transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:07] Now, it's Red Eye Radio. Gary McNamara and Eric Harley 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.

Speaker 2:
[00:33] All across America, we are Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Harley, and I'm Gary McNamara. Well, tomorrow is Earth Day. Yesterday was 420. Today, 421 is random drug testing day.

Speaker 3:
[00:49] Everybody get in line.

Speaker 2:
[00:51] You know, I put two and two together yesterday.

Speaker 3:
[00:53] Make sure you make it in the cup.

Speaker 2:
[00:55] Or one and one together, where I said, hmm, I wonder if the bizarro world of those people that are absolutely obsessed with the conspiracies of climate change and Earth Day were affected all on 422 by what they were doing on 420.

Speaker 3:
[01:18] Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, I got back from Islamabad. I was trying to help out. I just thought JD Vance may need some assistance. That's where I've been. Just trying to talk some sense into the Iranians because I'm tired of filling my truck for 90 bucks a turn, you know. I'm just like, can we get this through? Look, can we get the straight straight? Can George Strait get the straight straight? I don't know whether the George Strait of Hormuz, which would be actually a pretty good show. I don't even know what that means. It's just that there was so much over the weekend that was going on. And we had a family matter and I was dealing with that. And I thought, you know what, I'm going to get on a plane. So I went on a plane. Islamabad isn't what it used to be. It's not the tourism spot, the hot spot it used to be. I'll tell you that. They also don't recognize 420. I learned that the hard way.

Speaker 2:
[02:13] So... I'm amazed you got back. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3:
[02:18] Well, it wasn't easy. Remember the movie Argo, where they barely get back on the plane? Yeah. Well, that was pretty much me. But, and my bong. But...

Speaker 2:
[02:30] I remember that was all made up.

Speaker 3:
[02:32] I know. That part of that scenario was all made up. They actually did get on the plane fairly easily for... I mean, it's not like...

Speaker 2:
[02:41] Actually, I love the trucks, underneath almost the wings of the plane as it's trying to take off in Argo.

Speaker 3:
[02:49] None of that happened. I forget his name. The CIA officer that was portrayed by Ben Affleck. And it was a great movie. The scenario did happen, but that CIA officer and his wife, who also was CIA, she was an expert, still is an expert on undercover work for the CIA. Of course, he is an expert for undercover work, but that was all an undercover job. But it was a true scenario based on true events, which means we're gonna make a lot of this crap up. But yeah, they just kind of accelerated that. But yeah, but the scene from the movie though, that was a lot like me trying to get out of Islam.

Speaker 2:
[03:40] Yeah, but remember, but all the stuff on making up the fake sci-fi movie was true.

Speaker 3:
[03:46] No, no, that was all true. Yeah, that is how they all got in. The basis of it really was true. Some of those, they made it a little more dramatic at the end. Which, fine, that's fine. They got it done. But it's, yeah, I just thought to myself over the weekend, the back and forth on the whole Islamabad thing, the thing with Iran, the sit down with Iran, you know, because I think to myself, and someone asked us a great question by email over the weekend. And the question basically was, and I don't have it in front of me, but a great listener asking, how in the world is it that we've basically decimated Iran's ability to defend themselves and we still can't get full control, the US still can't get full control of the Strait of Hormuz. And there are several factors in there. I mean, that onion has lots of layers. And one of the main key layers in that, one of the key elements is the control of a series of islands. There's four, I believe, total islands that are controlled and that really give the leverage to what's left of the regime. It's been reported by, I believe the Wall Street Journal did a piece on this and other media, but the Wall Street Journal pointing out that the new leadership, whoever that might be, whether the new Ayatollah is around or not. They're more hard-lined than the previous. In other words, they're more, and I think that comes from a defensive position probably, trying to defend whatever they have left, but they still have control of the silence. That would be my question. How have we not been, what is it that makes it so difficult? And that's just an open-ended question.

