08-31-26 Part Two - Media's Lawfare Enabling

After a young man's walk. What is the plan?

“He understands everything and his father is a group of young adults with a lot of injuries.”

He's in the U-Labor. Who's in the U-Labor? He thinks he's more than just a man. And he lives the summer of his life. It's not a guy like you! You're a guy like that.

He's a guy like that. He's a guy like you. He's a guy like you. He's a guy like you. And this is Riddai Radio. All across America. We are Riddai Radio.

He is here at Corning and I'm Gary McNamara.

Good morning. Hello. Thank you for being here. Thanks a lot. All right. Other news over the weekend.

Representative James Clyburn on Sunday called for the expansion of the Supreme Court's nine justices. To 13, calling that increase a pretty good number. Meet the press host Chris and the welker as Clyburn. If you agreed with former Vice President Kamala Harris's request for court expansion in an interview.

“Yes, I do the South Carolina Democrat said I think we're in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress.”

And we ought to expand and 13 is a pretty good number. A bakers doesn't. It would be a good number to have on the court. Nobody says why, though, a good number. Why. Yeah. Why is it a good number? Yeah. A good. A nice even bakers doesn't.

So are they suggesting that they do it now and Trump expanded and Trump picks who's going to be on the Supreme Court over the next two years to expand it to 13 and the Democrats agreed to that? Yeah. Well, because of 13's a good number, you're simply saying it's time to have more of a number. Why is it time to have more of a number? Well, I just want to hear President Trump go, you know what? Maybe we should do that. We should do that while I'm in office.

Yeah. And when you and I can just sit back and make popcorn.

“One of the things, you know, and I think this relates to the next article, Kimberly Strassell wrote a great piece in the Wall Street Journal, the media's law fair enabling.”

Yeah. And talks about how the media covers every single legal case against the president. Yeah. And says the Supreme Court last week, a lot of Donald Trump's ballroom construction to proceed, eliciting shock from the press core. The court on Monday allowed the president, uh, president's mail and voting order to continue eliciting the same shock.

Yeah. This follows the shock. And, after Trump administration wins on immigration enforcement, personnel firings, DEI and transgenders orders and dozens of other issues, how long is a public meant to treat the press's pearl clutching as genuine. Genuine excuse me, rather than part of a campaign to undermine the administration and the credibility of the high court. This goes right to the 13.

Yeah. You know, the 13, uh, justices. They don't like the decisions. They can't argue the decisions constitutionally. Right.

So what they want to do is they want to put injustices that will make law not interpret it. Right. It was a state of legal reporting has reached a national embarrassment, a master class in fiction that rivals the reporting about Russia collusion and Joe Biden's undiminished capacity.

The media's contribution to law fair began in the earliest day of the first Trump term and has become only more brazen.

The swings and misses are there for all to see every day yet the formula is now so routine that nobody pushes back. Oh, we do. It works like this and this is great. The administration takes an action that offends liberal sensibilities. Interscroops rushed to litigate sometimes with prepackaged lawsuits.

The press quotes liberal law professors and the litigators themselves as to why the suits are worthy. A liberal judge issues an injunction which is treated as further proof of the lawsuits merits.

We've said that how many times have we said, oh my gosh, we go through.

“Well, we always do we go forget about what they say, let's go through the legality of it.”

Yep. When a higher court corrects the legal overreach, the media rather than acknowledge it, it got it wrong. Insist the judges are in the tank for Mr. Trump. And then again, that's where you get to the we need to expand the Supreme Court. We need more justice.

Consider the ball room case. When the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit last December to halt the project,

the press court pushed the litigation as a slam dunk.

