuals, these individuals that, frankly, when you when you think about it, the country was founded on this idea that you have that kind of potential.

And they don't, the socialist don't want that at all. All they want to do is control it. They want you to believe, remember in that conversation that we played last week with AOC. It's impossible and the host was going, you're exactly right. You're exactly right. You're exactly right. You know, these people know nothing about making money. It is impossible for AOC or someone like her to make a billion. They don't seem to understand what we've said this before. It's the debate really

is with children. We're dealing with children's minds. And I'm not saying that to throw out any type of, you know, psilacious insult or whatever. It's just, it's just you're dealing with emotional nightmares that just throw out stuff. And the latest is that, you know, that Primaealcy was that the American Revolution was against the billionaires of their times, which, of course, it was not. And she was fact checked, you know, a ton of that about how many

the founding fathers actually had wealth and used their wealth. In fact, that was a part of the Declaration of Independence. Yeah. Was they were willing to give up all of their wealth to fight, you know, for freedom and to fight a, a very dis, as, as Mike Lee put it over the weekend, a very distant, large, overly intrusive government that gave no representation to the colonies. Yeah. And so, but I understand why she has to do it. I mean, we understand we talked about it last week.

“You have to, if you can't win on the argument, you've got to create the delusion that the other”

side is pure evil. Yeah. So billionaires have to be evil. Well, you've got to lie about the facts.

Right. But the reason you're doing that in line is because the lie is that they're evil. Yeah. That's the whole part of it. That is that it is that everything starts is built on a lie in order to get to the end point that it's wrong. Because basically, she brought up in that Congress, not basically. She brought up in that conversation that they were cheating,

“breaking the law. Right. Yes. They did something illegal. Right. You have to break the law in order”

to be a billionaire. That's exactly what they want you to believe. And so what they're trying to say is we want to create new law to make it against the law to be a billionaire. Right. And then you had

never forget that we played in a couple of months ago just said, what an idiot. They said,

this proves that astronauts can be complete idiots. Yeah. Mark Kelly. Right. I agree. We need to get rid of billionaires. You're right. You're going to get rid of billionaires. That's a good idea. You're right. We don't need to shut up. You idiot. Well, it's not that's by the way. That scares me that he was an astronaut and would actually say something as idiotic as that even for political purposes. He wouldn't say, okay. This isn't a critical thinking point here. And I'm an astronaut.

“Well, it's, you know, it just goes to show really that the space that should be explored”

more closely is that between his ears. Yes. Because it's empty. But it's the entire point of

they can't win on the issues. So they have to lie to demonize. And, you know, that's where we are

not. But what an interesting weekend it was. I mean, the Virginia Supreme Court really. Yeah. Oh, my gosh. And now the, uh, there was that the professor who came up with the idea of how they can resolve it. That was, that was beautiful in Virginia for their redistricting that they lost. And this professor came up with this specifics of the story here in a little bit, came up and said, well, how we can do this is we simply, the legislature creates a new law that the retirement age

now for every single Supreme Court justice is 54, not 73. And then they'll all throw now. We put in our hand-picked people. Yeah. And then we do it again. And we get the districts that we want. Now, yeah. The, the, the fact is it doesn't work that way. I mean, you, somebody would have to file and I don't know how you refile something like that. But they said the court, with the court cases on it, this thing would, would, would go past the, uh, you know, just the legal stuff

itself would go past November. Yeah. Right. You know, but, you know, that's the idea that they all jumped on. Because they were just all getting what can we do? What could their own workshop in this? What can we do? And that's the idea we came up with. Let's change the retirement age. Fire all the Supreme

“Court justices. Because that's what you're doing by saying the retirement age is now 54. Right.”

And by the way, the, uh, that's the, that covers everybody who voted that particular way. Yeah. Of course. And then you replace the entire Supreme Court with people. And this is where we've talked about, this is another example. What happened in Virginia was an example of the tyranny of the majority, which the founding fathers were against. That's where 51% can shut out 49%. That's why we live in a republic. That's why we have an electoral college. That's why we have

a Senate. That's why all these things exist. Right. That's why states have, you know, have the same thing. They got a house. They have a Senate. There's a reason for that. Well, I keep you heard, uh, uh, Mayor Pete, was that a few weeks ago talking about the electoral college. That we should have someone who is in the White House, who wins the majority of the votes, not the electoral college votes. And of course, we had to include the current president in that.

And he didn't, he didn't, and I listened to more of that speech. He never mentioned Trump would

still be president. No, he didn't. No. But of course, they want to get rid of everything. They want to undermine the Constitution. And, and so, uh, I wasn't surprised by it, but they're, they're, they're panicking. Uh, they won't change what they want on the issues. They're going to be losing. And this is something that everybody's talked about. They're going to be losing in the census. They're going to be losing, uh, house seats. Yeah.

You cannot what they believe society can't run on. Right. The thing about liberalism and

Well, this is, you know, their entire goal is to break the system that we have. You have to do

that really, really get, you start by chipping away the foundation of the Constitution.

