06-26-26 Part One - You Can Be In When You're Out

Wow, it's with you for a year in the third stage.

A couple of years after the high school.

“I don't know if that's what I wanted to live.”

Streaming on the 13th April, parallel to the U.S. makes a new episode. That's the problem. And you're a part of it with the title track. Give it a try.

I'm looking forward to the second highlight like "House of the Dragon" and "Wicked". All of the episode is on 19th June. Streaming won't be so-wow. 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.”

I'm Yuri McNamara. Eric has the morning off. All right. To look over this week, what stuck out to me? A lot of different things, but I'm sorry, but this was just number one.

It just, it shows what's going on here in the state of Texas. And it's James Taylor Rico. How he's trying to ride the fine line as a Democrat socialist. Here we go.

Yeah, and that's, you know, I always think of myself as a Christian who hates Christianity.

Yep. That's still the best. I haven't seen any commercials on it yet, but expect to see a lot of commercials on that. I mean, that's just, you know, it's plain gibberish. You know, oh, you know, we talked about this Eric brought this up.

And we didn't talk about it on the air. I don't believe.

“Maybe we did. I can't remember. I don't think we did.”

But Eric said, a Christian who hates Christianity. He just paused. He looked at me and said, "Isn't that the anti-Christ?" I can't see the Republican ads. James Taylor Rico, a Christian who hates Christianity.

Definition, the anti-Christ. All right, what did I get out of yesterday? All right, when I woke up and I'm driving into work,

oh, first, first thing, though, before we go, but I got out of yesterday,

was from the personal side. Dad got out of the hospital yesterday. If you would have told me that nine days ago, I would have said no way. We did not expect him to get out.

The guy just is a, is a fighter. He fought the nurses, the doctors, us, no, no, I have to. He is a fighter. He's inside. There's a spirit there that just wants to live. But when I was talking to my siblings, it would have been two days ago.

They said, "He may get out." I'm like, "Wow." We're all just blown away. We can't believe it. It was when he went in the prognosis as bad as you can get. I'll just put it that way. And now he's back in his own house.

And it's just, you know, for us, it's just pure greatness. So I just thought of that now because that really is what dominated the day for me yesterday. Now, in the world of politics, we've really got to me and we'll get into the specifics of it. But for me, yesterday was all the Supreme Court decisions. And then the talk that, you know, that dobs the abortion really is four years old.

And you look at all those case, you look at the cases. And the vast majority of cases that you saw, including the dobs decision and everything, except the vampire. By the way, I love that. The vampire law. The vampire law is, if you don't know what's going on in Hawaii,

the Supreme Court came out and said, no, sorry, Hawaii, you know, had a law passed that said, you cannot walk into a private residence that serves the public with a gun. Now, you know what the law is if they put a sign up, you cannot go in. But this was if they don't put a sign up, you basically have to ask permission when you walk in. Or you cannot, when you walk in, you cannot have a firearm.

And we'll get into that. But the rest were basically well-established laws.

On the second amendment, you know, all the liberal states are trying to find okay, maybe we can get in here, maybe we can get in here, maybe we can get in. And the Supreme Court, as they did yesterday, made the right decision and clarified it. But when you see the vast majority of the decisions yesterday, the Dodge decision on abortion with the Supreme Court is simply saying is, it's the law.

That's it. Simple. It's the law. It doesn't matter whether we agree with that or disagree with it.

It's the law. Here's how the system works.

It feels so stupid. Sometimes I feel so stupid having to go through the basics of how this country is set up. But we have to. But it's set up very easily. You're elected representatives in Congress, make the law. That's it. That's it. Judges aren't supposed to make law. Presidents aren't supposed to make law.

That's not how the Constitution works. It's Congress. And when you look at and I just started laughing when I was reading Jonathan Turley's comments yesterday. And I just I just read it straight off to you. In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person arrives in a place before the person enters that place.

“Those words may seem ripped from the pages of Dr. Suez. That's what got me to laugh.”

You can't arrive in a place until you arrive in a place. But they're taken from the six to three majority opinion of Justice Alito. They capture the lost in translation character of the court's fight over whether undocumented persons must be physically present in the United States to make an asylum claim. And one of the pair of major immigration wins for the Trump Administration yesterday, the court ruled that asylum seekers who are stopped on the other side

of the southern border are not present in the United States. If treated as inside the country, despite being outside it, these individuals would be allowed to enter and remain while their sign claims are pending. The case highlights the lengths to which the Biden administration went to facilitate the entry of undocumented persons into the country.

“It rescinded a policy of metering that was put into place by the Obama administration. Remember,”

the Obama administration was doing exactly what the Trump administration is doing. They abided by the same law. And again, the left. I don't know, maybe the Democrat socialist of America will

call him a evil Hitler, you never know now. But in seeking a bar Trump from enforcing the same

policy as the Obama administration, the three liberal justices sounded positively Clinton-esque. I love the how that's actually become a word. You know, you're Clinton-esque in debating what the meaning of in is instead of during Monica Lewinsky, what is the meaning of is? It all depends what the meaning of is is. So to my ear, denounced the majority's illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by the fixation on a single word in

words, however, must be read in context. And with the tension to how they fit into the statute as a whole, in their view, contextual reading means that you can be in the United States without actually being

“in the United States. That's how stupid this is. The sharp disagre-- then again, look!”