The story's all led with the quote from the suit presenting as fact,

“quote, no president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House”

without any review whatsoever end of quote. The pieces catalogued the laws the administration had supposedly violated and the claim that any building required the express authority of Congress critics hailed the early August ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals to halt the project as evidence of the trust legal firepower. But Justice John Roberts ordered last Friday, staying the injunction wasn't accompanied by an opinion

and isn't a ruling on the merits, but any reporter with a half-sharp pencil might have reported the potentially fatal problems with the suit. These were nimblely outlined by Judge Naomi Rao, who dissented from the D.C. Courts in Junction. She argues that trust is no legal standing to bring the suit. It was ensharded to look after the White House and it's one member who occasionally walks past the complex

and expects to dislike the new structure can hardly claim damage for concrete injury. Right. Judge Rao also makes a persuasive case on the merits noting that the trust claim that the administration is acting in obvious excess of its powers is essentially a Hail Mary case, since at least one federal law authorizes the president to use funds for the care maintenance repair, alteration, and improvement of the executive residents.

The courts will decide the merits, but it's ludicrous that the country's ace legal reporters never provided the public

even an inkling of these legal defects. It's much more fun as numerous stories about last week's order did to suggest slightly that the chief justice is doing a personal favor for the president. Because this is the cynical game. Jerry Rig reporting to give life to law fair and to set false expectations the better to smear legal grownups. Oh, how we were told, over and over again, that Mr. Trump's 2017 travel band would never stand, that there was no such thing as presidential immunity, that the course of a president that of course a president can fire independent agency heads,

that the administration's firings the DEI rules and immigration actions all offended the law. How do we know that this misreporting is intentional? The press corps is quite capable of providing good analysis about cases of president is actually poised to lose as with his emergency tariffs and his executive order on birthright citizenship. It would be easy to call the birthright citizenship, not the emergency tariffs. It would be easy to call any right-leaning lawyer to get a read on liberals suits faults or flaws, but that doesn't happen.

Yeah, we go through it all the time. The U.S. soccer podcast. I'm your host Meghan Klingerberg and after interviewing so many dudes during this men's world cup. I'm so happy to be back with my U.S. one zash team players.

“I know the U.S. men's national team has changed how I think about myself, how I think about being an American, how I think about being on a team.”

It's one year out from that world cup and we're going to talk about the brightest prospects in U.S. soccer. You ready? You ready? Let's do it. The U.S. soccer podcast presented by Henkel. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. Look, I go back to the dots decision.

I can't tell you. But still today, I still meet people. Well, the Supreme Court saying you can't have an abortion. I mean, no, if no idea what's talking about. You know, there are a bunch of fascists telling it, no.

What they said is the original Supreme Court. If there's fascists, they didn't use the word. But if they were, if any court was out of order, it was that Supreme Court.

Right.

“The Supreme Court did not say you can't have an abortion.”

They said it's not their call. They're not fascists.

That's up to the legislature to decide that. And not a court of unelected judges. I won't say bureaucrats. I'd be the wrong term. Unelected justices that are supposed to interpret the law.

Not create law. It's not up for them to make this decision. And you know, and right after that, AOC, it was a day or two after that. AOC basically said, "Well, you know what? This is why we should take it up in Congress."

Actually, that was the point. What the Supreme Court said. She's railing against scotists in their decision saying,

"Well, you know what? We'll do it."

That's exactly what scotists said. That's what they said. Congress has to decide this or state. It goes back to the states. They did not make any decision on abortion.

No. They simply said, "We live under a constitution. We are a republic. The people that make the laws are Congress. It's the opposite of fascism."

Yeah. And there isn't one person who was upset about it that could answer my question or answer, you know, my questions and the statements that I made. Well, this is what they actually said.

You can read it right here. Right.

“Well, well, I'll never forget the one woman I was talking to”

and her husband was behind her. And as I'm going through it, he's behind her going like this, Eric. But without actually clapping his hands. That would get him in trouble. Yeah, he was clapping for me, you know.

Oh my gosh. So it was, you know, and so you know, when you can win an argument so easily, it shows that the people you're arguing against actually don't have an argument. Yeah. Right.

