07-01-26 Part One - Birthrights Rule

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. [Music] All across America, we are Red Eye Radio. He is their Carly and I'm Gary McNamara. Welcome and good morning. Thanks so much for being here this morning. Bye! All right, all right, here we go. You know, there was, there was so much discussion in the

minutiae of whatever road in the birthright citizenship, you know, debate that was going on. Right. But to me, it was, it was real simple. I still have, and this is months and months and

months ago that you had Randy Barnett who is basically a historian, a faculty director of the George

Town Center for the, for the Constitution and co-author of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, its letter and its spirit. And in all of the mind-frying minutiae, reading of the minutiae of, you know, the, you know, the different opinions on it, nobody has been able to defeat this opinion. Once, once I saw this, a ways back, I said, all right, what, what can beat this? And this is when you look at the drafters of the 14th Amendment. Okay. All right. You know, what were they,

what were they looking at? And they, the, he wrote about this months ago in an op-ed piece,

Senator Lyman, Trumball, who managed the citizenship clause in the upper chamber explained that

subject to the jurisdiction meant not only in allegiance to anybody else, whether a Indian tribe or a foreign power. In fact, the drafters of the 14th Amendment and this comes down to, you know, the, this is the, the argument, the legal argument, I can, that nobody, that, that voted for, you know, voted, that made the decision that the 14th Amendment protected birthright citizenship across the board. This is the one argument that I have not seen defeated by anyone. We had

“talked about yesterday and one of the decisions where we're, I think it was a Wall Street Journal”

said, Robert's just skipped by that. It's like, the argument that would have been slam dunk. He's, whatever. We're not, we're not even going to address that. We're just going to pretend that doesn't exist. And we just said that shows a weakness. Because if I'm a Supreme Court justice, I hit every single argument, every single one. I don't sit there and say, all right, I'm going to take eight out of the 10 points that they made and ignore two of them,

as if they don't exist. Right. When anybody who pays any attention can look at it and go, well, that's because you'll lose that argument legally. But it said, Senator Trumble, who managed a citizenship clause in the upper chamber explained that subject to jurisdiction meant not only in allegiance to anyone else, whether to a tribe that's a Native American tribe or foreign power representative John Bingham, the moving force behind the 14th Amendment used the same framework

referring after ratification to persons born in the United States and not only in allegiance to any foreign power, these statements and others demonstrate how leading Republicans explain the concept the text was meant to capture birth plus full political membership. And, you know, when you look, when you look at it, it's the Native American part of it that said, Native Americans, who were here before the members of the colonies were here, they were here. But didn't matter

that they were here, they were exempt because if they were in a tribe and had loyalty to the tribe, they did not have, they did not have loyalty to the United States. And when you look at number one, illegal immigration wasn't even an issue back then, as I know that wasn't even an issue that that came up. But it's not really about that. It's about loyalty. It's about the fact that

“if you become a citizen from a foreign country of the United States, you have to take an oath.”

It's an absolute need to know where your loyalty is. So for the Supreme Court to say that that

whether you're here, it's where your allegiance is. I don't know the legal argument that beats

that part of the 14th Amendment. Now, and I don't know Robert's decision just skinned right over that. Why don't you call it revisionist? Are you kidding me? It's not because it's not revisionist. It's a fact that very clear in my opinion when the 14th Amendment came out, if you were part of Native American tribe, it's in there. Yes. I mean, it's not like it doesn't exist. It's not revisionist history if it's in the 14th Amendment. Right. And so, you know, and, you know,

they, they, as he wrote here, he said, everyone agrees that it excludes at least three classes of people, children of diplomats, soldiers from an invading army, and American Indians maintaining tribal relations. In each of these categories, the status of the child depended on the status of the parent, the constitutional debate is about the original concept embodied in the text that explains these exclusions and whether that concept embraces or excludes children born on

United States soil, to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the United States,

the court has never squarely addressed this question. This was what he'd written before. Right.

The decision the other day. And the one Supreme Court decision on the Chinese couple that were here. One Kim Mark. Right. You, you can look at that and say, if the Supreme Court was going to make a decision based on precedent, it, it might be, if you are legally in the United States, legally and or permanently domiciled. Right, legally and permanently domiciled, as they were, nobody's based that. Right. Then according to the precedent. Yeah.

“This isn't talking about whether I think it's a good idea or not. This is a strictly legal”

thing because I think it's a terrible idea to have birthright citizenship. I'm talking about the, the legal stuff. If you look at it, the Supreme Court, the only correct decision that they could have made using past precedent would be if you are legally in here long term. Right. And I sort of agree with you that it won't rock the boat. This is something that we've seen I think and and recent years over the certainly over the nearly 21 years that you and I have been

doing this show together is that the Supreme Court and Roberts, I think is, you know, as Chief Justice, but quite often it's Robert Robertson in his opinion writings, you can go back and

“look their afraid of the fallout. What would happen if we made this decision, but that's not your job?”

The fallout isn't isn't the issue. The impact isn't the issue. It's whether or not this is constitutional, whether or not this that in this case birthright citizenship and should be abolished it because the 14th Amendment made it clear. And for him to say revisionists, I said to myself, well, that's really rich because I remember the decision on the Affordable Care Act where you said, well, they wrote penalty, but they meant tax. If they meant tax, they should have used the word

tax and and and and they're on different words, they're on different pages in the dictionary, those two words, for a reason and they can write it that way and see, that was the problem and

“and I think it's been the problem for a number of years in modern years with a Supreme Court.”