“Well, you have to break the system to get what control the system. But what is, what is the”

conclusion of that? A failed society. It is a failed society because it would be, it would be full on communism. But you see it already now. You see it with, you know, California had that guy again when another couple of things and attract me. Yeah. And, you know, they're out there saying, this is great. This is wonderful because understand that all the worst characteristics of human

beings is what the Democratic party now endorses. Yes. And they're fighting for it. They're

they're legally fighting for it. And that includes the identity politics, which is the racism, the misogyny and sexism of the radical transgender movement, which is absolutely blunt misogyny, jealousy, envy, and selfishness about the demonization of wealth. The demonization of people who have wealth, the lie that if you have wealth or you have something, you must have done something wrong or evil to do it. The victimization, you're a victim, they're an oppressor.

Everything is built on jealousy, envy, and selfishness. You want greed? Look at the Democrat party. Yep. No kings. They want nothing but kings. We're a red-eye radio. This report is brought to you by Shell Rotella. With advanced synthetic technology, is designed to help keep your rig running with more mileage and less maintenance. Logging miles during the hot summer months can put a serious strain on you and your truck's health.

Did you know pollutants and allergens in the air outside can enter your cab through the

“HVAC system without you even cracking a window? That's why it's important to check those”

cabin air filters. Not only do dirty cabin air filters contaminate the air you breathe, they can also cause major damage to HVAC components, like blower motor resistors, and AC compressors. Have your cabin air filter service if you notice less air flow than usual coming from the interior vents. This is a common sign that your filters are at the end of their life cycle. Breathe easy when the air in your cab is fresh. Coming up more with Gary McNamara

and Eric Carley, it's Red Eye Radio. We're in our radio and he's our Colony and I'm Gary McNamara. All right, here is what ALC had to say here we go again. Oh man, just keep bringing on the quotes, ALC. Here we go. The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time and we're declaring independence

from such an extreme marriage of wealth and power in the state. The ALC talking about, just making crap, making it up as you go along, my God, making it up as you go along. It's part of something that Bernie has been doing, her pal Bernie has been doing this for the longest time. You can't make it because of the rich

and powerful. There's no way it's impossible, that's right out of the Bernie Playbook.

Well, it's impossible to earn a billion dollar. That's what really came out of

“Occupy Wall Street. You and I remember that we got the call from the student UCLA who said,”

"You know, the billionaires, I can't afford my education." And here the billionaires, she bought into it completely. We're just like, "Wow." And she wants everybody to believe you. Remember that? This? Jacques Garbage. Hey, I'm Chris Fanfleet. Go behind the scenes and beyond the headlines with the biggest names in pro wrestling and beyond. You could pop up in WWE tomorrow. Would Surrey be there or would page

100%. 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 an excess, right in Jellie Roll. 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.

Jonathan Turley. What happened? The Virginia Supreme Court and the Jerry Mandreen

“attempt in Virginia, that'll come in up. When it comes to supplements, a couple of things matter”

the most. It works and you can trust it. Many of our friends on the radio have been taking and endorsing relief factor for over a decade. Why? Because it works. Plain and simple. I've been taking it for a while and I'm telling you what works. Relief factor offers a quick start option.

In fact, you know, they lose money on this first offer. And it turns out more than a million

people have tried relief factor and about two thirds go on to order more relief factor because it does work. It is 100% drug free. I take it every day. I want you to get the same benefit that I get from relief factor. The pain in my lower back is no longer keeping me on the sidelines. Every single day, I've got the energy and I don't have to deal with the pain. Thanks to relief

“factor. Get your three week quick start. Very simple. All you have to do is go to relieffactor.com.”

Relieffactor.com. Choose what I in the drop down for your three week quick start at 1995 or call 800 for relief. That's 800 the number four relief. Here is Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan

Turley on what's going on in Virginia. Virginia was always the gold standard for

gerrymandering. Virginia doesn't like gerrymandering. It makes it very difficult to do so. They have a commission to avoid gerrymandering. So to get this through, they had to do a sort of bum's rush to get this in before the midterm elections and the Supreme Court of Virginia said, "No, we're not going to sign off on this." Now, this was a face planting of legendary size for a governor Spamberger. She had previously assured voters that she was vehemently against gerrymandering.

As soon as she was elected, she went to the hard left and then pushed through the most radical gerrymandering scheme in the country. And so, this is a remarkable effort that has resulted in a mass of loss for the Democrats. They spent a fortune to get this thing through

64 million. In addition to the 64 million, the alienated half of the state.

Yeah, they certainly did it. But I thought, really, there was the perfect example. And I'll say it again, because it's something we've talked about a lot with the Democrats promoting that election should all be popular votes. The president's election ought to be

“popular vote instead of the majority of states. That's what it is now. The majority of states.”

