05-11-26 Part Two - Persuing the Taxed Dollar

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 when I radio. He is Eric Hurley and I'm hearing McNamara. You know, interesting. We had played last hour Victor Davis Hanson and what he said about the problem that the Democrats are in right now. When we talked about, you know, immigration, legal immigration, he talked about the assimilation of immigrants into the country, which the

public is always wanted. You know, you and I remember a couple of years ago when the Democrats

were going crazy and everything else in Republicans were saying, well, no, we want people that

“will assimilate into our culture. That's nationalism, remember that. Yeah, yeah. Christian Nationalism”

and they took the poll in Canada. It's like, it's like 95% of Canadians believe that any immigrant that comes to Canada needs to share Canadian values. Right. That was fine. It's not as long as I'm exactly. But I just, with the, when you think about the debate last week, oh, no, no, I don't want to get to. I took an over last week and was picked up, gentleman's name was Ishmael, originally from Pakistan, the United States citizen. That means the citizen of the country.

And we haven't a long conversation about everything. But just, I mean, it was just about everything. It was about a half hour ride. So we just talked about everything. Stop, you know, we stopped at a stoplight, whatever. He turns and looks at me. He said, you know that the United States, nobody touches it. This is the best country in the world ever. Yeah. All right. Yeah. And I went, okay.

I give that an A for a simulation. But, but he knew why. Yeah. He knew why. You know, he understood the constitution. We talked about it. We talked about the, the makeup and the separation of powers and what makes us different. He knew it. And it's like, oh, yeah, it's right. You got to study that kind of stuff in order to become a citizen. Don't you? Well, it's interesting because I saw this

YouTuber over the weekend. And it's a guy from Italy. And he's a, he's a, he's a base player. He's an incredible

base player. And he's pretty funny. And he's been doing these videos for several years. And so he has the, the thumbnail up. It's over. Good bot. And of course, that's clickbait. So I clicked. You were baited. Yeah. You had no choice. Davey 504 is the channel. And he's very funny, very talented. Can play anything on base, really. But very funny in how he projects himself. He has this very deadpan look, you know, and his Italian accent and everything as he breaks down songs and

and stuff and and does these challenges and all this. And the humor is great. The talent is enormous. And the video he posted that I clicked on was a serious tone about what it's like to live in Italy

and the fact that he's leaving and why he's leaving. And he said that basically their tax

police came to him a few years ago. And he thought, you know, all right, they don't know what I do for living and they're investigating this. And he's pays a 60% tax rate. He says he said, you know, for years, I thought, well, that this is going to make our culture better, our country better, then I will keep doing it. And then he starts talking about and then they say free health care.

“And he does the quotation marks with his fingers free. He says, unless you have to use it for”

something serious, then there's a long waiting period. And he points out all of these things. Now, I didn't, I didn't get to finish the end of the video just about two minutes were left. And I had something else going on. I don't know where he's moving to. But he says he's leaving Italy.

pay the bills based on emotion. My love for this place or even my love for my family. So he's

leaving now. He ends up in California. It'll be worse. And I'll go right back home. But I don't know where he's going to. But he says he's leaving. But he points out the entire equation of living under such a rule. And he says, you know, people will come and they'll save all their life to spend one week in my country as tourists. But this is the truth about my country. And what it's like to live here. And he says, they're taxing him apparently on the road.

What he what he insinuated, what he implied was they're taxing him on the gross of what his revenue is not the cost of everything that goes along with being an influencer or a YouTuber. And all of that. And he said 60% the majority of what I earn goes to my government. And I don't get the benefits of there's benefits of free healthcare. Well, there are no

“benefits when you actually need it. You have to wait for your benefits for months and months and”

months. Six months or longer he said, hand 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 with a rabbi there or would page through there. Hey, 1 100% so when you're setting up Logan Paul to frog splash you through the announce table, it's going through your mind. This should make every headline in the world. But it makes sense, right? In jelly 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. And I thought to myself, it's interesting because I really didn't

think about where he was from where he lived. He never really talked about. But I wondered about

other, I do watch YouTubers from other countries and I've for a couple of them looked up the tax rate. What is the tax rate? What do they pay? Because their YouTube earnings are through half to be through the roof at based on the number of views that they have, the number of subscribers that they have. They're likely making millions of dollars a year. I don't know about Davy 504 if he's making that much, but he's making a lot. He's making clearly making a living. And this is

again part of, you know, what we look at it of why people want to come here. It's my ail who wanted to come here and then became a citizen. Oh, one of the things he said because I said, well, I said the way the media portrays the country is not the reason. That's absolutely it. Yeah, he said, what even when I would see outside media of this country goes, it goes, it's nothing, it's nothing like it. There isn't racial strife. Here he goes, the politicians created.