They're afraid of the undoing the fallout of the undoing and that's not their job. That is not their job. You know, and but as I said, you can only say revisionists, can you explain why it's revision? Exactly. Because when you look at it, what would be the reason children of diplomats? We, you can understand that. Exactly. Soldiers of an invading army, you can understand that. Well, American Indians that are that are based here, right, and showing loyalty to their

tribe that they've always had, right, well, why can't they have dual citizenship? Right,

why can't why can't they because what is the other reason besides they have in pledge loyalty to the United States? Loyalty. And then when you look at what our legal immigration system is,

to the United States. And the diplomatic example to me is, if you want to look at that,

I think the Native American example exemption is, it winds it out perfectly. Both of those because you ask you, and that was my question. So why do we have those exemptions? Go back to the very beginning and the idea behind those exemptions? Well, even all, you can make the case all three soldiers from an invading army. Well, yes, yes. None of them, none of them. You don't know

“whether that would be the, if you, if you want to take one out of the three, talk about soldier”

from an invading army. All of a sudden, they're having children here that are citizens and they're the

enemy. But a parents are the enemy. But it's all based on the concept that you have loyalty to this

country. That's it. Three of those are based on that. Well, and then to ignore that sample. You know, because of the, I probably based on that exemption, you know, of an invading army, but an invading army could be in a number of things these days. Any, I would say invading enemy comes here gets here and then has a child or two and then that child grows up in a society, not here, but is an American citizen for life. The grows up in a country where they're screaming

nonstop death to America. Yeah. Well, there's a reason for those exemptions and tell me how that doesn't apply. And you know, you created the exemptions, but the reason behind the exemptions should make everything clear. I, I think about it that that the, we can use a ran. The two people, the, the young woman I knew. Yeah. And then the older man that I knew. Yes, both from a ran. Both left. Right. A ran, a ran has been since they both left, has been in

that time of the last 47 years. When a ran has been an official enemy of the United States. How, you know, now he came in because his business and businesses and ties to the Shaw. Yes. When he came here, all he did was, all he did was be involved in charities. You're in the Texas

“area. It's all he did. That's how I got him. Yeah. He just, all he did was charitable work of”

love being in the United States. Right. And, but again, he had to in the young woman had to do what? What did they have to do? That to demonstrate their allegiance. They had to demonstrate their, they had to demonstrate their, they had to demonstrate their allegiance. And it's not just pledge allegiance to the United States. And pledge allegiance, but, you know, in, in doing that, it's a process for a reason. Right. To, so you can demonstrate that behavior when you get to the

point of that pledge. You've, you've fully demonstrated that behavior that your allegiance is to this country. And remember the original, the original reason the 14th Amendment took place was to back up the civil rights amendment, which was to say that blacks were taken as slaves into the

“United States. Right. Their children could become citizens. That's what Kickstarter that. Right.”

It wasn't they just said at that particular time. Well, let's just have anybody who comes in the United States become a citizen. Right. That was not the original intent of doing it. And it

really is, it's amazing because when, you know, when, when first, you know, doing our research

and studying on this, when I first saw that. And I just said, you can't argue the Native American argument, but then you can expand it to the other two to diplomats and soldiers of invading army. But specifically, they wanted to make sure and added the American Indians. Right. They had, you know, they said, we need to add that. And what's that based on who you have loyalty to this? I, I've racked my brain because when I do these things, I don't want to get burned legally.

You know, I don't want to get burned and say, you know, and some, I'll get your forgot this. I have racked my brain over the argument that defeats that and, and I don't know what argument defeats that. There's no way to defeat it. You look at the basis, the spirit of those three exemptions. And there is no way to not extrapolate that out. It's based on allegiance. It's based on the allegiance of the parents. And if you're here illegally, there is no allegiance at all. You

not, in fact, you violated the wall to get here. And then beyond that, there is no, you know, it's funny because I was telling you when President Trump posted on truth social

birthright citizenship. And I thought of Bruce Lee, Bruce Lee's parents, his father was an

“opera singer and went on tour. And so for that last tour, his mother was expected to get birth,”

he brought her along. And Bruce was born in San Francisco. Now, for them from their position, they wanted Bruce to have a life that they believed he would not be able to have in China as a US citizen. And that would be, that would mean great opportunity to actually save money, hit money, and gave it to him when he turned old enough to leave. And, you know, it's an interesting story. But where does the allegiance of the of his parents or any parents like that lie? They were only

here because the father was an entertainer, and he was touring. But his allegiance is still

to China. And you can't change that. And once again, just as Roberts, backing away, or, or he just actually just doesn't see it. But it wreaks of the court looking at things going, we couldn't stand this kind of fallout. We're not going to go this way. Because they've been doing that on too many decisions that would have, they would have massive impacts. But their job isn't to mitigate or prevent the impact and then make a decision based on

that impact. It is not. We are what I radio. Brought to you by Hot Shot Secret. Hi, I'm Jen Lumis,

“a transport safety expert at JJ Keller. When driving, you need to manage the space around your vehicle”

so that there's enough space to allow you to adjust when traffic conditions change. The space ahead

of your vehicle is the most important. One rule of thumb is to allow at least one second for each

ten feet of vehicle length at speeds below 40 miles per hour. At greater speeds, add an additional second. It's impossible to keep other drivers from tailgating you, but there are some things you can do to make it safer, such as increasing your following distance, avoiding quick lane changes, and slowing down. There are also several things you should do to ensure that there is plenty of space between the side of your vehicle and other vehicles. Don't hug the center line and avoid traveling

alongside other vehicles in strong winds. This tip was brought to you by JJ Keller and Associates, visit us at JJ Keller.com. Get in touch with what I radio, toll-free at 866. Mindy Red Eye. We are when I radio, he's a hearty non-gerry Macnamara, and I know one of the the arguments as well. I mean, we've had this policy for 140 years, but it was wrong. It was based. We're going to