And the Democrats also promoted getting rid of the Senate. And we've talked about this many times before, and they've talked about again, I came up with a new term. Gerrymandering courts. Yeah, exactly. That's why I'm laughing at my own statement there. But, and this goes back to where the Democrats believe the judges should not interpret the law, but they should make law. And the judges, if they would have gone along with this,

would have been making law. Yeah. Right. Because the Virginia Constitution specifically, you know, omits this from from from happening. Right. And it's just really, you may, what was the, I want to see it, did I, I had a problem with the printer. Just want to really quickly go back to an article that I saw. It was a national review and Charlie Kirk wrote it. Imagine if it were Trump, all right. Listen to this. And he's relating this to the,

what happened in Virginia. Is that Charlie Kirk? You met Charlie Cook. Charlie Cook. Yes. By said, Curt, we have my apologize. Charlie Cook. Right. Charles Cook from National Review. Imagine the following scenario. Donald Trump says he's going to run for president again in 2028 on the grounds that it's necessary to ensure fairness and to protect democracy. That I, I couldn't get by that without dying laughing. Right. Because that's basically what the

Democrats are saying. Right. You know, but in another way, after Trump wins the Republican primaries and secures an nomination, the Democrat party says that his plan to run again is unconstitutional and ask the Supreme Court to prevent Trump from running again in the, assuming litigation, the Republican party tells the Supreme Court that it must wait to adjudicate this constitutional question until the completion of the proceedings. You know,

You know, you can't do anything. Right. On the principle that the court should not intervene,

“while elections are on the process of being made, the Supreme Court agrees. Trump wins the”

election 51 to 48 using that exact same number. Yeah. Democrats sue prior to the certification of the results arguing the Trump has violated the 22nd Amendment, which prohibits anyone from becoming

president for the third time. The Supreme Court agrees and strikes down the election,

preventing it from being certified. Republicans complain that the Supreme Court has overturned the will of the people indignantly asking why the court allowed the election to go ahead, if it was destined to rule it illegal after completion and start making threats against the unelected Supreme Court for undermining democracy. Sounds pretty outrageous, right? Obviously, in such a circumstance, there were other people would not overrule the 22nd Amendment,

“which is the ultimate rule of the people because it's a constitutional amendment. Right.”

And clearly, the Republicans couldn't have it both ways. If they had insisted the court couldn't intervene beforehand, but only afterward, which is a legitimate legal position to take, they couldn't turn around that and complain about the timing, at least not without being cynical. And demonizing in the extreme, well, that's exactly what the Democratic Party did

and is doing in the Jerry Mandry referendum in Virginia. Right. Yep. It's, we always do this by the

way. We always talk about, well, imagine if this were, and this is what Charles Cook did here. All right. Let's put the shoe on the other parties foot, right? And, of course, Democrats would lose their mind. But for them, it's only about the win. Again, Mayor Pete didn't point out

“that even through his own idea of getting rid of, and he's not the only one of the left”

who wants to get rid of getting rid of the electoral college. And the popular vote would decide that Trump would have won in 24 anyway. He didn't point that out. When you introduce that idea, you go back to, well, we need something to keep that from happening, because next thing you know, if this were Trump saying get rid of the electoral college, they would say, well, then states wouldn't have it. There are own rights. Right. And they'd be

screaming about states' rights. Well, when you look at Virginia overall, what they did,

by joining the compact, right? Well, you can't do that because you're basically under the rule

of then people that are, your constituents in your state or under the rule of people in other states. Right. They took away the representation of the people of the state of Virginia. Yes. And there's no way around that, but they think, they think, think about how many dozens, if not hundreds of meetings in the state compact idea that had to happen to get it this far. Think about this. They believe it, they believe it's a loophole. They believe they can get away with doing this. Right.

You can't bypass the electoral college. There's no way, it's a Supreme Court rule against it, but the fact that they're trying to do it, but think about the politicians in Virginia, the Democrat politicians in Virginia. Right. Number one, again, the tyranny and the majority, we want to make sure that the 49% have no say or the 49% only have 10% of the say, and the 51% have 90% of the say. Right. You know, that's that's in essence what they're trying to do.

Which, of course, would take off a ton of people. But on the other hand, joining the compact, right, in the same couple of weeks. Yeah. That this all was going on. They're telling the people of Virginia, we don't give a damn how you vote in an election. Right. We don't give a damn. Right. We're, we represent you. And we're going to tell you that we want to pass a law that takes away your representation in a presidential election. Right.

And the Democrats are like, oh, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. We'll just hand it over to somebody else and over to somebody else and somebody else do it. And so when you actually break it down to what they're doing, it's pretty outrageous. When you talk about being in a, and, you know, the umbrella of democracy of a constitutional republic. In that's,

because they keep it going. Again, they've gotten it this far with the state compacting. We're,

“there's no way. Well, how far do you have to be gone as a people, as a society to agree to that,”

to give up your own representation in a presidential election? And they're, they're quite gone. I mean, they cannot win if you break down the issues for the Democrats. Well, if you break, let me just split, if you break down the issues for the Democrats, almost every single issue that they stand on, they lose by roughly almost two thirds of the public disagree. If you take out all the names and just put the issues down, they lose two thirds to one third in the country. And they can't,

they go ahead and go. And, and it's not, here's the thing. It's, it's not anything new. This idea

that the majority show rule. The reason they get people in their own state to go along with it is because those are the people that are also screaming. Yeah, that's right. Basically, the majority should rule and there should be no electoral college. This is the way around it. Right. They've sold it as the idea that this is the loophole that we can create. We can just join with other, we'll just sign up with other states as if the Constitution doesn't exist. And it's the same

people that wish to get rid of the Senate, which means all small states wouldn't be represented in presidential elections or in anything or in anything of the federal government. Right. Including Vermont. Yeah, including Vermont. Yep. And it's amazing that they just, like drones,

“whatever, whatever, or clones, not drones. Well, you know, because here's the thing, at the basis of”

it all, I suspect a great number of them don't want the responsibility of abiding by the Constitution.