I mean, he said, this is the most, the people that I've met here go, the opportunities that I have.

And it's amazing because, you know, when I've been picked up over the years and taxis and

“Uber's and everything else, I remember when I used to go to Portland a lot and I had a couple of”

Russian immigrants, absolutely where the biggest Patriots you could ever imagine and most of them working two, three jobs in order to survive in order to go to, you know, going to college, working, you know, all they cared about was the opportunity and I get to keep the, I get to keep the majority of my money and I get to build a life and they were just, you know, just so grateful and that's the way Ishmael was when I talked to him the other day. But you made a point about,

because this is, this is a great point that we're seeing now in liberal states. We've got now billionaires that are saying, sorry, we're going to go, millionaires, we're going to go, sorry, Washington State, but you know, bye, bye, go, we don't care, bye, bye, I just, normally I probably wouldn't play this because it's to SNL people. Yeah, but this is a part of their, their podcast, this is David Spain and Dana Carvey, you know, just with Gavin Newsom, like, man, because we

talked about Gavin Newsom earlier. Right. Yeah. And I'd say this a few days ago, but I just thought I go, okay, this fits perfect right now. As they talked about Gavin Newsom and the fact that,

“you know, why are we paying more taxes? What about the 20 billion right disappeared for the homeless?”

Right. Nobody seems to care where it went. This is something that we've talked about a little bit, but not in this context, how will that affect the voter? You see manyapolis and it's like,

The hospice stuff in, you know, going on in California, the 20 million and homeless funds that

well, we can't really tell you where it went. Right. And they're asking you to pay more money. And this is where they were at, both David Spain and Dana Carvey, it starts out with David Spain. Here we go. The same broader problem with people paying taxes in California when they're building a hundred billion dollar train to Sacramento, San Francisco area. I don't know if everyone's climbing for it, when you could take 10 billion and probably fix a lot of problems in California,

but they keep pushing this 10 year thing about the train. That's just one of the crazy things.

“The homeless, they lose 20 billion, but they want more money for it. Well, that's why people get”

tired of paying taxes and going, what are you doing? Gavin News, I'm just vetoed a bill asking for an audit of where the money for homeless goes. He said, not a chance. You're not going to see that. Well, I don't think anyone could disagree with this. There are states. I don't have a

moth hand who basically you go to their website and they tell you where all the money is going.

Yeah. Lime by line. Maybe it's thousands of pages a year, but you can see where it's going. So when there's behind the curtain, don't be attention to Gavin News. It's a little bit frustrating, because you can't ask for more. If you're in a household and someone's blowing all the money, what are you spending on? Don't worry about it. Just give us more money. Well, I'd like to see some something. And if it's fixing home, it's great, but don't just take it and then be like,

“home, it's gotten worse. You go. It's like, excuse me. Excuse me. Could we ask where the 20 billion went?”

Or that's a great question, but no. Garth, I'm sorry. Garth, I was Garth asking.

You know, and these are guys who have done very, very well in their lives. And they're like, you keep asking for more, yet there's no accountability to where the money goes. And if we ask you're indignant and you don't want to tell us, it's just no, you should be willing to pay more, even though we can't see the results. Right. Yeah. It's or if the money's lost or there's fraud involved in it, you say, no, no, no, we don't want you to look behind the curtain. Well,

and if there's fraud, as it, as there was in Minnesota, well, we don't, nobody talks about everybody's talking about it, but nobody's talking about it until it becomes a national issue. When the rest of the country finds out, people pretend they're surprised when they knew about it all along, but that's liberalism because the truth doesn't work for you and every turn it works against you. So you have to change the truth, hide the truth, make up facts, you know, lie, make up things

“and they're not facts. If you make them up, of course, you have to lie. That's how you create”

an agenda. Where is the truth? Where is the truth? Where are the people that are looking for something real when it comes to being the governor of California, being the mayor of L.A. being the president of the United States in terms of the Democratic Party? Where is the reality on the left? Where's just, and I've heard this more coming from Republicans, or even, I've seen this more from Democrats. We don't make any comment sense. Right. There, we're not the,

there's no common sense in our party anymore. Right. Everything is envy, jealousy, and selfishness. Yep, everything is identity politics, which is racism, or the misogyny of the radical transgender movement. This isn't common sense. This isn't 20, wow. This isn't 2026. Yeah. No, I don't know what year they're living in, but certainly they're not living in in 2026. These are ideas that had been long rejected by the American public. Why are you bringing them up again? Why do you believe that this is where we

should, you know, this is where we should, where we should go? And then like I said, you see that, for example, AOC sees there's an opening here, and when asked the other day about, whether she's going to seek higher office in 2028, she said, my ambition is to change the country. Well, we've heard the bowl, there's no way you can become a billionaire in this country. It's not possible without committing

country was founded by, well, what did she say was, it was a war against billionaires?