Speaker 2:
[06:00] Well, here's, I saw this yesterday that when the ceasefire went into effect, there were still, according to the military plan in the United States, two weeks left, that we would have continued for two weeks. Now, whether that would have taken out the small, because remember, what they're using is the small boats. That's what's threatening the tankers, and if they have shoulder-fired missiles or whatever, that's what makes the situation, again, up in the air. Where they have the boats, whether we've now targeted where they are, if, I mean, here it is now, we're, it's Wednesday. Yeah, yeah. So, whether we go back in the next few hours or whatever, or whether there are negotiations that start on this, Fox News talking about the fact that the Iran hardliner, Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander, Amid Vahadi, is exerting major control over both the military and the negotiations with the United States. They've taken temporary oversight over the talks, sidelining the civilian diplomats and imposing a harder line. I'm reading here from Fox, as they talk about the guys with the guns now, are the ones that are actually calling it. We talked about this yesterday and Friday, and one of the problems is, because this is where the polls are showing that the public is not behind what the, they're behind the theory of taking out Iran, but they're not in favor of what's going on right now with the war. You and I are, but the problem is, we've always talked about that the president is talking to two people, and I saw, and I read an article yesterday that was saying the exact same thing. I don't know if it was National Review that said, or maybe it was the Wall Street Journal that said, don't pay any attention to what the president says about Iran. It's all just information. But the fact is, you're talking to two audiences. And when what happened Friday, you know, Thursday into Friday, where the stock market went through the roof, and it looked like we had a deal, and the straight was open, and the president was saying, you know, the golden era of Iran is here, and then 24 hours, we're right back at it again. You cannot market, you cannot market a war the same way that you market something in domestic policy. You can't have these ups and downs and ups and downs and throw these things out like, you know, and even the president said, what, and we agree with what the president's doing. Now, whether we'll agree with the end conclusion or whether we believe this is a time to take them out completely and keep going after, level after level after level of whatever's left of the government since that's what you started and that's how we believe we should end it. You know, I go back to the first Iraq War, remember that?

Speaker 3:
[09:02] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[09:02] You know, but the goal was just to get them out of Kuwait and it was like, you should have taken the head off the snake then.

Speaker 3:
[09:08] Right, right.

Speaker 2:
[09:09] And so, with the, you know, the president saying, you know, remember the speech he, it was a matter of a true social post, where he was saying, it's going to be a wonderful time in the economy and Iran wants this and we want that. And we're like, Iran doesn't want this. I mean, the people might, but who you're negotiating with absolutely do not want a peace deal and to get rid of the nuclear weapons. And we understand you're saying that in a way of negotiating with the Iranian, whatever's left of the Iranian regime. But you're also, that's also being communicated to Democrats and the public and independence. And you're up one day down the next, up one day down the next, up one day down the next. You cannot market a war to the domestic side of, you know, of what you have to, you know, message a war to the same way that you do the Iranian regime that's left.

Speaker 3:
[10:05] Right. Yeah. It was interesting yesterday. I think I took a screenshot of it of the pre-markets and they were insanely high. I mean, it was unreal. Let's see if I've got that screenshot available because I know I took a screenshot of it fairly early on. Here it is. Let's see. I don't know if this shows what time this would have been. 5:03 a.m. yesterday morning. Dow futures up 6.81%. Again, NASDAQ futures up 12.2%. And I thought, is this a flaw in the system at CNBC? In my CNBC app? Because I don't see, and it even said, the headline even said, Dow futures decline as Iranian war tensions escalate. But the numbers themselves were through the roof. And I said, there's something wrong there. And of course, the Dow and the NASDAQ and the S&P ended down. They were down slightly for the day. And so I'd have to go back and look at intraday trading. I don't know how that went or why in the world at 5 a.m., just after 5 a.m. Central yesterday morning, the stocks, because I thought to myself, is there something breaking or just broke or something the market believes about the Iranian thing? That this was highly overconfident in terms of where the Dow futures were. And I just didn't know. And I didn't believe it for a second. But no, the day won't end that way. Because there's not any, I didn't see any news at all whatsoever about, the only thing you can go to is the, I guess, the stuff over the weekend. And that was, we're going to work together. This was so, so stupid sounding. We're going to work with the Iranians to recover their enriched uranium. And I thought to myself, no, you're not. That's not going to happen.

Speaker 2:
[12:30] Now, the other thing I've said is, it's also, you know, your marketing, as much as the domestic audience may not approve of how you're marketing. And you have to sell anything. In politics, you have to sell anything. And there's your domestic constituency. But you're also putting out to the world, we're doing everything we can to negotiate a settlement before you go in and do what many people believe the president will do, which is continue to take out, all right, we can't negotiate with these people, you die. To be blunt, you know, that's what's going to happen. All right, fine, you're gone, you're gone. Next, you're gone. Next, you're gone. And you keep it, you focus on taking out the leadership. And you've got two weeks to rearm and intelligence and everything else. That's also been talked about.

Speaker 3:
[13:26] Right, right.

Speaker 2:
[13:26] You know, okay, you know, and we talked about it when the pause happened. You're giving another two weeks for the Americans and Israelis to target what's in there. And when the military action stops, there may be, should we say, more intelligence agencies, more of an idea of the people that are in charge, where they are, and they're a little bit more out in the open. And you figure out patterns and the spooks on the ground, you know, figure out where, and you just, you start it again as you continue the blockade.

Speaker 3:
[14:04] Right, yeah.