It doesn't always go your way, but it is the Constitution. There is a way to change it.

You have to do an amendment. Well, good luck with that. Maybe it's something else. Maybe they're just like, you know, we know the Democrats want everybody to vote, but we really don't want to vote. Just put everything on automatic pile. No, that's what I mean. They don't want the responsibility of anything that is required as a part of the entire process under the Constitution. Well, no, we'll just look, if we get on board, we're all on board with California

and other big blue states, we'll win this. That's what they think. And we don't have to do anything anymore. They'll control it all, and we can just scream, yay, it's the equivalent of being able to vote by Facebook. I don't have to do anything anymore. I don't have any obligation to get out and vote. I mean, I may go through the process just to, you know, show that I did it. I'll take a picture of the sticker. I voted, which proves you voted or proves you have a sticker.

And it's the entire thing is, it wreaks of this. We don't want the responsibility. It's the same crowd that doesn't give a damn about 38 plus trillion dollars in debt.

By the way, I always think that's stupid. They always give me the sticker. I never put it on.

“Yeah. Like, you need to brag that I vote. I'll vote. Well, it's like I want to wear it this”

badge all day. Like I voted. Like it's like I've got this virtue signaling. I voted. You did. Yeah. Well, also, I don't want, I don't want to encourage people who don't want a vote to vote. Here's the way I think we should do it. Outside, of course, you'd have to have some space legally, but you have tables out there. I voted red. I voted Republican or I voted this, right? And they're my, by the way, there might be some stickers like that. Then you can have. That's like

starting the conversation at Starbucks with let's talk race on the cup, right? I voted MAGA. Let's talk. We are right, I radio. Lines open for your goals. Eight, six, six, ninety red eye on red eye radio. We are right, I radio. He is here, Crony, and I'm hearing Mac Amer. Yeah, so it comes down to this for me in Virginia that so many people are willing to give up the representation of their state.

Yeah, to the federal government. I just, I don't understand that I'd be furious if that's where my state was heading. And it's interesting that you have a ton of people in Virginia that think that's a great idea to give up your representation. You know, it's, again, I think people are

me they care nothing about the Constitution. Because again, that would scare the daylights out of me

“if I were, if that were my state and they were moving in that direction.”

Oh my god, I guess we can wrap it up by saying envy, jealousy, and selfishness always supersedes

the virtue of a Constitution. Yeah, exactly exactly. [Music] Top of the our news is brought to you by How Products Visit HowProducts.com. This is Red Eye Radio on Westwood One. [Music]

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 here, Carly, and I'm Gary McNamara. Good morning. Hello. All right, a couple of things. First off, when we're talking about Virginia,

just one of the tangents that we were on, and a couple of things that I saw on social media. It's like,

“we're Democrats were saying, see, this is all because of Trump. What's going on in Virginia?”

It's like, excuse me, a Democrats are the one that's passed the law. Right, exactly. They pass

this as law. They didn't want Jerry Mandarin. They've always been for it, and the judges have said,

you didn't follow the law. Right. It's the law that you passed. And we were then talking about joining the compact, where Virginia joined the compact. And again, I believe it'll be found on constitutional, because there isn't a -- there isn't a work around around the electoral college. Right, there isn't one. Right, there just doesn't matter if you join a compact with another state, a federal government doesn't have to recognize it. They wouldn't recognize it,

because the Constitution doesn't recognize a compact. Right. You know, if your state does it,

“you know, at that point, boom, but can you as a state to say, for example, could you as a state to say,”

well, we're Virginia, we just -- whatever California votes, that's the way we're going to go. Yeah, which is essentially the idea. The entire idea is, if we can all just group together, because California is the biggest, we know where California is going to go. They finally get it done, and then all of a sudden California turns red. Well, we get to that in just a moment. We'll get to that in just a moment. Because that's exactly where I was going. But as I said,

one of the reasons is if you did that, is that Virginia, then permanently states, you know, and that's -- I use an example. If California votes this way, it means a permanently have put their elections on remote control. No matter what -- Yeah. --全部 for. Yeah. It doesn't matter. Right. You're going to just let it go the way of California. We're going to vote the way other people vote. Yeah. You don't matter. That's to me what makes it unconstitutional,

because it takes away the individuals right at that point through the system that the state has set up to elect a president. You've taken away and they go, well, well, we could have the legislature just vote. Yes, but the legislature would have to elect the electors. Right. They would still have to do that. Right. They would still have to -- you're still representing the people. Right. You can't make the assumption that every legislature would want to go where the popular vote goes.