This is like a sign-filled thing. In, out, out, in, we won't get into what that episode was. But when you think about it, if they believe that a man can become a woman, why can't you be in when you're out?

The sharp disagreement in the opinion spilled over to the release of the opinions, just as

“Alito read the summary of his opinion, followed by a more lengthy reading by just as so to my”

ear for her descent, the stinging descent produced a rare rebuttal from the bench by Alito who was surprised by the extended comments and said, if he had not been blindsided, he would have said more, including how the policy in question was adopted by very different administrations, Obama and Trump. But it's the entire thing that the legal point, think about this, the legal point that the Democrats were trying to excuse me. Well, okay, the Democrats were trying to make on the

Supreme Court. The liberals were trying to make on the Supreme Court. I don't know. They may be Jackson could be a, you know, a DSA. So technically the Democratic Party, some of the Democratic party were trying to move away from the DSA, but she might be part of the DSA and things that the

Democrats are just too conservative, you never know. But think about this, the major issue,

the major argument made by the liberals on the court is you can be in the country when you're outside the country. You can be in when you're out. And it's like, what are you, what are you talking about? And the other decision on, on, on immigration was based on what the law states. And the left hates that. They absolutely hate it. The court also delivered a major victory upholding the right of the administration to strip more than 350, 6,000 Syrian and Haitian

immigrants on temporary protective status. Again, lower courts afforded the Obama and Biden administrations, granted a greater leeway in granting such status and Trump is residing it. What they said was again, well, this is what the law says.

“This is, you can't, you can't stop what the law actually says. And that's what the day was about”

yesterday. Because that's what we're dealing with right now when you, you know, I was, I have some audio coming up. God wouldn't in the same day. It was, I mean, just the, I've got one on CBS where one so-called expert is trying to say that socialism can be good. And, you know, we have to understand. It's like shut up. But that was really the day of the Supreme Court. And we'll go through some of the more of the specifics of it. The Supreme Court ruled against why we had

mentioned that handing concealed carry permit holders, the major victory, the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiff who contested Hawaii State law, requiring a property owner explicit permission to allow lawful gun owners to bring firearms into public businesses. Hawaii's law, an issue here violates the Constitution, a right to keep in bear arms, said Justice Alito.

This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects the right of every American to carry

arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives. A really reverses a decision by the U.S. Court appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had upheld Hawaii's restrictions after the State enacted them in response to the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruin Decision. Bruin struck down New York's proper cause, licensing requirement, and held that Americans have a Constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, Hawaii overhauled its firearm laws.

“And it's very simple. I mean, I remember even when it, it came out where people were upset that”

a private property owner could say you can't carry a gun, but that, you know, into my property. And as we said, when we got into some pretty heated discussions, way back, when I said,

no, you can't. Your Second Amendment right does not supersede their property rights.

They're property. They don't want you to carry a gun. They don't want you on their property. But the, if they say, no, you can't come on my property and carry a gun, as we know,

but you can't. Then you just go somewhere else. Now, personally, I've always felt that when you

“have those signs up, you're inviting people to come in and rob your store. I've always thought,”

if I don't have a place like that, I'd probably just say, all legal firearm owners are allowed in my store and put it in great, big letters as a warning to someone who wish to illegally carry a firearm into my retail outlet in order to rob it. Put that little thought in the back of their minds. So we've got so much to talk about here today. We really, really do. Plus, a couple more comments in some of the Supreme Court decisions yesterday. And to make the analogy, what the

sameness is between the, the Dodds decision a few years back on abortion and some of the decisions that

were made yesterday. Plus, I don't know. I mean, the Iran thing. I mean, every day it's like,

“well, this is what we thought. This is what we thought would happen. This is what we thought would happen.”

So we will get to, and also the, the round-up decision, which was the same thing. It's federal law supersedes state law. And that was, it's like, this is the way things run. Again, this is the constitutional process. This is who has authority over this. And it drives a left crazy. But when I saw yesterday, somebody put this expands, nothing that happened yesterday,

expanded anything. It was, it was, it was law. We are right. I radio.

Hi there. This is Hope with Mother Trucker Yoga. And this is your health tip of the day. Healthy driver, healthy diesel, powered by house. Your core is more than just abs. It's your power house. And with all those hours sitting behind the wheel, weak core muscles can lead to back pain, poor posture and even fatigue. Let's fire up that core. Sit up tall away from the seat. Feel those core muscles turn on. Now as you exhale, bring your right front ribs down towards your

right hip, tighten that core. Sit tall again. And then repeat on the left side, doing this 10 times each side. Let's target the obliques even more. Hike your right hip up towards your ribs. And then release visit MotherTrucker Yoga.com and house products.com for more info. We'll be right back with more Red Eye Radio with every currently and Gary McNamara. We're right. I'm Radio. He is our currently and I'm Gary McNamara.