“policy that's what Roberts wrote. And that's why I look at this and say, I look at this and say,”

what's the argument against what we already know? That the 14th amendment, when you look at the exemptions, were based on whether you have loyalty to the United States, and we know in our immigration system, if you come from a foreign country and wish to become a citizen, you have to pledge allegiance to the United States. And it was clear in the 14th amendment by adding American Indians as an exemption who are ready here. Right. They were here before the people that were making the 14th

amendment. Right. That it was based on not whether you were here and co-operatively here and co-operative and, you know, whatever, it's, did you belong to a tribe and do you have loyalty to the tribe and not to the United States of America? Right. I don't know of a political argument that defeat stat, and I've been looking for a couple of years for that one, or anybody wants the argument against that. Right. [Music]

You're the student who read I read from the relief factor studio. And we are read, I read, I read you, I'm Gary Mack, and we're along with Eric Harley, the domicile argument. I thought we were done, and then you and I got into the discussion about the

get to that in just one minute. 250 years this week were celebrating, wow, Americans have believed

“in one powerful idea from the beginning that we were meant to live free. If your pain is keeping”

you from doing the things you want to do, you're not really living free. I wasn't until really factors sent me some product to try and I'm telling you right now, I've regained my independence. I really did feel like too many times I was watching people do things that I wasn't participating. And then I started taking really factors. You take it every day, it's 100% drug free, research-based formula designed to help your body fight inflammation. And I take it every day,

I want you to get the same benefits. And as we celebrate 250 years of American independence, they have a special introductory price for you. Three week quick start, 1776, just 17 dollars and 76 cents for your three week quick start. And it's ready for you at relieffactor.com, reliefactor.com, or 800 for relief, 800 the number four relief. Oh, sorry, in my microphone off. I did what you did yesterday. Uh, yeah, well, we got into the discussion. I thought we were done.

It's like, okay, it was simple. But there's one more argument, one more thing that they brought up, which was the whole domicile thing, where you're domiciled. Now, you did an interesting thing. You looked up the actual definition of domicile. Yes. Because there are different legal definitions, right? Uh, you can talk about like a vehicle can be your domicile.

I always was. I had a 75 Dodge Dart that was my domicile. I had no bedrooms or bathrooms,

“but it was my domicile. And, and so you can look at that right your, your, what is your home?”

In the definition, a domicile is a person's true permanent and principal legal home, right? So, when they throw around the word domicile, the question is, how are they defining domicile? What is their interpretation of domicile? Because when we talk about illegal aliens coming here from another country, my definition is what I just read. And that is, their permanent residents of that country. Now, if they come here, because, you know, this is one thing that

Gorsuch wrote, it was actually a dissenting opinion, but it seemed to counter the president's argument on illegal immigrants coming here. And he said, well, if they're, you know, if their domicile isn't here, then where is it? It's their country of origin. That's their domicile. That's their

“permanent home until they go through the process, Justice Gorsuch, of becoming a permanent citizen”

here. And there's a process for a reason. Otherwise, why do we have that process? Whether it's to become a citizen or live here, become a resident, a legal resident, long term, if you've gone through that process. And there's a reason that it takes that going through that process in order to achieve that. And so, if we don't have that in place, if they're here, because they cross the border illegally, and now you can just claim this is your domicile as the parents that are

about to give birth. I'm sorry, the justating parent is about to give birth, the non-justed parent is not. And then they claim, well, this is our domicile. Doesn't fit my definition. Yeah, and so it comes down to what the definition of domicile is, but then we took a step further by looking at it and saying, because I'll tell you every time I was reading something yesterday and saw the domicile argument, like I have every time I've seen it, I get irritated and I get

irritated because it's not the argument. Right. The argument is not whatever, how you define domicile. Well, I define legally, I define domicile as is, or I define it as is, or this, whatever it is, because I thought the same thing when I read that, when he was using the domicile

argument against Trump, basically saying, well, they're here. Therefore, their citizens,

the whole point is the exemptions, the exemptions in the 14th Amendment make any domicile argument move. It doesn't matter because each and every one of those exemptions, you're here. If you're domicile, if their definition of domicile is where you are presently at,

before any of the, any of the people of the colonies. They're more permanent than India. Right.

They're exactly, I mean, they were, they were definitely domicile, didn't make a difference. It's where their loyalty is. Ambassadors, doesn't matter that they're domiciled here. Yes. And on the illegal alien front, it's, you know, it's a different, for me, it's a different argument, because of what Gorsuch asked in his dissenting, which again seemed to be countering what the president's right, but I'm illegal. And I believe domicile isn't even part, shouldn't even be part of the

legal argument. They just threw it in there because, no, when you look at the text of the

14th Amendment and what the exemptions are, none of it is based on domicile. Right. So domicile

is the, the point is moved because what are they looking for and all the three exemptions?

“Your loyalty to the United States of America. That's what it is. How do you, and that's, that would”

be my point on anybody coming here illegally. If you've come here illegally until there is you go through the legal process of claiming that your allegiance is here, right, that you want your life to be here, then your allegiance belongs to your country of origin. Yes, there's no way around it. None, zero. And, and, and, and when you, and the three examples is what is what kills the argument,

yes, Roberts, a argument completely. Yeah. And it's just like, what are they, what are they looking at?