They just don't like the way it's going. Yep. It's, and, you know, and that's what it comes down to. It, you know, and the media.

“They're not just because this isn't coverage by the liberal activist media.”

coverage is when you actually break down the ideas and say, okay, here's what's going on. Here's the challenge. Here's the debate.

Here's what this side is saying.

Here's what the other side is saying. Whether it's a legal challenge, whether it's a political debate, whatever it is. It's gotten so far past being biased. They're flat out activists and they're shaping what they're doing is at their attempted. To change hearts and minds in how they write and how they report and how they present any of their coverage.

Because that's not true coverage when you're covering things up. That's covering not coverage. And when you cover it up, you're, because whether you admit or let's, if you omit part of the statement, the Charlottesville lie, but that they carried for a long time. The liberal activist media carried the Russian hoax.

They shaped it. They helped to build it. There is culpable as anybody on the Russian hoax thing, including Hillary Clinton and the DNC and all of those actors who actually made it happen. If you're doing that and you're not finding the truth and then when the truth comes out, going back saying this is what happened. You know, one thing about the Twitter files.

You take three liberals to do the Twitter files. And that's what Elon Musk did. And they found the truth and then they exposed what they found. And that's not and now they are rejected by exactly media. Of course it's outcast.

Very wise is the enemy now. Yeah. So you, when you look at, at all of that, that tells you just that alone.

Why?

“Because they really thought they had control of the language and the conversation because of the control of social media.”

And it wasn't just Twitter Twitter. By the way, the Twitter files thing helped with all all social media because during that whole thing or it's shortly after things started coming out and being released. Zuckerberg then went on Rogan and talked about the whole laptop thing and what they came to them with. In 2020.

And all of that just basically became, you know, and of course, you know, they, you get on TikTok.

That's owned by the Chinese. So we don't even have to talk about. I don't want to see the TikTok files. This is, so. So, you know, you look at, but you look at how the media then turned it around on Barry Weiss.

And what did Barry Weiss do? Tell me what she did. The crime she committed. Tell me what that is. She didn't carry the water.

That's what it is. She didn't do her job as a liberal. It's not.

She decided that reporting.

She decided I'm going to. We're reporters.

“We're not going to actually do journalists.”

We're not political activists. Right. And what you see here. But Kimberly Strauss will point out is what you don't talk about. Mm-hmm.

This is political activism. Yeah. And it starts by setting a premise that's wrong incorrectly as truthful and going from that point on. Right. And when it's torn apart and when you have no more defense, you just move on to the next thing.

Right. Right. You don't feel any shame for getting it wrong. Wrong all the time. Yeah.

You simply move on to the next inaccurate report about what other whatever legal case you're looking into next. You just keep going and going and going and going. Yeah. And it's not that hard to figure out the Constitution. It's not that hard.

The Constitution was not made. We used to get it all. You guys aren't justices. How do you know? Because we understand law.

Right. We understand the Constitution. Yep. You don't need to be a judge to understand the Constitution and to understand law.

It's never been difficult.

You just have to pay attention. We are right. Radio. Brought to you by FPPF fuel power max. Surviving a thriving as an owner operator has just as much to do with managing costs as it does with generating revenue.

Like the chief financial officer of any company.

“You have to be concerned about rising costs, especially without increases in revenue.”

Trying to reduce costs. Let alone make sense of them can be a complicated task. Understanding basic principles of operating costs can save you thousands of dollars a year. A penny saved could be $1,000. Saving just one penny from mile over 100,000 miles driven annually will deliver $1,000 to the bottom line at the end of the year.

Owner operator business 101 is provided by Overdrive Partners in Business Program. Go to OverdriveOnLi.com to the partners in business section of the website for more details on this and many other topics. Brought to you by Shell Rotella with advanced synthetic technology is designed to help keep you are rig running with more mileage and less maintenance. He winds up on for your goals. 866-90-red eye on Red Eye Radio. Be aware of Red Eye Radio. He's hurt, probably, and I'm Gary McNamara.