Yeah, right, basically. Yeah, and it was just like, what are you talking about?

She knows nothing about the foundation of this nation, absolutely nothing, and nothing about the Constitution. What she wants to change is the Constitution. And there seems to be no curie, well, you're right. I mean, the, the ambition to change the country is, you want to change the

“Constitution. Yes, that's what she's saying. And you know, we know what portions, separation of powers,”

electoral college, the Senate, right, get rid of all those, because we need to have, you know, the popular vote rule, everything, which is what you see, for example, in Virginia, which is why

we keep pointing out, Virginia and what they attempted to do was the perfect example of what the

founding fathers were against, which is the tyranny and majority of the majority, where the 51% tell the 49% you have no power, right? Your 49% doesn't matter. We're going to make sure so redistricting that your 49% is only 10% represented. Yep. And that way we win. We're going to live at the burden of having states rights. Well, that's the other thing, too, with, you know, with the whole compact, you know, that's,

we're, we're going to ensure that your vote doesn't matter. Exactly. You shouldn't have to go vote. California will do it for you. Yeah. We don't want citizens voting. Right. Now, if you're don't have ID, we want you to go to the polls. Right. Exactly. Well, and that's, this is what they have built. This is what they want. They think they found a loophole. No, they have not. We are right, I radio brought to you by FPPF, fuel power max. Most owner operators, least to larger carriers,

are paid on a per mile basis, or a percentage of revenue per low. The per mile basis is most prevalent among larger fleets. Percentage at smaller, pay per mile tends to dominate discussions about pay, just because it's easier to measure, and pay per mile often is wrongly used as the deciding factor in leasing to a carrier. Well, pay per mile can be a vital factor. It's not a

“cure for every ill. Nor does it mean a big settlement check is coming in owner operators way. Why?”

Because pay per mile always must be considered in balance with gross revenue, as well as total

costs. Gross revenue can include flat mileage pay, mileage pay that varies by length of haul. Percentage revenue pay and more. Most importantly, though, for every revenue dollar generated, only part of that dollar is profit, but for every extra dollar of cost saved, the entire dollar contributes to profit, knowing and understanding your cost to operate is fundamental to understanding the true value of any pay package. Owner operator business 101 is provided by

overdrive partners in business program, go to overdriveonlye.com to the partners in business section of the website for more details on this and many other topics brought to you by Shell Rotella with advanced synthetic technology is designed to help keep your rig running with more mileage and less maintenance. Get in touch with what I radio, toll-free at 866, Mighty Red Eye. [Music]

We're in a radio. He's our crony and I'm very mac, I'm a good morning. Thanks for being here this morning coming up far in the bottom of the hour. We'll get to what the President said about the latest Iran offer. Interesting, I was reading it was that the Brit whom the other day was on X, and he was talking, we was quoting this one military expert who said, attempting to say that the United States has failed and that Iran is victorious is just ridiculous.

And then it was James Rosen then who said, yeah, but the President said the the side of victory would be unconditional surrender. He's not asking for that now and Brit whom had to admit, yeah, okay, you know, you're right. It's still a great success for the United States,

“but the President keeps studying this high bar and if he doesn't need it, that's how the”

Democrats will judge it. Mm-hmm. Sure.

Catch red I radio live every night on the red I radio app available in the app store.

Red, I radio.

“And he is currently and I'm hearing McNamara welcome in good morning. Thanks so much for”

being here download our red I radio app and you can listen when and where you choose. Yeah, I found it. It was a Brit whom over the weekend wrote the U.S. mission in Iran as being judged by a standard in which only complete capitulation is victory for the U.S. but mere survival is victory for Iran. This nonsense is explained in a post below and this is from John Spencer, chairman of the War Studies Madison Policy Forum. He's a war scholar, executive

director of urban warfare and here's what he wrote. No one can predict the future with certainty,

but no analyst possesses a crystal ball capable of forecasting whether the Islamic regime can survive the long-term political and economic consequences of this war. But based on every

“serious measure of national power Iran is weaker today than before the conflict began.”