Right. Exactly. And that would be the problem there. But I've always wondered that

if the compact ever existed, and the next Republican they hate would win, whether they go away to them. I mean, all of our votes went to that guy. Yeah. You know, no way. We don't want that happening in California on another topic. New York Times had this story. All right. Yesterday. All right. Are you ready? Now, I'm ready. Democrats have panicked all year at the possibility that California's primary rules could shut them out of the governor's office despite the state

having an overwhelming Democratic electorate. Now, a Democratic strategist is launching a campaign to repeal the California primary system. And effort that is likely to attract serious backing, not only from labor unions, but also from some Republicans and third-party organizations

run on the same primary ballot and the two top finishers advance to the general election.

Yeah. In some races, particularly in areas that are extremely liberal, or extremely conservative, two Democrats, or two Republicans have faced off against each other in November. Under the new proposal, filed a Friday with the state election officials would end the non-partisan two top primary, top two primary and revert to a traditional primary in which the candidate for each party advances to the general election. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Again, when it's not working

“your way, let's change it. Right. And overall, with where Democrats are going, and I think it's”

important to point out that on all the major issues they lose. Yeah. The original issue. If you take the names out of it, if you just say, right, these are the positions on one side. You just listen to me. You don't put Republican or say, which do you agree with more this side or that side? We've seen in the polls Republicans win. Yeah. So they've got that with the insanity of the radical transgender movement. The, you know, the, the, you know, the, you know, the misogyny there

of the radical transgender movement. People getting tired of it. It's stupid. It's stupid. It's a stupid position to take when you look at identity politics. Well, it's, it is. I mean, it's identity

politics rules. And they believe it's there. It's one of their work rounds, because basically

they can create how many different than new protected classes, right? Right. They believe that that at which is kind of a job security move by the radical left, which not isn't going to work in the end as we've broken it down. That was, it, they was intended to, we're going to have all the

“victims. That's what they realize. You had to, you had to create new oppressors. Yes. And a political”

party cannot long-term survive by splitting the pie. No, you can't because again, you're breaking it down into new subgroups every single day. So the person now is part of a new subgroup. They're a victim for a different reason, which means that the people that were in their other group yesterday are now by definition the oppressor. So you have to create more oppressors when you create more victims. We've explained this for years. And that's the way identity politics

breaks down. And it is breaking down for them. It's breaking down. And slowly, but it's breaking down because there's no way to bring people together. That's the problem because they remember the women's march. By the time they got to the second year for the women's march, it was over. It was done. It was over. And you'd say, what could possibly break a women's march? What could break it up? Well, because half of them said, sorry, you can't wear those pink hats

“anymore that represented the vagina, but you're not all women have vaginas. That's what they”

want to do to believe. So they broke, again, we used to call it the liberal circular firing squad,

but it really is the breakdown and the consequences of identity politics. It was always going to

go that way where you start separating more and more. When the idea is to separate, to isolate and separate, and then fight for this, the liberal transgender movement is a prime example. LGBTQ, as a group looks at this, and many of them say, well, yeah, but the T part is the one that is not helping our entire cause of wrong. The T part of it is not like T part of it. Yeah. The T part of it is the one that screws everything up for us because we've been working

in this direction, and they're going in that direction. This has been the conundrum for them for years now, so it forced many of them to choose the side. So as a liberal, you had to even some in the LGBTQ community had to say, well, okay, I'm now on board with the T's, or I'm not on board, which means automatically, of course, you become a conservative. You're branded as as MAGA or conservative, whatever. They're going to make you the demon. Like Richard Grinnell, you're no longer

gay. Exactly. Right. You're not really gay. You've been outed. Right. Exactly. No, that's, and that's been their problem. From the beginning is that everybody has wherever the group is going. We've created this new subgroup, which they believed was going to be their new flag. They believed

of words, change science, change from the party of science, change all of that. And that's what

“you do when you can control the language and change the definition of words, controlling the language”

is the first part of overall communism and control by one group. You know, something I just thought about this when I mentioned Richard Grinnell and many, some people may not know who he is, but they know who the treasure's secretary has got, you know, best it. How many people don't know that's got best in his gay? I bet it's a lot. I bet it's a lot. But that's the difference between practicing identity politics and not practicing identity politics. Exactly. He wasn't chosen

because he's gay, right? And the Democrats never say, it's good that you did. So it doesn't matter.

Well, you go back to 2016 and Ted Cruz, one Iowa, the first Latino to win the Iowa caucuses. Nope, you didn't hear that being paraded around by the liberal activist in the media.

“No, no, but we do remember the questioning that he got it, right?”

Yeah. Oh, yeah, with from Mark Halpern, from Mark Halpern. Yeah, Mark Halpern. Oh, you say you're, so it was this the weirdest line of questioning show you're a Cuban descent. What do you speak Spanish? But what kind of Cuban music do you like? What kind of Cuban food do you like? What? What in the world is going on with you? Wow, put the bog down, man. What is going on? And that's when he, that's when he was promoting being a liberal. Yes, of course. No, no, he's, it was in full attack.

By the way, I think he does a great job on the podcast. But I think I think it is some really

good critical analysis now, but he now is not who he was. No, no, no. I mean, he's, well, his work

right now does not reflect who he was. No, I'll say that. So, you know, this is not, but this is not, again, I don't, someone's identity is not the issue with me. It's their qualification. It's been going on forever on the left when, who was it? It was, was it, was it Ope that did the video that did the, no, no, it was Tom Hanks did the night, Ope did one too, but Tom Hanks did like a nine or ten minute video endorsing Obama without talking about his own qualifications. Only talked about

his skin color. You saw that Scott Jennings got into that. Was it with, uh, oh, I can't think of it.