Look at another news from the weekend, Abdo El Sayed. Apologizes for comments about a Michigan synagogue attack. The Democratic nominee for US Senate Michigan apologised to the state's Jewish Democratic caucus on Saturday for Comments he made after an attack on a synagogue in March, which he tied to Israel's action in the Middle East. My comments may have been misconstrued to justify something I did not mean to justify.

Yeah, that's it. Yeah, okay. El Sayed told reporters after he addressed the caucus at the Michigan Democratic nomination convention in Lansing. Michigan, to anyone who feels like my comments might have been hurtful, I'm really sorry that was not my intention. Of course it was.

Because El Sayed's apology was his latest attempt to unify Democrats after a bitter primer where he defeated US representative Haley Stevens.

“He's eager to push past a series of controversies, including allegations of anti-Semitism, including his association with controversial commentator.”

A son, piker. By the way, I see the headlight over the piker said, wait a minute. I didn't go to him. He came to me. Yeah, he came. I'll find the story. All right.

[Music] [Music] You're listening to Red Eye Radio from the Relief Factor Studios. [Music]

And he is a Tony and I'm Gary McNamara.

Welcome in good morning. Thanks so much for being here.

“Yeah, I was, we were talking about Abdul El Sayed in Michigan.”

And his apology was the latest attempt to unify Democrats after a bitter primary. He's eager to push past a series of controversies involving allegations. The event I submit to him, including his association with controversial commentator, a son piker. And then this story came out over the weekend, Eric. The son piker said the Democratic Michigan U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El Sayed asked him to stump for his campaign.

What the other way around during an interview Friday following an intense backlash, the Democratic politician is faced for appearing appearing with him.

Piker spoke to some of our economists David Weigel about the backlash he's received from Democrats

and appearing on the campaign trail with El Sayed, which he claimed was El Sayed's idea not his. He asked me to stump for him. And I had not considered that ever before, Piker said,

“I'd never really delivered a speech like that before.”

Right. He made me do it. Well, no, that's because El Sayed's trying to make the case that, you know, it was Piker's idea. Yeah, to speak, and Piker's going, no, he wanted me to speak for him. Right.

But he actually does have a point because if I'm running a campaign, you don't appear there without my permission. If I'm against what you believe, I'm going to go, no, you can't speak for me. You can't campaign with me. So the campaign, so I tend to believe that he's got El Sayed's trying to make it so like,

it's just happened to, he wanted to campaign with me. No, no, no. You wanted me to campaign with you. I just love it. I just think that's just, just.

By the way, this had come out. I'm reading an article from the post millennial, but they're quoting the New York Times. Mayor Mandonis plant expansion or free child care for two year olds is running into serious problem. Problems just days before the program is set to launch with providers saying delayed city payments

are leaving them unable to cover basic startup cost. The program scheduled begins September 10th, but some day care operators say they still have not received. The funding needed for teachers classroom supplies and furniture. Several have warned parents that their centers may not be able to open if the money does not arrive soon reports the New York Times.

The delays have also affected city backed bridge loans intended to help providers cover expenses while waiting for their contracts to be processed. Some providers say they have turned to personal loans, family members, and their own savings to keep their businesses running. And yes, they have a two to K program, but they didn't set up the infrastructure to make it work. Said one woman who operates four Bronx State care centers preparing to offer four of these classes.

She said her centers have monthly expenses exceeding $320,000. She took out a personal loan and a reverse mortgage on her home to cover employee wages, utilities, and insurance. I had no choice. She said adding that this has been the most stressful period in her 43 years of running day care. So there you go. Meanwhile, not much I can say.

And still saying, we don't still know a lot about this yet, but the whole Trump Venezuela oil thing.

Yeah. Wow. Yeah. Where's this going? Wow. I mean, it's just, did you hear the, it's like, well, how do we get equity penny warrants, which means this private company in this private oil company in Venezuela,

“that has very close ties to the unelected president?”