Its military has been shattered across multiple domains. Its economy is under severe strain. Its proxies are degraded. Its deterrence credibility is suffered. Its strategic ambitions have been rolled back. The United States and its partners still hold the upper hand because the

foundations of Iranian power had been systematically reduced and rebuilding them may take far

longer than many observers are willing to admit. And all of that is true without question. And then James Rosen gets on board and says to Brit. Perhaps, but President Trump said the standard of complete capitulation himself. When he posted on the seventh day of the war, there will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender. In Brit humor, yes, he did. And you are free to judge this mission, not by what it is objectively accomplished,

but by his typically exaggerated claims about it. Well, that's the problem. That's a problem politically and domestically as we've talked about before. You know, don't, as we said before, don't over promise and under deliver. Now it may be we could view it in a couple of weeks, depending on what happens. President said yesterday that the Iranian deal with a brought back to him is completely unacceptable. For what I can see,

it's no different from what we were talking about two weeks ago or three weeks ago. Right, nothing's changed. Nothing's changed. And so how long do you continue with it? And then the President's proclamations when he came out, remember, this is probably what two weeks ago, Iran wants this deal. No, they don't. Don't say that. No, don't do that. There's no need to do it. Marco Rubio it. But Marco Rubio say it. But I mean that,

but that's a problem when, because Brit humor is like, you know, you can't judge, well, later, if I judge the war by what the President is saying, then I can judge it that way,

“because that's what he said. Right. And he had to admit, well, you just have to assume that Trump”

is typically exaggerating about it. Well, independent stuff. People don't pay attention. They don't pay attention like you and I do or, or Brit humor does or James Rosen does or John Spencer, you know, the, the war expert does. They just hear what he says. Well, that says, well, we don't have unconditional surrender. What's going on? And that's why, again, in a war, you've got to be careful. We understand you're talking to two audiences. You're talking to the

Iranian regime or what's left of it, but you're also talking domestically to the American public and the American public does not. I believe the American public is wrong. But the American public does not agree with this war. No, it's, in fact, very hard and historically has been extremely difficult to get the American public on board with a war. Well, when you're not immediately attacked, I would say 9/11 is 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Those are the two that changed the sentiment.

Had you gone in to, if there were, and I've said this with George W. Bush, if there had been a preemptive attack on the enemy before 9/11, then it would be a very different

want to get involved until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Well, Kuwait, the American public agreed

“once, Iraq attacked Kuwait. The American people were in agreement with that war. Right. Now,”

there was a debate. And what the objective was, the, which, the first words as they came out of the Pentagon was, was the liberation of Kuwait has begun. And that was basically it is the overreach by, at the time, Saddam Hussein. And claiming that that territory was his. Now, again, it depends on each different, each different situation, but generally speaking, getting the American public on board with a war without a strike like that. Regardless of what the, the history of Iran

has been 47 years. Well, that's only if you pay attention to history. That's only if you don't ignore the facts. And they can't, that's the problem that you have in selling it

in a very critical and delicate midterm. See, there's just, this is the problem. What you see

at the basis of it when you read through all the hyperbolic in the back and forth is we want your uranium and Iran response. No. And that's it. Give up the uranium. No. And that's it. There's so now the question is, well, how far are you willing to go to get the uranium? Right. Because where do you go now? I mean, he's been crystal clear over the last two weeks on this. Yeah, the red line is you know, the uranium. And then when Axios had that thing, well, there's a one-page,

“remember the one-page framework of a deal. Yeah. And you and I went, no, no, that's nothing. That's”

not going to happen. Yeah. And I'm not doing my taxes on a postcard. And it didn't happen, but how long does the president believe that he can continue negotiating the same thing over and over again, which they've said no to. Because that's the point you're at now. Yeah. Yep. And they know how delicate, Iran knows how delicate politically it is for the president domestically. Well, then we're shooting back and forth and I saw them over the weekend, you know, well, actually there's a new definition of

ceasefire now. Well, those were just love taps. You know, and so it gets to be pretty humorous. The public isn't stupid. Don't say that. Say, now that we're staying with the ceasefire, even though we're doing this, we want to give them time, but don't say that the ceasefire hasn't been broken. Of course, the ceasefire was broken. And, you know, be very clear when you say, we are green still with the terms of the ceasefire. And we're just simply defending from, you know,

they're breaking it. We wish to hold it. They're breaking it. We're attacking back, but we're not going full bore into it because we want to see if there's so many factions of the government that we want to make sure that we can get a deal with, with who's actually in charge in the

government if there's somebody in charge, which we're trying to find out. Well, and the critical

importance of what you just said is that you you're going to have to at some point if it is decided that you're going to have to take the uranium by force or take more measures against Iran. You're going to have to point out that the ceasefire was broken by the enemy. You're getting in order to build that sentiment. Great point. And that support you're going to have to say,