Looking at the decision. I'm bringing here from both Skoda's blog and the Wall Street Journal analysis of it. Skoda's blog just a great place to look for the analysis of any of any Supreme Court decision. You know, based on what the law is, not what emotion is. But start with the Wall Street Journal. The Supreme Court on Thursday expanded President Trump's power over immigration or so the press proclaims the White House no doubts wishes that were true.

But the six conservative justices merely ruled that judges cannot you serve the power that Congress delegated to the president. At issue was Mr. Trump's termination of the temporary protective status for Syrian and Haitian refugees. A 1990 law lets a Secretary of Homeland Security provide quasi legal status to migrants if they can't safely return home to their countries because of armed conflicts, natural disasters, or other extraordinary or temporary conditions.

Furners with TPS are protected from removal and can receive work authorizations. Congress required the DHS Secretary to periodically review, country determinations with extensions limited

“to 18 months at a time. And that's what it is. And at any time, after those 18 months it's like”

you can go back. That's what the law states. And that's what a little wrote. Doesn't matter what you think. This is what the law states and these things cannot be reviewed by the court based on the law.

times. And there are now the Cuba-Capsule Machine in Dynatiba, Fiali and on Chibode E.

“A perfect free-length tag. Sonne. Park. picnic. And so many poems.”

Chopper Boote, gesagt, juice, energy and halo, free-length. Here, if you're all about the world, through the energy time. When new countries spend 10% on 30 € per day, with the code, new, 10. You have a real-time job-op-up-up-up-up-up and direct one-listen.

Good-shind-bearing-off-shop-minus-up-take-point-com/good-shind. Here's every night on the Rennay Radio app available in the app store. Reddit. All right. Radio.

Hey, we are Rennay Radio.

I'm Gary McNamara. Eric has the morning off. Eric, Harley, that is. So it's me and you.

“So just going through some of the Supreme Court decision yesterday.”

And again, the narrative that kept going through my mind through all the decisions is, it's the law. It's the law. It's the law. It's the law.

And the liberals on the court, well, but it shouldn't be the law.

It doesn't matter what you think it should be or not.

I mean, there's a system that we run in, which is why when you look, you know, when you have the, I call them more of the originalist or construction as of the Supreme Court, when they look at it and say, no, sorry, that's the law. They're called fascist.

And it's like, well, no, they're not fascist. They're trying to dictate it. No, they're not dictating anything. You're simply telling you what the law is. It is the left on the Supreme Court.

That in this case said, well, out is in. And when it comes to your status as somebody in this country and what they're saying

“is if you're on the other side of the border, you should be considered in.”

Because it's the proper thing to do in the context of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I'll need to said, sorry. I mean, out isn't in. This is how it was a doctor's suits. And it was doctor's suits in sanity yesterday.

But on the foreigners with temporary protected status. Uh, as we said, again, whether it was scotest blog or the Wall Street Journal or whoever covered, you know, covered the text of what was said, it was like, sorry. It's the law. And judges cannot.

You served the power of the Congress delegated to the president. Why? Because it came from the president. The president's a dictator. No, he's not.

He's following the law that was established by Congress. If you don't believe that that's the way that it should go, well, then you are closer to a fascist than the president is. You're making that allegation. But it can't stand up to the law.

And so when they look at the, the, the case, Well, in versus dough, uh, was Mr. Trump's termination of the temporary protective status for Syrian Haitian refugees, the 1990 law lets the Secretary of Homeland Security provide quasi legal status to migrants if they can't safely return to their home countries because of our conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary or temporary conditions foreigners with TPS.

This is nothing to do with office space. By the way, our protected TPS reports are protected from removal and can receive work authorizations, Congress required the Department of Homeland Security. Now, for people on the left, we need to dumb this down, Congress under the Constitution. They are the ones that create laws.

They are your elected representatives. This is how it works. Congress required the DHS Secretary to periodically review country determinations with extensions limited to 18 months at a time, which means it's temporary protective status. There's something in your home country.

We review it every 18 months if things are resolved. The Department of Homeland Security makes that decision and you get sent back.

Congress, now, not Trump, Congress, said this can't be reviewed by courts.

“Trump officials say the Democratic presidents of abuse of program to provide de facto”

permanent legal status. The Trump team has sought to end the temporary protective status for foreigners from a dozen or so countries. These legal challenges should be open and shut cases since the law again enacted by Congress says, quote, there is no judicial review for any determination of the Secretary with respect to the designation or termination or extension of that designation

of a foreign state.

But as Wall Street Journal writes here, some judges have ignored the law and blocked the

“administration's termination based on procedural quibbles.”

One court ruled that the DHS Secretary inadequately consulted the State Department about conditions and Syria before terminating TPS. In the view of the lower courts, the barren judicial review doesn't apply to procedural errors underlying the terminations, but as Justice Alito notes for the court, this loophole finds no support in the actual law.

It doesn't exist.

So there you go. So that was simply bad case. That's not the law.