“They, um, was it Brazil? He got into it with, you know, why do you assume that on Brazil?”

You know, why do you assume that, you know, blacks are going to vote Democrat now. That's, that's slowly changing. You can't, and boy, it was, there was great back and forth, but that's, that's, you know, that's the point when you look at, you know, the, the Republicans looked at as Neanderthal, but it's the Republicans who don't practice identity politics. Well, exactly. And, and they, they, they will embrace you if you agree with them on the issues. They don't,

right, regardless of your background or anything, but in your life. If you look at the identity politics, which is the racism, which has been institutionalized, uh, by the Democratic Party, it's all about, you know, what are you? Right. And that, it's, that is no way to run a party long term. You cannot keep dividing in a political party. So, you've got that with the Democrats. You've got, um, uh, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, the, the, the movement in the next census,

there's slowly losing congressional seats, right, to, to red states. Yeah. Uh, and that's not good. And the other thing is they're now losing capital. They can't balance their budgets. They're having to tax more in the middle class. And it's all, it just keeps building and building and building and building and they're more radical than ever before. Now, now the interesting thing on money, because you and I brought this up, um, uh, New York Post had the story

that, for example, Kamala leads gangbusters right now. Yeah. Now, we've said before it doesn't mean in the polls, right? Yeah. In the polls. Yeah. Um, political allies and former AIDS have all shied away from a full-throwed endorsement of Kamala Harris, uh, and now it seems her financial backers and sponsors feel the same way the Los Angeles Times has reported in, uh, escaping

many seem to look away rather than embrace her as a contender. I think it's too early to pick a favorite in the 2828 race, but Kamala Harris will not be my candidate. One donor said it was granted

“and an emitting told the outlet, I don't think she would appeal to a swing voter. And I think we need”

to win swing voters. But she's by landslide numbers. No, she's in the lead. Yeah, she's in the lead. Get all the polls. Yeah, he's wait. He's, he's way behind. But if you don't have the money, that doesn't mean anything. Well, and, and we talked to, we talked about this for the longest time. Follow the money and it was a weird thing that happened in in 24, that the way that money was going and how the election broke down for the Democrats because of the whole Joe Biden thing,

anointing Kamala and everything else. And, and that was just a bizarre scenario. When you get back to an actual primary, then we have to go back to 2020 and we have to go back to Kamala Harris, who didn't make it to 2020 because the donors did not give to her December 3, 2019. She dropped out. She was out of money. Her campaign was in shambles. Had no morale left. And broke down.

“So she didn't even make it to the primary of 2020. She got to where she is because Joe Biden”

selected her period. That's it. She was anointed. And the same thing is shaping up right now, according to not Fox News, the LA Times. And this is a liberal donor. Again, the one speaking under the condition of anonymity, talking to the LA Times, not some conservative analyzing this for Fox News. This is somebody who's saying, she's not going to be the one for me. Nope.

These mega donors count. And we always say, look at where the money is going. Because they

want to put money in where their where their confidence is, where they believe this person can win. This tells you right now these big donors at this point. Don't believe she can win. And I don't believe she can win. Getting through a primary is going to be the worst for the party, because you've got to bring the word salad every single day to the forefront. There's no way around it. She's horrible. Can't form a sentence. Much less a campaign. We are right. I radio.

This morning's USDA farm report is brought to you by house products tested, trusted, guaranteed since 1920. Grout coverage is a significant in several growing areas of the country as of the U.S. drought monitor dated May 5th. Yet U.S. DAB erologist Brad Ripy says what exception is it much of the court in soybean belt. We're looking at only roughly a quarter of those two major crops in drought as of May 5th. And that is reasonably good news. We do have

some drought in some of our western corn production areas like Nebraska, Southeastern South Dakota, and some of the irrigated corn on the high plains. But you trim those areas out. And there is basically no drought in the rest of the corn production areas in the U.S. A similar story to courted drought can be found with the country's soybean crop. A few of the western production

areas are in drought. 27 percent is the national number. And then some of the southern

production areas, especially in the Mississippi Delta, are in drought for soybean production. But we've seen improvement in those areas. Yet drought continues to play crops in the nation's southern tier, such as Pettitz and Cotton, and several winter week growing locations as well. I'm Rod Bane 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 Rod I Radio

with every currently and Gary McNamara. We are Rod I Radio. He's here, Crony, and I'm Gary McNamara coming to find the bottom of the hour. Conalist cash problems that we just started. But the other point would be, well,

“who's going to replace her. By the way, I think A.O.C. wants to run. Yeah, and it's going to run.”

But I wanted just to give this update because we had talked about this on Friday show. And it was where the Walgreens in South Chicago was closing. One of the Walgreens here, and you and older men in Chicago say they ought to be charged with corporate abandonment. Yeah, that they ought to be charged, you know, criminally charged with it. More information coming out. Walgreens is closing that store in June 4th.