It doesn't make, you know, and a side Jonathan Thurly say, there's good faith arguments on both sides. I, I may disagree on that one. I don't think there are because because to me, it's a very simple case. Every exit, you have to look at the exemptions. And so when you sit there and you say,

“well, we're exempting, these, these people, their children can't become citizens. Why?”

Well, domicile, well, no, the American Indian was domiciled here before. Any American citizen was they, they are, as you said, they're more permanent than anybody. They're not transitory. They're not, it's it's permatory. Yeah, everything relates back to inflation, doesn't it? And so that argument doesn't mean anything. It's simply who you loyal to, invading armies. You can't, you can't be a citizen or your kids can't be a citizen. Why

loyalty to the United States. I think that's the one man's loyalty to the United States. I think that's the one with the invading army and today's world, it would be invading enemy. I would just apply to the invading enemy that don't have to be the, our enemy if, if they were to invade, it doesn't have to be belong to the, the military of any sovereign nation. And we all know that, but, but any invading enemy that comes here, you know, sorry,

that's in which is what Alito really wrote about. Alito was saying, okay, imagine someone comes here and they hate this country. They have a child. They know it's going to be a citizen. That's going to give that child access. They're going to take that child to a society. I'm paraphrasing completely with Alito's point here, but they go back and then they're raised in a society that hates America. But they're a citizen. Now, we know we have plenty of American

citizens that hate America right now, but this is about citizenship. Those people on the left just happen to also be citizens. In this entire equation, I think the invading army one is probably the most dramatic that anybody could understand when you talk about diplomats and everything else. I think when you talk about Native Americans, that's easy to understand as well. But if you think about like what could happen like today, we're an invading army comes in,

you know, we'll, we'll say Russia decides to invade the U.S. Red Dawn. Yeah. And they, and instead of parachuting the male members, they just adding members of their forces would be parachuting in. She wearing a fanny pack. I don't think so. And then they're giving birth to citizens.

“Right? I mean, those examples would be exactly it. Because then you have to, because Alito,”

I think made the point. You don't know why they're here. We can only go through what they've demonstrated to get here, right? So if they're here illegally, we don't know if they're here long term to do as harm or not. We have no idea. But if you've gone through the legal process,

to be here long term and make this their domicile. That's the whole idea. And that their

allegiance belongs here. I just, I'm, I'm just amazed how, because like I said, I get irritated every, every time I see the domicile argument, because it's the point's mood. It doesn't matter

“based on the 14th Amendment. Right. It's, why did you have exemptions? What were the exemptions?”

What's the source of the exemptions? What are the thought behind that? Why would you carve those out and say that it does not apply there? Right. Loyalty to the United States. Yes. And then when you see the immigration process of naturalized citizens, it is pledging allegiance to the United

States of America. Yes. And coming here and whether it starts with coming here on work visas.

And then, you know, then you start applying and you tell them, you know, I intend to try and make permanent residents here. You go, you're going through the process. And then at some point, I welcome those Billy Idol became an American citizen. Right on, that's great. I welcome everybody who wants to go to the process legally to become an American citizen to do so legally,

“because where it does apply for gorsage is, you don't know what their intent is. How do you know?”

You don't. You can't, you can't possibly. They haven't demonstrated at all to you.

It doesn't matter what they say. Oh, no, no. I, you know, I plan to live here long term. You can't,

you can't just believe that. There's a reason that we have a legal process that takes time to demonstrate that your allegiance is to the U.S. Even if you're marrying someone, if you're a foreign citizen and you come here and you're going to marry an American citizen. It doesn't just happen right away. They're going to scrutinize and go, wait a minute. Is this a marriage of convenience to get citizenship? They're going to go through that.

They're going to go through that process for a reason. They want to know the intent. In fact,

“they want to know what was the, what was the movie with Sandra Bullock and what's his name?”

Remember, she was a Canadian citizen and then they, oh, that might be Ryan Reynolds. Right, Ryan Reynolds. That was a great movie. And then then they get, remember, remember, they had to go, she was the boss and yeah, but they had to, you know, go through it with, with immigration. Right. You know, they questioned them whether they really were in a relationship or not. And it was, it was supposed to be a relationship of convenience. Right. But of course, Ryan Reynolds just had to fall in love with.

Right, of course. Sandra Bullock at that. Right. The vice versa. The the mean overpowering out overpowering boss. The proposed proposal. Yeah, Betty, Betty, what was in that, right? Yeah, it was in that two, is it? Oh, yeah, it's great. A great scenery that were his family. Oh, yeah, with that, that scenery. Exactly. Great. Like, I want to stay in that house and I want to go in that town for, I want to go there a day or two. But, but the, the, the, the point is that that's the

reality of if you wish to become an American citizen. Well, I talked about my friend who from Durham and he came over here and she met someone she fell in love. He was the citizen. He died unexpectedly, but before she could obtain citizenship, you know, he died before she could obtain citizenship because it takes a while and she had to go back home to Germany and that applies for a reason. You know, she was domiciled here. What if she had a baby here? We are right, I radio.