“well, in fact, it should be the case right now. You should be saying that. Yes, they broke the”

ceasefire because your contingency plan relies on that public sentiment going forward and that public sentiment can be built in your favor if you're pointing out that they are the ones that are again, not abiding by the ceasefire. And you can say that, you know, again, if you're saying it all along and you point that out, but if you go back and now you have to change, oh, well, no, they weren't abiding by the ceasefire we were. Well, now you've changed your story. And this entire thing

and building trust, it's not just the trust of the American people, which is critical. It's also

the trust of those other Middle Eastern nations who want Iran to be done. We can't have

This thing has to be completed. This mission has to be done because they bet everything on it. And it's been, it's been now a few weeks where we know what the red line is and they won't accept your red line. Right. So you're waiting for another proposal where they're not going to accept the red line and then they won 30 days, not to accept the red line. Yeah, you know, their victory is winning. And as we've said before, what is left of the, the, the government who's in charge,

how much power the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has the Revolutionary Guard probably believe

that if they agree to your terms, they're dead. If they don't agree to your terms, they're dead. Right. So they might also not agree to your terms because they don't believe that you will finish the job. Right. They're daring you to cross that line. Right. That's where we're at. Because crossing that line is likely going to be in boots on the ground. And they know this president, they know his history. And they also know what's going on politically right now,

“what's in play for him. Now to get to the important thing that Trump talked about in the interview”

that he did over the the weekend, Cheryl Accusin, and the NFL, the important stuff, football,

free football on TV. That's the important thing. Right. Yeah. Of course. Here we go. You're just as

department is investigating NFL from moving a lot of viewers from free broadcast television to more expensive pay programming like and was on prime Netflix, peacock and YouTube where then it felt makes more money. Do you think this is price gouging on America's favorite sports or the government? It's tough. It's tough. You got people that love football. They're great people. They don't make enough money to go and pay this. It's tough. And they could be killing the

golden goods. I mean, they have that stupid kickoff thing that you can't watch. It's unwatchable. I hate the games where they, you know, they have the new phony kickoff. I don't think it's any safer. I hope college football doesn't do that. Do you know what I'm talking about? I'm not a football. You are not a football fan. These people know what I'm talking about. You know, they ruin the game. But they have to be careful because, you know, others have tried

this and all of a sudden you don't have a sport anymore. Probably will. Government will stand out. There's something very sad when they take football away from many, many people.

“Very sad. I don't like it. So do you think the government will step in and earn something?”

I don't like it. I don't like it. They're making a lot of money. They could make a little bit less. And they could, they could let the people see. You have people that live for Sunday. They live. They can't think about anything else. And then all of a sudden, they're going to have to pay $1,000 a game. It's crazy. So I'm not happy about it. All right. Really didn't get into the legal stuff at all, did he?

Because it's like, okay, if you take away the anti-trust exemption, then the whole league becomes major league baseball. Yeah. Where the Yankees, you know, have the Yankees and Dodgers have, you know,

five trillion dollar payrolls. And Oakland has a five million dollar payroll. Right. Yeah.

“That's what the anti-trust exemption allows them to share all the TV money.”

Therefore, all the teams are more competitive. Right. We are Red Eye Radio. We'll be right back with more Red Eye Radio with every currently and Gary McNamara. [ Music ] We're Red Eye Radio. He's our currently and I'm Gary McNamara. All right. So Harvard Harris, we were talking about Kamala Harris and the fact that even though she

leads in the polls, she can't get any, all the, all the fundraisers are like, no, we're not, we don't want to spend any money on her. But she's at 50, Newsom at 22, but a judge in AOC at eight. Shapiro is nine, Kelly and Pritzker are six. So that's, and then you look for, this is great. The 2028 Michigan Democratic presidential primary taken by another pollster. Yeah. Whitmer leads with 21%, but a judge was 17, Harris with 15, Newsom 15, Kelly eight,

AOC six, Shapiro four, Pritzker two. So Gretchen Whitmer on any hypothetical matchup

No, no, that wasn't the vote. They took, this is actually a, this is a pollster.

Yeah. As a member, remember, they, they did the, they did took a vote on something and they figured

out some of the votes for fraudulent. Yeah. Oh, that's certainly a week. Yeah. Well, it's again,

“it's all over the place. And this is the problem with the party. I think if you went to the red states,”

I think the three, the three names you mentioned would be would be the ones at the top for 28.

But it's Marco Rubio. Well, except Trump changes ants. I would, I was actually going to say,

“you could throw in Trump Jr. along with Governor DeSantis and Florida.”

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 wasn't this way five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Do we have the will for 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 privilege, show. Following, listen on your favorite platform.