After 1 million in losses in 2025 and high theft rates, the store had been there more than 20

years. Walgreens said theft at that location was four times a company's average. Walgreens spent 400,000 a year on security officers in addition to other measures. But still, that wasn't enough.

that's these stores are having to make these. And by the way, it's very expensive to shut down.

It's not just a million dollars in losses. It's what it takes to shut down. It's very cost.

[Music] You're listening to Red Eye Radio from the Ray Leigh Factor Studio. And he is her curly, and I'm hearing Mack Nemera.

“Can I really think that the algorithms, when we talk, my phone picks it up and it sends it to”

axe. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I could stuff that relates to exactly what we have what we've talked about. Right. Yeah. And we were just talking about here in the last, well, the two segments ago,

we just did an update on something else. In the last segment about

Kamala Harris's cash crisis about what's going on in Virginia, the the New York Times story that now the Democrats in California are thinking, well, this whole thing of running the primaries where we could have two Republicans that could possibly win. We've got to change that. That they don't have anything to run on anymore. Right. They don't have anything to run on. And so they're looking at any way to keep power. And it was funny because just

this came up just during the break there. And I went this almost mirrors exactly what we've been saying. Yeah. Victor Davis Hanson explaining why the Democrats are losing power and what they plan to do to keep it. Here we go. It seems to me that the Democrats have lost confidence in their agenda. In other words, they don't believe that you, the voter really does want an open border or you want 53 million foreign born without audit that ensure a alteration, integration, assimilation.

And the same as true of critical race theory or critical legal theory or the emphasis and

fixations on transgenderism or the new green, the green new deal that seems to would have been disastrous had we enacted the full agenda of the left given what the status of oil is and where the largest producer of oil and gas and the history of civilization right now. You put it all together and that message of the Democrats is not appealing. And so of course, in the short term, their strategy has been, we're not Donald Trump, Donald Trump is the fascist

and we're going to go demonstrate against Tesla and ICE and no kings and we're going to try to put him in jail and impeachment. All of that. But long term, it's suggest that they have two choices. They either have to change their culture and go back to more traditional life styles

“to improve their demographics and to go back to the assimilationist model. I think the Republicans”

have, I don't see that happening, or they would have to lower taxes and cut back entitlements in these blue states to retain their high earners and their upper middle-class people who are for the most part leaving. They're not going to do that. I was amazed because when I just said, well, this seems to be what we've been talking about like, oh my gosh, it's almost as if karma said, okay, you've got to play that.

You've got to play Victor Davis, Hanson there because it's exactly what we have been saying over and over and over again. And that's the problem. You look at the Democrats right now and you know, it's like people go, well, Hulk and Kamala be in charge. It's like, well, nobody wants news him because he's easy to run against. You simply say, do you want to be California? Right. And you know, that goes against him. And so you've got Harris and nobody else really everybody else

is in single digits. Well, and it's, and Harris is only there because she held office as vice president before. Newsom's only being talked about because he's been governor of California.

“But without any of that, and I know experiences important. Well, it can be.”

But you set that aside. Who is it? Tell me where that dream ticket or

And I just throw three names off the top of my head, J.D. Vance Marco Rubio DeSantis.

Yeah. Yep. Tell me what's comparable on the other side. They're aren't hitting. They're settling regardless of which direction you turn. They really are settling because Newsom is not not only represents the failed policies of California. He's got empty suit syndrome, like nobody else seen in recent years. And it's bad. He's almost a holdover from the Obama years in the rock star. It's all about me thing.

“And that's what he looks like every time he takes the stage. It's the opposite of governor”

DeSantis. DeSantis is a governor who's doing the work. And Newsom is failing at every single turn

and also wants to make it about him at every turn. And if you see right now, for example, if you want to compare the two parties, you know, you're looking to go, okay, Harris is sorry, she's an empty shell. Yeah. Newsom off lash no even substance that the farlet believes. Right. Because they don't know where he's going to go, oh, I think it was, let me see if I can find this was Anna Kasperian who just was blasting Newsom. And she's as far left as you can get.

Yeah. When it gets to my gosh, I've heard her talking about Israel. It's like, well,

you just, and I don't know right now, I saw might or whatever, but I want to find this here because I was just

“did I save this? I think I did because it was just, I don't know if I have it here in front of me,”

but she was just blasting him. And it was on, it was on police, it was on the fact that, you know, that the referendum passed, you know, all this stuff to stop crime and he's doing everything not to get the money to fund it. Right. Right. And she's like, you know, what the world's going on? And I think the headline, but it was, he can't even convince Democrats to vote for him. Well, no, I mean, and, and, and there's part of the other problem, the rules that have created.

And the mindset and culture that has created identity politics is also part of what creates the anti tribalism. It's trying to get, again, you've got, you can't really endorse anybody. This is kind of a holdover from Occupy Wall Street, too. Wow, we have no one to speak for us. Well, you're speaking for you guys right now. Well, yeah, but I'm not really speaking for us. Yeah, but you are. And it's a holdover from that mindset of, well, I can't really endorse this person.