Coming up more with Gary MacDemara and Eric Carley. It's Red Eye Radio. We are in a radio, and he's certainly not Gary MacDemara. Wow, just went to the battle on B. Yeah, their headlines. Supreme Court rules, any baby born at Olive Garden is an Italian citizen. I love this one. American missionaries dispatched a Europe to spread the good news about air conditioning, but my favorite one in the most exciting moment in the history of the W N B A woman

points at another woman. Oh, my gosh, it's a Sophie Cunningham thing. I mean, that after Caitlyn Clarke got heard, I mean, that thing has gone viral. Yeah. Yeah. By the way, she has extremely long arms. Yeah, no, she does. I mean, but it's so funny when the one where it's with Trump pointing and then her pointing and then Trump pointing. Yeah. You know, it's like that's that's funny. That's hilarious.

Yeah. Like, yeah, can't believe. No, the one thing, right? And she's got it down. That was it. It's fun.

“Out to the our news is brought you by how product is the how products dot com. This is Ridae Radio”

on Westwood One. Now it's Ridae 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 Ridae Radio. All across America, we are when I radio, he is there currently and I'm Gary McNamara. Welcome and good morning. You know, the one

thing I was thinking about is that the number of Supreme Court decisions that basically totally

pervert or court decisions, not just Supreme Court decisions. I'm looking here at the whole radical the the the the transgender decision yesterday in sports and I was looking at the federal appeals court for the nine circuit that agreed that the Idaho law before the Supreme Court got a hold of it violates the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal treatment. Look at that equal treatment.

“There's that's what that's what the gay marriage decision that's how that changed. Yeah, the”

14th amendment. Now the good thing about where the left is going and we said this after because the the 14th amendment is about equal protection under the law and it was meant to protect slaves that had become citizens of the United States. Right. That's what it was that's what it was about. We all know that. Right. And when but it was equal protection under the law, you you're

treated equally, excuse me, you're treated equally basically under the criminal justice system

when it comes to rights and all of that. You gay marriage got to equal treatment under the law, not equal protection. I pray that the liberals really mean and wish to push equal treatment under the law.

“Why? Because if it's equal treatment, then all taxes have to be the same.”

We have the same dollar remote. I've said this since the I've said this since the gay marriage decision and anybody that I've talked to, even in expert just sort of they just they don't want to go there. Yeah, because if it's equal treatment instead of equal protection under the law, then everybody gets treated the same, not the same percentage. The exact same amount. If you truly believe that government should treat everybody the same, there can be no billionaires tax.

Right. Because your point is on the, well, no, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, get your wrong on this because what we want is equal treatment, where we want equal treatment. And it's equal if they're in the same category. Well, that's not equal. You know, that's, well, that's where the whole 14 demandment was, you know, with the, where they were able to get away with that by saying, we're treating people of certain levels the same. Right. Well, after gay marriage, it was specifically no equal treatment. Right.

Because obviously, even the court recognized that a heterosexual marriage is different, then a homosexual marriage, they're different. Why are they different? You have two sexes. Yeah. There's separate sexes that are getting married. That's the difference. And the whole point was, but everybody should be treated equally. Fine. Everybody pay the same amount in taxes. The same dollar amount, not percent. The same dollar amount.

If you truly believe in equal treatment, that's always my fun sidebar there.

But it, listen to this here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, so that the Idaho law violated the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal treatment and prohibited Idaho from enforcing the ban. The Court of Appeals reason that the Idaho law was intended to categorically ban transgender women and girls from public school sports teams that correspond with their gender

girls and women's teams are subject to invasive sex verification procedures to implement that

policy while athletes on the boys and men's teams are not. Really? Yeah. It violates the 14th Amendment on all of those particular issues. Really? Really now. The Court of Appeals really made that argument. What it came down to was what Title IX meant. What was the original meaning of Title IX, which by the way, it was Obama who changed it. People wonder how did this thing all get started legally. It was the Obama Justice and Education Department that decided because

“remember, he was the smartest man, the smartest president we ever had that biological sex is what”

you think you are. It was Obama that started the whole thing. Remember and said later race is

a social strike strike. He even said race is a social construct. But they said in that joint edict with the Department of Education and Department of Justice, this is our interpretation of Title IX. Yes. Mm-hmm. Which of course, it was a gross misinterpretation of Title IX. Kevin asked conclusion that the Idaho and then there was a West Virginia one, laws do not violate Title IX or the Constitution. First, he explained, Title IX bars discrimination

on the basis of sex and the regulations that implement the law expressly permit schools to maintain separate teams for members of each sex. When both the law and the regulations refer to sex, he wrote, they mean biological sex because that was the ordinary meaning of the word when they were enacted in the 1970s. Indeed, he continued the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams

precisely because of the biological differences between the sexes. Yeah. And it's, to us, it was always

a basic decision. There aren't a lot of moving parts because of Title IX. And as has been brought up many times, you're banning transgender sports. No, you can play on the team of your biological sex. Yeah. We might not be able to make the team where we can make the women's team and so

“so. And remember, part of the argument, too, was, well, then that student would be uncomfortable”

in the locker room. Yeah. And it doesn't matter if all the girls are. I, the left went bonkers completely, well, remember. This was in terms of women's issues. This wasn't in 2024. It was a greater political driver at the polls than abortion. And now, you know, it's, it's here. It's done. Because again, a decision like this doesn't take much contemplation. The question is, it isn't, should it transgender be able to play in women's sports?

It's should biological men be able to play. Yes. In women's sports. That's the question, right? Because they wanted it to be about a new, you can be civil rights movement for transgetters.

“And that's why they would say, well, transgender should be a, well, you can play according”

to what you were born as. You, you can be a trans man and play on a women's team because you're a biological woman. And see that they're furious because they wish to keep promoting the delusion that if you believe you are another sex, then in reality, you are. Which, of course, is completely and totally insane. Right. You're not. You may think you are, doesn't matter what you think. It's biologically what you are. X, X, X, Y. Yep. That's it.