“From Scotus blog, writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Lito wrote that the language”

of the TPS statute prohibiting judicial review is clear and its plain meaning is extremely broad. And so there's where we're at now, the Roundup Supreme Court, which was a seven to two majority, again, analysis from Scotus blog on the Wall Street Journal here, looking at the legalities of it, not the emotion of it, not the allegations, but the actual law who has authority here, and we all know the whole Roundup thing that roundup the people

finding the lawsuits roundup causes cancer, and they start out mass torts, spread like weeds, and may be even harder to stop. The good news is that a seven to two majority on Thursday eradicated one major scourge by ruling that federal law preamps most state claims involving the pesticide Roundup. Plain of attorneys have filed thousands of lawsuits in state courts against bear, which owns Lensanto claiming that Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosphate

gave them cancer, but they also say bear should have warned about the alleged risk, but as Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in the majority opinion, such claims are expressively preempted by federal law, the fight for law. The law establishes a regulatory path for the environmental protection agency to review and approve pesticides. It also expressly bars states from imposing requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required by the

environmental protection agency. For more than three decades since EPA has repeatedly re-evaluated glyphosphate, this goes across different administrations, Democrat and Republican, and repeatedly concluded that it is not likely to cause cancer just as Kavanaugh writes. As a matter of federal law, Monsanto legally must use a label without a cancer warning unless and until the EPA approves or requires a change. So there you go. It's that simple. It's like that's not what the law is.

This is the, you may not like the law, but we can't change the law. That's not up to us as judges. We don't get to change the law. And this goes back when I saw yesterday, I mean, in the four-year anniversary of, I've seen articles written about it on the Dodds decision, and I can still remember

leg. I need to go out more. But I remember walking in, I was on vacation, and I walked in on a Wednesday because I knew a lot of my friends who have boats and wanted to mooch a ride,

no, I'm kidding. But a lot of my friends who have boats, they always go in on Wednesday night,

“so I remember walking in there, and you could hear the murmuring from, there were people who knew”

me and then there were people that were friends of those people who knew me, but who didn't know me and the murmuring started. And then I, one woman said, what do you think about this decision from the Supreme Court? They're acting like a dictators saying you can't have an abortion. And I said, well, well, that's not what they did. What do you mean? And I said, well, what they did was, they said, those last Supreme Court made a law. Judges can't make law. There is no federal law.

Doesn't exist. Find it in the Constitution. It doesn't exist. And the left for years,

you had liberal scholars going as bad law. It doesn't exist anywhere. And with the Supreme Court simply said is, if Congress won't deal with it, we can't make the law. The last Supreme Court that did that actually did something that was unconstitutional. They created a law. Judges don't create laws. Again, Congress does. And they said, since Congress has not created a law each state can do what they want individually. But on the federal level, there is no law that exists.

And it was, you know, it was that simple. And, you know, and we got into other discussions. It's still one of my the most interesting discussions I've had since Dodds, because I had it with every every single pro abortion person. I said, oh, then you believe in abortion till, you know, till birth. Well, no, no, no, no, no. I just got to stop a couple of months before every single person I talked to said that. I said, well, then what you're saying is it becomes a human being in the womb.

The only difference you have is the timespan. You say here, other people say there. But it's all in the womb. How do you justify it then? And they couldn't answer the question. So, but yeah, on the, so everything yesterday just reminded me of, you know, Alito and the the constructionist originalists

of the Supreme Court are simply saying, it's not law. Here's the law. Here's what it states.

Here's what it clearly states. It doesn't matter what you feel. You may not like the law. The law might be unfair. But judges don't get to change it. And you don't get to change it. Only Congress can change it. And that's for me what came out of yesterday. And then again, reminded me of the Dodds decision from four years ago that all of it was about it's not the law, it's not the law, it's not the law. And it's interesting because it is the left, the continually calls the right fascist. If you look at

what fascism is or authoritarianism is, it's not. It's bureaucrats not paying attention to what the people of the United States or their elected representatives have made law.

“Is that simple? Does that mean that Congress can make a law that's unconstitutional?”

Yes, it does. But in these cases, nobody can make that legal point. We are Red Eye Radio for 250 years. It's all been about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But you know, it's hard to pursue that happiness when pain is in your everyday life. It was in my life. For the longest time, and I just kind of accepted it. I thought, well, this is my life. Well, after relief factor, it wasn't my life anymore. Thanks to relief factor, I'm feeling so much better.

And they sent me some for free to try. And I'm here to tell you, it's working for me, and I want you to get the benefits. We're talking about a drug-free approach. It's research-based, this formula that works through multiple metabolic pathways to support comfort and mobility,

“working on your body's source of information. That's what it's about.”

So, I take it every day. I want you to get the benefit. And for our 250 years of independence,

your three week quick start. 1776, just 17 dollars, 76 cents, and all you have to do is call 800

for relief, 800, the number for relief, or go to relieffactor.com, relieffactor.com, for your three week quick start at 1776. We are running ready. Oh, and he's our girl. He has a morning off. I'm Gary Mackmer. I do not. Just interesting times that we live in, but it gives us an opportunity. And it should give other conservatives and Republicans an opportunity out there to explain. Number one, how the

“country works, because that's what I find incredible. How many people have no idea how the country”

is actually set up and why it's set up the way that it's set up. And also the economic illiteracy that's out there where anybody could even possibly consider the history of socialism around the world. This is Riddy Radio on Westwood One. Our empfailants for their podcast, friscious, obst and knacky-gis-gimmuse from Aldi. "Imagut, Imagünstig, Imagünstig, Imagünstig, Imagünstig, Imagünstig, Kurz, says, "Frische for all.