Is going to give the Pentagon because the Pentagon apparently is going to own or run this. Nobody's really sure because everybody's going, is this even legal? Wow. Is this even legal? Yeah.

But basically, you get the shares for pennies or for nothing.

So you're just giving up equity in your oil company to sell it market prices, and the whole point is that the first point would be. And again, we're going from the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is saying a lot of this is not a known, but this is a reporting from our, you know, news division, which they have problems back and forth with each other. Yeah. It's more liberal once more conservative, but they just went, we have no idea how this works or whether it's legal or not.

“And go, what is the Pentagon going to be running and, you know, basically oil transfers for why is the Pentagon going to be dealing with a foreign government when it comes to oil?”

All right. And by the way, you've heard, you saw the influencers, which are, you know, the cheerlears going, "Sys boom, rah, rah, rah." I haven't heard a word from any Republican, not one on this. One legitimate answer could be that, and we won't hear it, because you're not going to talk about it, and who knows maybe, I don't know, maybe it came up in the conversation with CIA director, Rackliffe, and his trip to Russia.

But the relationship between Russia and Venezuela, essentially, if the US can control more of that oil, out of Venezuela, instead of it going to China or Russia, then you have a national security interest. I haven't seen that, and I don't think we'll hear that. If that's the case, then again, with this president, he might just come out and blurt it out and say, "Hey, this is why we're doing this."

“But if that's why you're doing it, and this is the plan, basically, you want to control that oil flow,”

so it doesn't benefit China or Russia and cuts them off significantly, then that needs to be promoted. Again, if that's the case. Well, what are you getting for nothing? Why are you getting equity? Why is the pentagon is going to be doing the investment, as far as the source to say, which means the pentagon is going to own what 35% of the oil, whatever it is, 35, I've seen 35, 55, whatever, 35% stake. They're going to own the pentagon will own 35% of that particular stake. I have no idea what the law says on this. Everybody's looking at their shaking their heads.

Well, yeah, that's the ownership. Control of the flow of it is one thing, which, by the way, would have to be negotiated with Venezuela. Even that would have to be negotiated.

But then you get into ownership, then the question is because the U.S. basically would own our government would own that chunk, whatever it is, 35 or higher, percent.

I don't know the precedent for this. I really don't. In exchange for what? Right. What do they want? No elections? Because you're technically dealing with a dictator and a Venezuelan oligarch. Yes. Who is close to the dictator? Well, you know, one of the reasons, if you think about after the capture of Maduro,

believing is right hand person in place, made sense after a series of meetings because they realized she was close to, again, the energy infrastructure, which needed to be controlled.

And the opposition leader then was kind of pushed aside.

“And it may have sounded at the time like, oh my gosh, what's going on, but that's how it went down.”

And we learned that after the fact. And so I don't, but I don't, again, ownership and for how long. And what does the deal, what does the agreement look like? Because we have to talk about agreements between two nations, regardless of who's leading that other nation. And according to reports, this is not oil being sold to the United States and market prices, which then competes with American oil companies.

Yes.

And my first thought was, my God, you're saying we need to produce everything here in the United States.

Well, we could drastically expand what we do here in the United States oil production. And you're saying, no, we should be making some kind of deal. Okay. So if they, with an unelected president, that's why I said dictator. And an oligarch very close to that dictator to sell at cost to compete on the world oil market, which includes American oil companies. It's promoting that the America first is low prices.

Well, then if you believe America first is low prices, then get rid of all the tariffs and have low prices and trade with the rest of the world. Right. Or he is so inconsistent when it comes to making sense on economics. Well, and that's the thing. If this really is about Russia, this is where, because the Pentagon controlling this is what really sets off that that flag.

Because right after again, the capture of Maduro, we were choking Russia out in their relationship when it comes to oil with Venezuela.