We're going to deliver this audio cut here. All right. All right. Trigger warning. Okay. All right.

Here we go. Here we go. Just a quick note here. The terms that we're using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female, the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision, in their descent. But just so you know, we're using those terms from the decision itself. Biological male, biological female. Don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't. Please, but the descent put it in quotes as

“if it's, that's just an opinion. That's how they run it. We didn't write that. But they were”

talking about the descent on it. Yeah. Not, not again, the descent, which the liberal justice now.

Right. The thing we've always said is Jackson should not have been part of it because she cannot

define what a woman is. Right. In fact, on many women's issues, decisions, she should not be a part of it. But it was, I mean, it's just, it's so stupid. It really is just so damn stupid. Yeah. We didn't do that. Just so you know, we didn't do that. That was in quotations. That wasn't us. All right. Yeah. Walking on egg shells tonight at 11. Oh, yeah. All the networks were doing it. Yeah. No concern about biological women at all, none, none, none. And as you said, it's the, you,

you think of where the Democratic Party and where the media has gone on this liberal media, the radical transgender movement, the, they are absolutely the most misogynist and sexist people you could possibly meet. Right. The threatening of, the threatening of of what

“Riley gains has had to go through. And the women of the Ivy League, remember when that all happened,”

right, that the, you know, the swimmers, how they were forced. Yep. You better get in line or we'll destroy your life. Right. The, the hate, the misogyny, the sexism, which is mainstream in the Democrat party. It's not, it's almost as great as communism in the Democratic Party. Well, no, but it absolutely, this is, absolutely mainstream. There is no, this isn't a fringe opinion. No, the misogyny and sexism of the radical transgender movement is absolutely institutionalized

inside the Democratic Party and inside the liberal media and you saw it yesterday. Yep. And it's absolutely reprehensible because it's pure hatred of biological women.

“Absolutely pure hatred. They wish to erase, erase them. Yeah. Yep. More than the bills do OJ Simpson.”

If you saw they, he's not going to be on the, yeah, it was on the wall of fame. Yeah. They've taken him off. Oh, yeah. But it's medium. Yeah. Uh, but just unbelievable, unbelievable. But they, but the, but the funny thing is they're trying to wrap their, their God, their hatred of women, their misogyny and their sexism as some type of virtue signaling that they care. Yeah.

It's really amazing. No, I mean, it's, and then, you know, they trump as a misogynist.

And yet they're party, you know, what, what happened to Kamala in December 3rd of 2019 when she had to drop out Americans aren't ready for a woman president or a woman of color. And it was the primary. Sorry, that's your own party. It's your own party. 2008. Same thing. Sorry, Hillary. It's his time with identity politics, which is the racism of the Democratic Party. Yep. Now with the anti-Semitism, the Naziism, the hatred of women in the radical transgender movement,

the misogyny, the sexism. Wow. They've got it all covered. No, they do. They do anything that's about hate and racism and Naziism and communism and authoritarianism. Look to the left to Democratic Party owns now. They own it. We are Red I radio. This morning's USDA farm report is brought to you by house products tested, trusted, guaranteed since 1920. Having a fourth of July

Meredith Carothers explains, it's not just about cooking meats to proper internal temperatures.

The food thermometer is going to be your best friend of the grill because it's unsafe to eat food that has not been fully cooked to a full safe internal temperature because it's possible that bacteria could still be there. But also with many parts of the country, experiencing 90 degree plus high temperatures in recent days and going into independent stay. If you are serving your food on a picnic table outside and the weather is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, that food is only

going to have one hour before it is potentially unsafe and could make you sick. Instead of the normal two hour time window for food safety, Carothers says no matter the cookout location, a reliable

cold source is needed both before and after food is cooked. Rod Bane reporting for the U.S. Department

of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. This report brought to you by Senax, Fules and Loops. We'll be right back with more Red I Radio with every currently and Gary McNamara. We're Red I Radio. He's our currently not Gary McNamara. I want to play this audio cut Kristen Wagner from the Alliance for defending freedom on CNN about the decision on Title IX and transgender sports. Do you believe there should be other limits? She says this is step one

in her view on pushing trans people out of public life. Should there be bands in other areas or something that you're pushing for that would limit the rights of trans people in other areas of public life? Because of the differences in the male body to the female body, it's appropriate that when sex matters, we recognize it in a law. And let's talk about Becky Pepper Jackson in this moment. Let me just tell you if there were to you believe sex matters, specifically. I think it matters

on the athletic field and we can see the evidence of that Becky Pepper Jackson displaced and defeated 470 girls, 1,400 times during his middle school career. Took two regional championships and one state championship sexually harassed and threatened with violent language to violate another woman

“in the locker room. That's what we're talking about here. Our girls deserve equal opportunities”

on the field and privacy in their locker room. And to follow up on the question, do you believe she is concerned that there will be other efforts right in public life? So you said where sex matters are talking specifically? I know about sports and on the field are there other areas that you believe sex matters that you would be pushing for? I think that sex matters in private spaces. I think that in our dorm rooms and in our locker rooms, we shouldn't be forced or shamed because

we don't want to undress in front of a male. When a male, like Becky Pepper Jackson, which is actually happened, threatens to put male genitalia into one of the female teammates. You know that body parts matter and that's what this case was about. So yes, I do think that in private spaces it matters greatly. But this decision was very clearly focused on sports and the court said so in

“there you go. Yeah. That's the only place that can go is where would the discrimination continue?”