"To all the prices, this week, Cessprie Kiewi Grün, that's for 44 cents.

"Or the Mini Cherry Rispentomaten, 500 grams for just €1.9.60. "In a decade, there are many other categories in your all-de-not-filiale, "and there are only one option and two options." "All-de. Good for all." Hey there, I'm Paula Pern.

I hope people make this smartest money decisions possible. If you don't control your money, it controls the app. You're not in control of your finances, and you have to look outside of yourself to live the life that you want. You're not in control of your life.

Like, what is it that you actually want? Money should follow the dreams and goals, because sometimes you make the dream and goal the money, and you've overworked yourself, and you've exceeded what you've needed for the actual thing you want.

“Sometimes we forget, like, what's the actual thing you want?”

A Ford Anything. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. 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.

And he is Eric Hurley and I'm Gary McNamara. Eric has the morning off. I'm here. All right. The whole socialism thing.

Let's hit it.

First, audio cut from yesterday Fox News.

Mary Catherine Ham about socialism in general. Here we go. And I'm playing this audio cut because of the name that she brings up here. Here we go.

“Yeah, look, I think that a couple generations of economic illiteracy”

and civic illiteracy might have been a mistake, and everyone's looking for the next Joe Rogan for the left or the right. And I would just say, maybe everyone's Joe Rogan should be Milton Friedman. So we could just get a handle on this because it does not work, and it will end disastrously from many people.

He's right that it makes it easier for Republicans to frame the Democrats party as what it is, which is pretty extreme at this point with these folks rising. And they will not be held in check, right? Nancy Pelosi was over was outdone by the squad in 2019 over

a fight over anti-Semitism, which then became a resolution about all discrimination is bad. Instead of the specific anti-Semitism that some in the squad were guilty of, you think hockey and Jeffries has an answer. You can see in that clip he does not.

He's not going to be able to corral this group in any meaningful sense. They're very proud of what they believe. They will happily repeat it over and over again. It makes it easy to frame in the general public into the general body politic.

However, I don't want these folks having a foothold in institutions because they're known for their long march through institutions. They're not known for simply dabbling institutions. They're very open about the fact that they want to destroy

What you find, anybody who's promoting social is actually

talked to them and they're clueless.

“They're full of rhetoric, they're full of rage or full of anger.”

But you can't have a coherent argument about it. Since she mentioned Milton Friedman, let's get a couple of things where he talks about socialism versus free markets. All right.

Here we go. This one. I love this one because this said, you know, you can tell this is like 40, 45 years old. Because he brings up.

There was a, and I haven't heard it yet. Maybe somebody said it, but I haven't heard it. He, he brought up what I heard in my youth and in my 20s. Communism actually works. Socialism works.

It's just the wrong people were in charge of it. He addresses that here. Here we go. Has socialism failed? Because it's good qualities were perverted by evil men

who got in charge. Was it simply because Talon took over from Lainane that Communism went the way it did? Has capitalism succeeded despite the immoral values that provided?

“I think the answer to both questions is in the negative.”

The results have a reason because each system has been true to its own values. Or rather, a system doesn't have values. I don't mean that. Has been true to the values.

It encourages supports and develops in the people who live under that system. What he's saying is capitalism works better than socialism irrespective of who's in charge. Here he is with the on Phil Donney who's show.

It's going to be 40, 45 years. Here you go. Did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?

Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know

that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy.

It's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat.

Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about. The only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.

“If you want to know where the masses are worse off,”

worse off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way. So far discovered of improving a lot of the ordinary people. They can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed

by free enterprise. And it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system. And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissary rewards virtue?

You think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think, excuse me, if you'll pardon me, do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political cloud?

Is it really true that political self-enters is no better somehow than economic self-enters? You know, I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. And just tell me, where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?

Well, I don't even trust you to do that. [laughter] Just great.

I always do love the one story that has been told many times.

I never heard Milton Friedman say it, but a lot of people quoted him and it triggered this to Milton Friedman that he was asked to go to a socialist country, to go look at, you know, to help them, to help them become more modern. And when he went there, there was a huge public works project

a dam or something like that that was being built. And all these people were out there with shovels and everything else. And Milton Friedman supposedly asked a bureaucrat said, "Where's your big earth moving equipment? I'll come everybody here has shovels."

And the bureaucrat looked at him and said, "Well, because it's a jobs program," and he said, "Well, if it's a jobs program, why aren't they all using spoons?"

That was a perfect answer because you look at it.

And that's where we talk about what actually drives an economy. And it is producing things and producing them as efficiently as you can. That's what drives everything. But I just, how I was educated, okay, let me be blunt here. How I was educated on understanding economics and how the

constitution of the United States is set up. When I hear the left talking, it's almost as if you're dealing with infant children who have not been educated in the slightest as to how the real world runs.

“And that's what you're getting with these socialist candidates.”

And you can tell they can't answer a damn question.

They don't know how the hell things work. It really don't. We do, and I agree with Mary Katherine Ham, who I said, decades of not teaching economics and constitutional history, well, we're paying for it now.