“I honestly believe that's the only reason”

Kamala has any numbers is because of identity politics. Period. You want to just say it, and that's it. Do we have a woman? Do we have a woman of color? Okay, great. Let's go with that one. And then it becomes the soup show that it was all over again, the moment it starts. And this is why donors are saying, nope. Nope. We're not throwing our money behind something that's going to implode and go very badly for us.

Okay, I found it. Okay, I found the audio with with her. Now, she's as far left as you can get. All right, and this is about Newsom. All right, here we go. I don't know about all that, but I will concede that Gavin Newsom's leadership in California has been a complete nut or disaster. As a California, I 100% have experienced just he's out to lunch, right? Like he changes his ideology depending on what he thinks is fresh. What's hip at any given moment?

76% of Californians voted in favor of something known as Prop 36, which is to roll back some of the soft on crime policies that requires funding. He has been pushing back against adequately funding the efforts to essentially roll back those policies, so ensure that you're for his more pro-crime, you're for the more pro-crime on fighting strategy. Just to be clear. Absolutely. Okay, good. Okay, so that's important. So you think it's, so they got into some offshoot there,

far left doesn't like him. No, they don't believe that he can sell their policies. Now, when you

“look at, you know, and you look at the rest, I mean, whether it's Buttigieg or whether it's”

whether it's AOC or who else's off the top of my head, I can't think of who else's left. Cory Booker. Yeah. Maybe it's a Cory Booker. I guess, Lizard Warren going to give it another shot, but please vote for me. But seriously, who was, you know who I would say would be the the best candidate? Fetterman. I was going to say Fetterman's the only one who you could say might appeal, might appeal to some independence. Right. I mean, that's the closest you could get. And that's

not happening. He would never get the nominations from the Democrat side. I mean, you've seen

his poll numbers. But when you look at the Republicans, for example, and we've talked about it, J.D. Vance, DeSantis, and and and Rubio, and J.D. Vance. He's vice president. Right. And, and, you know, when you've got the Secretary of State out there, though, all the time, Rubio is really moving up. People are paying attention to Rubio. And why is that? It's not because he's anti-Trump. It's that he is the one where people look at it and go,

why can't Trump explain it like that? You can't debate with Marco Rubio. And what he's promoting

“is the Trump agenda. Right. And that's why people have interest because it's like you could”

look at it and people would say, well, J.D. Vance is mega. You're not going to say that Rubio is mega. Right. He doesn't, but, but he could get mega support. But he is. Yeah. You can get mega support. And he can end, and of course, DeSantis has been, again, doing the job as governor

has done incredible things for his state. And, and also has no issue whatsoever.

Taking on the media, those those three individuals on that list have that one common thread. There is no issue whatsoever in sitting down and debating anybody at any turn. Kamala Harris can't even be on a podcast for any longer than a minute or two. You can't sit down and in the same with Gavin Newsom, and exactly what she just said in that audio cut is what I was explaining. He wants to make it about him. What's happen and cool right now? Well, I'm going

to, and this is the way liberals see it. That I'm going to be what, whatever is trending right now. Well, here's the problem. The liberal playbook changes every day. This is part of the culture of identity politics with all of the changes of who were on board and championing today. Well, tomorrow is going to be different. So don't get too invested today, which means you can't invest in any of these single candidates fully because tomorrow they're going to be the oppressor.

Trump did not get elected because of tribalism or identity politics. Trump got elected from the first term. Trump, Trump, interest and Trump has been there because of where he stands on the

“issues. Right. All right. So that's why he's in where he is is in. Right. The three people that are”

being talked about as possible candidates and it's, you know, Rubio already said he's not going to run against shady vans, but I'm just talking about the three people that are up there. They all are up there because they effectively communicate differently than Trump. Yeah. One of the problems we've said is that times Trump doesn't communicate effectively sometimes he does other times he doesn't communicate effectively. You've got with with Democrats, you've got they're trying to find the

person that can sell what people don't want. Republicans, when you look at those three people up there, they can communicate effectively or the belief is they can communicate effectively if they become president or if they run for president, what the American people actually want, that's the difference. Yes. Right. And it's an impossible situation. And they're not changing their answers at every turn. Right. The Democrats have to change their answers at every turn. Defund the police. Refund the police.

It's always changing. When's refund ice going? Yeah. Good luck with that one. It's going to be a

few years. We are right. I radio coming up more with Gary McNamara and Eric Hartley. It's

it's it's fascinating when you look at what's what might be in in 2028 or who might run but the story

“that you know, Kamala because that was the thing every poll here for the last six months or so,”

Kamala leads and she's doing great and that story came out saying she can't get any fundraising.

Nobody wants to spend money on her. They believe that these polls don't matter at all. Right.

“At this point, but the Democrats are looking for someone to sell the American public on the”

issues that the American public doesn't believe it. That's the problem that the Democrats have. Yes.

And it's over and over again, they're trying to find work around to their problem.

They're by changing the system by doing whatever they can do to get around the constitution and/or the process. And it's just mind-boggling but people still vote for them. There are people out there in our country that want them to win. 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's

“out of control? Do you see all these things and you wonder what in the world is going on?”

It was at 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 anymore, I will just go away. Got my book in show. Following, listen on your favorite platform.