Well, no, that's it. And that's where you know, you can bet it's it's not over for the activists. They're going to be out there protesting at every turn. But the schools realize the organizations realize you can't get away with it. Maybe in some areas, maybe, you know, there's a few schools that can. But it's being rejected by our society more and more. Well, I mean, you can still if a state says transgender's complaint. Yeah, no, they're going to allow it. Right. This doesn't

stop that. No, they can allow it. What it simply has said is schools and districts that say no when they sports they're allowed to put you can keep it now. I just I wonder if because now that they've made this case, whether somebody in a school district that says no boys must compete can file based on Title IX. Because this upels upholds the law in in two different states that the law is constitutional or only women complain, women, biological women,

and play against biological women. The next thing would be a lawsuit in a state or a district that says no males must be able to compete against you, whether at that point based on Title IX,

“which I believe you do, you have a great lawsuit ahead. Yeah, we might, we might see that.”

Yeah. Yeah. You know, but again, you know, for me there were there weren't many moving parts here that was, it was pretty mild. I think it's clear to, most everybody. And again, it's not the

question to whether transgender should be able to play sports. Never has, but it's about whether

[Music]

“Get rid of radio live, every night on the Red Eye Radio app available in the app store.”

Red, I'm like, radio. And he's a colony and I'm hearing that from our download our Red Eye Radio app today. And you can listen, when and where you choose, the other decision coming out yesterday was on campaign financing, which they, they made the, the, the right decision. Yeah. It was a six to three majority that said the, the limit of political parties being able to spend money on their preferred candidates cannot be limited. And Kevin, I wrote the, you know,

the decision, or should hear the opinion for the majority of the opinion for the majority of

us, the, Kevin, I talked about that parties could spend for the first 200 years of this country.

Could spend freely to support their candidates during campaigns and could do so in coordination with the candidates, uh, Kevin, I wrote for the majority. But that changed after watergate when Congress tried to purge money from politics, Congress's limited coordination expenditures to reduce what it saw as quote, what it saw as wasteful and excessive campaign spending just as Kevin our rights, such limits preclude parties from amplifying the voice of their adherence imposed

additional monetary cost and burdens on the political parties and inflict a stifling effect on the ability of the party to do what it exists to do. They also run headlong into the court's

first amendment precedence, which have repeatedly held, Congress may not dictate how much political

speech is too much or how much spending on speech is too much. There is only one legitimate government interest for restricting campaign finances that's preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, uh, corruption, coordinated spending limits aren't necessarily to advance either interest, either those interest, for example, just because you have money being spent, corruption is corruption, if corruption exists, basically is what he's saying you go after the

corruption, but spending the money on speech, there's nothing corrupt about that. And you and I, you know, I remember when, uh, you had the, uh, uh, uh, when McCain find gold came in. Yeah. Yeah. And I still remember, oh, man. I was working at our affiliate, our great affiliate KXL

“and Russ find gold was in. And I believe, I believe, I was just, when I used to work at KXL”

in Portland, I did like, I was nine to 12ers. I think nine to 12. And then Lars Larsson, the great Lars Larsson was on after me. Mm-hmm. And it started with, uh, just, you know, before he comes on, talk a little bit. And then it got to, well, then when he got on, we talked a little bit more. And, and this was during the Monica Lewinsky thing,

there were times where I was on with them the first two hours, even even when the guests were

on, we had such a, we, I had such a blast, you know, when, when I worked in at KXL. Yeah. But one of the times I'd get Russ find gold in. And I was sitting right next to him. You know, Lars was in the, you know, the captain's chair. Mm-hmm. When I got off the air, we switched, you know, and I got in the guest chair and Russ find gold was right there next to me. And he was talking about McCain find gold. I go, I remember saying to him,

who the hell do you think you are to say that you can limit? What do you mean that two months before that money should be limited as to what campaigns, you know, what, what, what campaigns money they can spend, you know, to promote commercials. For example, commercials. Remember, they were banning commercials, certain types of commercials, right, political parties from running commercials for a candidate like two months before an election. Right. And it was like the entire point of

“the money is to promote what the party and the candidate believe. That's why they have the money.”

They spend the money in order to put out advertisement. It's why people give them the money. Right. And, and by the way, for the Republican party, could you please message more effectively

could you please stay on point? I saw one, it was the analysis. This will benefit the Republicans. I said, no, not really. If they don't know how to use the money, you and I have had that back and forth with people over the years. If the message, if the content in your message

is crap and you've got two billion and your opponent has a hundred thousand and has a better

message, especially in today's world, social media, social media, prime example, AOC, AOC's first opponent outspent her. I forget what the ratio was. She was a bartender. She's bringing it up the tip jar, basically. And, and she won. And why was that? Now, again, we don't believe the same thing she believes, but the people in her district did, and she won. You can spend

“all the money in the world if you want to. But if your message is crap, GOP, if you don't know how to”

be on point GOP, then it means two things, didly and squat. So, the money part of it, restricting the money part of it, again, is the ultimate attempt is to restrict free speech, because it's not just that they have money. It's what the purpose of the money is and where the money came from. And we have a right to have our voices heard, if we're donors, or if we're a special interest group, that was the other thing, too. By the way, is that over the years that we've heard,

well, these special interest groups, well, who do they represent? Where do they get their money? Yeah, the people in that group, the people that belong to those members, that belong to those

“ideas. And those are the things that we look at. You have to go back to the entire source”

to look at what the process is. Because people come up with this arbitrary, I don't know where they came up with two months. Well, two months. Why not three? Why not six?