Here's got a bunch of people walking out there who have no idea how things run. Except they want change because of their anger and fury and their belief that they are victims of an oppressive society. That's what you're getting from the Democratic Socialist of America. They all believed that they're victims.

Why? Because since they were children, they were told they were victims. You look at a Greta Thumbard.

“You Eric and I will never forget when she and a group of other young women.”

We're at the, I think it was Obama at the time. I think it was the Obama White House. And they asked, well, you know, the reporters. So what are you going to do when you go to college? And they're like, what are you talking about?

We're going to be dead by then. Society is going to be gone.

You know, I've always looked, forget about just for a moment,

moment, move away from the economics and political reality about how how things really run. What adult tells a child. That society is so oppressive that you can't make it and you should have no hope. Who does that?

How evil is that? No, we never talk about the morality of that.

“Who in the hell would tell a young person, you're not going to be able to make it through college?”

Who tells, you know, when people think the Bernie Sanders cares, what came out of Occupy Wall Street? And it was the one successful thing that they're still talking about now. And Bernie Sanders promotes it is you can't make it. You're a victim because billionaires exist that somehow,

and we can't say trillionaires because I was at the two days ago. Elon Musk was no longer a trillionaire. But you can't make it because billionaires exist. If you're in any type of non hallucinogenic reality, you know that a billionaires doesn't affect your life at all.

So why would you say that? You say that because you want that person to have no hope, and you're the one that's going to bring them hope by saying, "The government is your savior." But you've got people walking around,

believing they're a victim of this incredibly oppressive society when there's no context about what oppression and authoritarianism actually is around the world. I saw that did you see this? Perfect example. Iran is playing Saudi Arabia in soccer.

Like what did you y'all soccer? Because they want me to say football. Who's they? But Iran is playing Saudi Arabia, and they're playing the pride game in Seattle.

Seattle is having their pride game, and Iran has already told the organizers that they do not want a pride night being promoted in a game that they're playing.

I would suggest extra security for that game. And so, you know, but that gives me the example of when you had, you know, gaze for Palestine. And like what the hell are you talking about?

These people would murder you in a second.

And that's the thing that really buffettles all of us. There seems to be absolutely no thought process.

“And that's why we talked a couple of weeks ago.”

Somebody wrote an article. Are they just thinking wrong or are they just not thinking? And there's a great point. Is there no thinking involved in it? Is it just you hear the propaganda?

You like the fact that you're a victim, and you won't even allow yourself to think or analyze because there's some comfort in somebody telling you that you're a victim. And you can't make it, and you don't have the ability to make it on your own. Because if somebody ever told me that.

I would have said, get on my face. When I watched, if you ever watched a movie miracle about the 1980 US Olympic hockey team, they have that, you know, in it it begins with the malaise speech and then later on the malaise speech.

I always hated that from Jimmy Carter.

Hated.

“Because I remember where I was at that time.”

I had graduate from college, tried radio for a year, to end it up being a machinist. But I was happy as heck because I was making a good living. That was number one. My priority was to be self-sufficient. That was number one priority.

And I was like, normally in my life, I was working that, working overtime. And I was the same time I was a club DJ. And I wasn't working in the profession that I wish to work in. But I was being very, very productive. I remember even when the malaise speech happened.

And when I look back at it now. And realizing what interest rates were. You know, interest rates, you think interest rates are high now. My god back then. But I think about what my mindset was.

When it was apparent, you know, and when Carter's actually, you know, lecturing us. And I'm like, what do you lecture me for? Everything's fine. I'm working my butt off. I'm having that I'm experiencing, you know, the opportunity that's given me.

Even if it isn't what I really, really want to do. It's not my number one thing of what to do. I'm still making money. And the future is very, very bright. And I'm not going to use the rest of that song lyric because it's about nuclear war.

But I was extremely, extremely, I've always been extremely optimistic.

Because, and dad told me a long time ago, what happens in the federal government has got nothing to do with whether you succeed or not. What government does is not going to affect whether you decide to make it or not. You're work ethic, your dedication, your passion, your attention to detail.

“That's what's going to get you there irrespective of what's going on anywhere else.”

And that to me is a proper message to give because it's true. And I look right now. There's great opportunities for people out there. You may not be able to do what exactly what you wanted to do. But again, how many people followed the philosophy that my father told me about.

You better be good at three or four different things, not one. And when it came to our family, it was like dad should trade or college both. But that's hard. Life is hard. If you prepare yourself, it's easier.

We are Red Eye Radio. This morning's USDA Farm Report is brought to you by House Products, tested, trusted, guaranteed since 1920. Will there be enough cherries to consume this July 4th? Whether as a handful of sweet cherries or in a cherry pie? Providing that answer is lads hodig at the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

For both the sweet and the tart crops this year, it was not a good season. Uncooperative growing weather is behind the production for a cast for sweet cherries. Those are highly concentrated up in Washington. They had all kinds of weather problems up there. And so as a result, we ended up with an overall sweet cherry production.

Actually, looking at the smallest crops since 2022, the second smallest since 2008. And while growing weather for the nation's sweet cherry crop this season was bad,

Highly concentrated as well, but in Michigan.