And that had a real effect. But if the long-term game here is to, okay, we get this wholesale, then we can decide, Russia, you get back in line. That's not what he's, that's not what they're saying.

“That's what exactly what I just said a minute ago.”

Yes. You're doing this. You're going to have to promote it this way. He's talking prices. This will lower the price.

Sure.

Now, it's not going to lower it before you know, but the Pentagon is controlling it.

So this is, again, this isn't, you know, I'm sure best it will have something to say and have an opinion on it. But it's not the treasury controlling this. It's the Pentagon. That tells me, this is somehow, this is, and while all trade is related directly to the national defense. This is so, this still doesn't make sense.

What does the United States have to pay to get this? What are we giving Venezuela? Yeah. What are we offering? Not to take you out, not to take you out of power, not to, which means no elections.

Yeah. That's not going to go over. But that agreement has to be known, by the way, by the people. The government is taking ownership of something, and we have this agreement that's going to be in place with Venezuela, the American people have to know what that is. And again, there's so much we don't know about it.

Right. There's so much we don't know. You know, but the Pentagon thing is the, is the whole red flag for me. Because you can make the case and maybe sell it to the American people, and also, I don't know about domestic producers, you're not going to. They're still not going to be happy about it.

But if you're talking about that, and then saying, hey, we can control if we don't want any to go to Russia, we don't want to sell any to Russia or China or whatever. We can, you know, we can not do that. And then we can keep prices low here. Maybe it's a combination of both. But if that is the case.

Because that's it. My number one question is not what Venezuela is getting. I want to know why the Pentagon is is controlling it.

“And the other point is, does this mean then because remember, it's still a world oil market.”

So we don't buy from Canada anymore. So I Trump over the weekend. I don't want anything from Canada. So it's Canada's oil. Go to China. And it's simply, it's all world market production.

Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. We are run. I radio. We'll be right back with more Red Eye Radio with every currently and Gary McNamara.

We're running radio and he is here.

And there's reading from Forbes and the thing is this is not going to be an immediate deal as we all know. This isn't going to lower oil prices. Today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year before the election, whatever. This is from what I'm earning seven to ten years before any of this is actually extracted because these aren't operating oil fields at the moment. Right.

These are from what we're told what I forgot the name that they're calling them. The official technical name of it.

But this is deserves basically.

Yeah, they're in the ground. It hasn't.

“In fact, fields, I think there's what they call them.”

Right. And you can't. And so all of that has to do with the fields. Yeah. Yeah.

It's a ton of work research and and then development basically. Or there's a different. And massive massive investment. Yeah. And it's.

Well, you're still going to need.

There is no investment in it. They're still looking for the investment. Right. Which would have to come because United States is going to invest. We're going to equity.

No, it's private sector that has to go in and do it. And they're like, if you do it, then you're going to deal with the oligarch. Hmm. Whoever's president of the United States at that point when it happens. And the private sector is operated in and then it's well before with oil.

“So, you know, the question is, again, are they willing to go do that?”

They stop for a reason.

Are they willing to go do it now?

Now. On Westwood One. The color is back. Now, of course, the car is back. Do you know what's on the car?

The car is back. After a UV. What? It's the plan. They take everything and their father with a group of young adults

with an interest rate in the oil industry. Are we going to do it now? There are more than just one thing. And they take their lives. We're going to die.

We're going to die too. That's what we know. They're going to die. They're going to die. At the 3rd September, just in China.

Start your day with the morning, Joel, the drink, Joel. See now it's on demand. My podcast is kind of a radio thing.

“I think, but also it's a bit of a TV show.”

And it's about whatever I wanted to be. It's listening live as it happened when it happened with the instant reaction. Your home for talking sports. We go back.

The Great Old Show. Westwood One Sports Network. And there will be, on demand, on your radio. Anywhere in the country, I'll see you there. Westwood One Sports Talk.

Your home for a great toll. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.