Why not for the whole year? Why not never? You know, there's, there's, there's their problem.

Is everything is always arbitrary. We're going to cap the amount that they can spend and limit the time in which they can spend it. Well, it's the same thing with the whole thing that remember when we had, going back to Portland again, remember we had the Occupy, the Portland Director of Occupy Walls. Yeah. And it was on, you know, corporate, you know, corporations. Right. Corporations are in people. Well, no, a corporation is a law. Yeah. It's basically,

you know, state law to regulate business. But the people, people run those businesses. Right. And if it's an American company, it's, you know, Americans that are in that company and run that company. But the fact is they all have free speech rights. The corporation, you know, a corporate corporation is a set of laws. But the people, you know, corporation doesn't exist. Unless there are people, those people have the right to promote their message of their corporation.

“You may not like it. Well, then that's why their special interest groups and unions and, you know,”

whatever, right, to spend the money in order to get their message out. Yeah. And the government has no damn business telling people how much money they can use to promote the things that they believe. Right. And I'm talking about messages that I think suck. You know, I, I, in, in the morning time, I'll get up and turn on the TV and if, you know, whatever early morning TV, my god, there is nothing on TV. But they play, you know, it's all the whole shows. It's matlock and the rock

ford files and all that. But in those, in those programs in the morning, I'm streaming and everything.

It's the ACLU with, I believe, totally disingenuous ads. But they're basically saying, you know,

send us money so we can promote and we can do what we need to do, you know, to, to make sure that all people are equal. Yeah. And what they're talking about is illegal immigration. Right. Or when they keep talking about, they're banning books or banning books. And most people like

Oh, you mean like we've always had age-appropriate material for children and schools. That's not

“banning, but you're making trying to make the case disingenuously that, you know, that there's a bunch”

of people on the right that are banning books from adults. Right. And that's not happening. No. And that's an incorrect message. But, you know, until, you know, until somebody falls in defamation lossage, which you're not going to be able to get on something like that. Well, that's their interpretation of the law and it's all inclusive, whatever. There's nothing you can do. But that message, they're trying to raise money. They're spending money in order to raise money. But they're putting on a message

that is in truthful. Right. Yep. I'm against it. I don't want the government to limit that. No. No. Absolutely not. And it's, you know, again, if you start talking about,

“well, political ads must tell the truth and all political ads are gone. Right. Right, exactly.”

You know, it, uh, John Smith is going to work harder than anybody's ever worked harder for the people of his state, even harder than Clinton. Yes. It works so hard in my life. I'm telling you,

it was so great. So great. And the problem is, is that, you know, in that we,

it's, it is the, you know, without, uh, any kind of, uh, liable or lying about something specific, you know, John Smith once robbed the bank when he was 18. Well, that's not true. Of course, that's against law. Those laws already exist. I happen to know he did rock, rob the bank. The problem is the problem and he won't work hard. Those are the, you know, those are the problems are that you wanted to, that the left has been working to limit free speech. Why? Because they don't want

to have the debate. Because if something sounds a little off than people go, right in a minute, did that actually happen, then they go to their favorite AI platform and look it up. Did that actually take place? Did this person actually do this or whatever it is? If they're paying attention, those that are willfully ignorant, probably don't even pay attention to ads at all.

But we should never, ever limit free speech and political ads are part of free speech.

The government doesn't have the right to limit them. Period. Period. Again, not that many moving parts here. You know, they just arbitrarily came up with these numbers years ago and started throwing them out there. Well, I was limited to this. I just remember though with the home I came to find gold. Yes. Pointed out, this is wrong. This is, again, so you have no business. Government's got no business telling,

especially in political free speech. Right. You know what? And he was so angry at me. He could make a point. Right. He could not make. He just was angry. Right. I could tell he was furious at me and then after the interview stormed out. Right. Yeah. It's what happens. The truth will do that sometimes.

“It will anger the left. And that's why they didn't want ads on the air. They didn't,”

they don't want to have the debate. And again, just assume that the ads are wrong and filled with lies. Okay. People can do their own homework. Yeah. They're capable of finding the truth. We are Red Eye Radio. Get in touch with Red Eye Radio, toll-free at 8.6. Might be Red Eye. We are Red Eye Radio. He's our colony and I'm Yuri McNamara. And, you know, the thing is when you, when you look at,

if, if I'm, for example, the head of the RNC or the DNC, even though neither would happen, especially the DNC. Yeah. Right. I'd be looking at it and say, I want the ability to have more money to put out my messages for specific candidates. Right. Because of social media, social media has come to dominate so much. I need to make sure that I put out my message. But the other thing is, when you see what happened with the attempt of government to censor.

Yeah. Well, we saw what happened with X. Yep. It's more important that we ensure that political parties

you know, how involved they were with the censoring of Twitter. We know how the Democrats who are

“apart, who really, the ones that were in the Twitter files, I think were scared to death when they”

actually saw how government was attempting to censor the truth to Americans on the laptop thing

on the laptop with Facebook when you look at Zuckerberg talked about it. Yeah. When you look at COVID,

“when you look at all of this, where government was attempting to censor the truth, then you need”

political parties. You need a special interest groups. You need lobbyists. You need all these other

people that don't have as much power as we've seen the government have to have the money that they need

“to put out their message irrespective of whether I agree with their message or not. Right. Exactly.”

The place to all. This is Ridae Radio. On Westwood One.