“But unfortunately, folks in Michigan had free issues this year as well.”

So now we're looking at the smallest tart cherry crop since 2012. I'm Rod Bay in reporting for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. This report brought to you by Senax Fules and Loops. Get in touch with what I radio, toll free at 866. Mindy Red Eye.

[Music] We are when I'm radio.

He's our crony and I'm Gary McNamara. Good morning.

When you look at this week politically, really, it's the domestic politics. It's really the whole DSA thing, the Democrat Socialist of America. And there are winds in New York.

“And what's going on at the leadership of the Democratic Party.”

And I know I saw Hakeem Jeffries yesterday walking down a hallway and just said, "We're just, we want the Democrats to win the house. He wouldn't address any of the questions. Whether he plans on fighting where the Democratic Party is going. But you did find people that were responding.

And I'm talking about far-left Democrats that said, "Uh-uh, one of them was Van Johnson."

As we have said with Van Johnson, it's always interesting because in 2009,

when he joined the Obama administration, he was viewed as one of the most radical socialist that you could possibly find out there. But there's a few others that we're talking yesterday. We'll get to them. And then the entire thing of some, as watching CBS yesterday,

and one of their commentators were saying, "Well, it's about making sure that, you know, people are delivering the goods and services that they need. No, it's not. And we'll go through it again with the DSA actually stands for, in their own words."

You're listening to Red Eye Radio from the Red Leaf Backers Studio. I'm Gary McNamara, along with Eric Hurley, who was in here today, just to me and thanks Allen for letting me know that instead of saying, "Van Jones." And I was talking about the Obama adviser van Jones,

and we play the audio cut yesterday of the day before. Maybe we played it both days, where he said he's just, you know, he's worried about the Democrat socialist of America. And I said he was viewed as one of the, he was viewed as the top socialist really in America. At that time, you know, in a major power position in the Obama administration,

he's going, oh my gosh, he's not happy with the Democratic socialist of America. But I said, "Van Johnson, I was not relating to the, the actor dancer van Johnson." Or I don't want to make that clear.

“Who's been dead, I think, what since like early 2000, something like that, I think.”

But at least I didn't say, at least I didn't say when we were talking about Spencer Pratt in, you know, the LA mayor's rates. I didn't say Spencer Tracy. I think that was, I believe, I'm doing this for memory now. I believe van Johnson's really big break when he got notice was in a movie with Spencer Tracy.

So, but there you go, yes, I want you to know, I know the difference between van Jones and van Johnson. Ellen came in, opens the door, he said, "You know, you said van Johnson. I don't think believe you meant the actor and dancer." No, I don't know what his politics were. I don't know, but there we got that straight now.

What I find really interesting is that the Democratic leadership doesn't know how to handle all this. But I thought, you know, van Jones, what he said, I got his name right.

This is the same thing of Danny Joyce, who's me on Morning Joe. And just going, you know, this is nuts. But, and he's as far left as you can get. Here he is, making a statement about what's going on with the Democrats socialist of America. Hey, man, Tommy, you need to answer for Auburn Courses. This is your candidate, one of your endorsed candidates that won the Democratic primaries for New York State Assembly. You have to own what the people that you're endorsing have said and stand for.

Basically, she said that kind of 9/11 was the U.S. as well. Take a look at the video.

The system of capitalism and racism and white supremacy, et cetera, have all end Islamophobia, have all been used. You know, to colonize lands, right, to take resources for other people. And so this is like a long trajectory. And we're just seeing the manifestations of that continuation, right, with 9/11. This is your candidate. I went over yesterday with Shavaliay and the things that she's done as far as another one of his candidates for Congress, who, uh, has attended a Hamas rally a day after October 7th, but you own these people now. This is part of your slate and every journalist with a microphone should say to you,

“"Your candidate said this. How do you feel about it?" Man, Tommy, you need to answer for Auburn Courses.”

There you go. And so he's been making videos on it. And he's, like I said, he's as far left as you can get. And then I saw this on CBS mornings yesterday, uh, led, Dudler, Dudler, excuse me.

Here's what he had to say about the Democrat Socialist of America.

It was primary. The rhetoric around socialism tends to sometimes scare a lot of people. These people who are supporting some of these policies, they're doing it within a democratic constitutional system. They're not advocating for government space on one party rule or a centralized state ownership of the country. Yes.

Of the economy or suppression of political opposition or even limits on civil liberties. So, could that translate the things that they advocate? Perhaps not what you mentioned earlier,

“but some of those other things that we talked about, greater public investment, expanded childcare.”

Is that something that could resonate across the...

Well, here. Number one, he's delusional. He's not telling you the truth. We've gone through. We went through it earlier this week. The DSA and, uh, what these candidates believe.

And at their conventions, what they're promoting. And we know the, at, think about this. The abolition of the police. No prisons. Uh, defund the military. No money for the military.

Government ownership of large companies. We aren't, we're not, we're not even looking at what socialism is. And filling in the blanks and saying, this is what socialism stands for. We're telling you what the Democratic socialist of America and, by the way, obviously, if they're on the left and say, they say Democratic, it means it's the opposite.

They wish to get rid.

“And this is where I sit there and go, does this guy do, do they do their homework at all?”

I've led, uh, duthers. I don't know who he is, but he's on CBS mornings. But as we all know, the Democrats socialist of America wish to tear apart the constitution. They don't believe in the separation of powers. They wish to get rid of the electoral college. They wish to get rid of the Senate.

They wish this is in their own words. Not us speculating what socialist had been and therefore saying this is their socialism. We're telling you what they have said. These are their goals. So they wish to get rid of the Senate.

They wish to get rid of the electoral college. They wish to put the Supreme Court and the executive branch. That's the president of the United States under the authority of a Congress, which would be just a house like where you would lose. And we said, all these small, if it ever got to the point where they put in a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Senate.

How would Vermont vote?

They lose major representation.

How would Oregon vote?

“Being small states with small populations that are liberal.”

How would they? We saw in Virginia what the Democrats did by joining the compact, which will be found unconstitutional by the way, if it ever gets to that particular point. Virginia has said right out to its people how you vote doesn't matter. We're going to vote with the majority of the United States votes on. So your vote may not matter at all. And the Democrats of Virginia are like, that's fine.

So don't tell me they're not trying to take away representative government. Because they are. Because you can't have representative government and have people represented in the small states if you get rid of the Senate. And the other thing we've talked about is if you look at the projections of growth nationwide. But in in 75 years in 74 years.

Texas with a hundred million people, Florida with 70 million people.

California will only be at 50 million. Southern states will dominate based on migration patterns inside the United States. And it's almost like the ranked choice voting where when it got to when it got close. And they thought that there may be two Republicans. Democrats started panicking and say, well, maybe we got to reverse this.

Maybe we got to reverse this.

“Well, you should have thought of that before you before you decided to do it.”

But the Democrats socialist of America believe in things that are completely authoritarian and moving away from representative government and destroying.

The major the absolutely major part. There is no bigger part of our constitution than the separation of powers. And that's the legislative judicial and executive branch being separate branches. That's why the country runs the way it has. For over, you know, now 249 point nine years.

That's why separation of powers power can not accumulate in one branch. And that's what they want. They want the power to accumulate in a house because they believe that they can win. Their ideas with the most population. With the ideas that they have.

And when you see where Europe is now going. Where the Scandinavian countries are going moving, you know, looking at it. You're seeing the socialism is working. You're seeing in in South America the same thing. They may not be the best bet, but they don't care. They get something in their head. They just go, let's do it.

But the other problem is. The Democratic Party and the establishments is already as radical as you can get. To me, I wonder whether, you know, for example, that he came Jeffries and Schumer whatever. Because there's radicals you can be think about it when you have 99.9% of the Democrats vote to say that a man can be a woman if a man says so. It defies any type of biological science whatsoever.

They don't care. They push that forward. There's radicals you can get. The establishment of the Democratic Party is the establishment and the leadership that created the radical transgender movement. The misogyny and sexism there. The racism of identity politics was created by the establishment of the Democratic Party over the last quarter century. So if racism, misogyny and sexism isn't radical enough, you know, I don't know what is.

“There are already radicals. They just don't want to be portrayed as radicals. I believe the biggest fear of Democrats is not the radical agenda of the Democrat socialist of America.”

It's that they're being blunt about it and they don't want that. They want to move in slow increments to that particular point. I think that's the debate in the Democratic Party.

And that was communism to save the planet.

I don't know if that meme would work too well.

“So yeah, I think it's important to understand that, you know, they're going to try to soft sell this one.”

Oh, they're just worried about, you know, making sure that people are taking it. Oh, they're not. And the best thing is being blunt, it's not you can't say, you guys are exaggerating what they said it.

It's crystal clear what they believe.

And that scares the hell out of the Democratic establishment. I believe they want to, I believe they share probably 90% of the same beliefs. It's that the Democratic establishment doesn't want to tell the population that's where they're headed. They believe that's negative politically, but it's that they want the vast majority of what the Democrat socialist of America want. We are Red, I radio.

“We'll be right back with more Red, I radio with every currently and Gary McNamara.”

We are Red, I radio. He's our curly, he has a morning off, I'm Gary McNamara, I'm here. This is my favorite headline, Jim Garity, National Review. Say, I'm starting to think these Iranian mollas might not be trustworthy. [laughter]

The Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attacked a Singapore flag cargo ship Thursday in the

Strait of Hormuz, according to two senior U.S. officials, testing the deals sign last week by the U.S. and Iran to end the fighting to reopen the vital shipping lane, the attack which damaged the ship's bridge but left no casualties took place near the coast of Oman, hours after the Iranian paramilitary navy warned ships not to use routes through the waterways that the regime had not sanctioned.

“And the response from the president was, you know, you need to follow what we do or we go back to war again.”

It's the same status quo that it's been. This is exactly what we thought would happen. I mean, I don't think there's anybody out there who understands Iran and what they've been doing for the last 47 years that realizes you can offer them all the economic benefits in the world. That's not what it's about.

They don't care about trade deals. They don't care about economic prosperity for their people. They don't. And they care about Sharia supremacy. That's what they care about.

They don't think like us in the western world. see his riddy radio on Westwood One.