Speaker 2:
[14:05] And to me, that would be the thing, because those would be limited strikes. You know, you may take out a power plant or two, yeah, you know, to set it, and then you, but you target the leadership on it. But in doing this, where you may not be pleasing your domestic audience with the messaging of the war, you're sending out to the world, we're giving them every chance in the world. Because I believe if there, if the United States, if the people of the United States see that there is a clear victory, and to me, the minimum clear victory would be you actually get the uranium. How you do it, you know, this is, I don't know, but if you actually get to that point, that would be viewed as a clear victory. If you make a deal with the hardliners and it's an Obama-like deal, you lose hugely with your base.

Speaker 3:
[14:58] Yeah, I think if you talk about getting that uranium, I think part of the idea of, if it is a viable idea, if it's actually being talked about seriously, about working with the Iranians, is ensuring that there are no traps that are set up, that they're not setting up our troops to come in and, yeah, we'll let you come in and take all the uranium, and then all of a sudden, there's a massive event that takes out a number of our troops. You want to make sure that if they're cooperating, okay, you guys go in and get it, and we have a rendezvous point where it's going to be handed over, and we're going to take inventory of it. I think that's the biggest concern, because otherwise, if we're going to do it, and we're going to take it by force, that's going to require boots on the ground, and we have to assume they're going to have booby traps everywhere, both major sites, in order to prevent that from happening. So if there is a serious conversation about them cooperating with us in that way, that's probably what that looks like. Let them go get it, bring it to us, and then we verify what we have, and then we take it from there. But I don't have confidence that that is actually going to happen.

Speaker 2:
[16:27] We are Red Eye Radio, brought to you by Hotshot Secret.

Speaker 4:
[16:31] Hi, I'm Jen Loomis, a transport safety expert at JJ Keller. Compliance Safety Accountability is the FMCSA Safety Compliance and Enforcement Program. Its goal is to hold motor carriers and drivers accountable for highway safety. CSA does this by assessing the safety performance of motor carriers and drivers. Motor carriers are assigned a score. The carrier is then grouped with other carriers who have had a similar number of safety events. Carrier scores within the group are then ranked. Low scores are better. So carriers with the highest scores are those that are most likely to be targeted for intervention by the FMCSA. Interventions range in severity and may include warning letters, roadside, offsite or on-site inspections, civil penalties or operation out of service orders. This tip was brought to you by JJ. Keller and Associates. Visit us at jjkeller.com.

Speaker 1:
[17:19] Get in touch with Red Eye Radio, toll free at 866-90REDI.

Speaker 2:
[17:39] We are Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Harley, and I'm Gary McNamara. And then Iran's parliamentary speaker sent a message to Trump on acts yesterday, saying that Iran will not accept negotiations with the US while under threat. Well, then you can't even have negotiations. Then the next thing is negotiating to have the negotiations, which is going in the opposite direction.

Speaker 3:
[18:03] Yeah, it's, you know, Iran still believes they have the leverage because this administration is extending diplomacy to the fullest. What they understand is, and the leverage they do have, and that is what I mentioned earlier, that for us to go in and take the enriched uranium, it would be a massive effort with countless boots on the ground. I don't know exactly what it would take in terms of the number of troops who would have to send over there to do that, but the equipment and everything else we would have to, you know, the makeshift runway, every, all the trucks that would be required in handling those tanks, everything. And then we're going to have to get it from under the rubble that of course we created when we bombed their nuke site. That's where part of it is. In fact, 60% of it is at that site. So how does that happen? Well, you got to have some earth moving equipment. And so, you know, it just goes on and on and on and on. So I think it's their last holdout. I think if there's any leverage Iran has, it's the fact that getting that enriched uranium is going to take their cooperation for a massive effort by the US. Hey Drivers, Eric Harley here for Catscale. You probably already know, you can get guaranteed accurate weights when you weigh on a Catscale. But did you know that you get those same guaranteed weights much faster when you use the Weigh My Truck app? Simply pay, weigh, and get back on the road. It's that easy. Look for the iconic black and gold Catscale sign at truck stops and travel plazas nationwide. And remember, weigh what we say or we pay. Guaranteed. Go online to create an account. Watch the helpful tutorial and download the Weigh My Truck app today. Check out weighmytruck.com to save time on the road. That's weighmytruck.com. Do it today. That's weighmytruck.com.

Speaker 5:
[20:42] Hey there, I'm Paula Pan. I help people make the smartest money decisions possible. Do not ever worry about your salary. You need enough to make sure that you aren't in a bad financial position. Once you have that, your salary becomes moot. What matters from that point forward, upside gains. Any type of ownership stake or ownership potential, that's the money. Remember, you can afford anything, just not everything. Afford anything. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.

Speaker 1:
[21:23] You're listening to Red Eye Radio from the Relief Factor Studio.

Speaker 2:
[21:35] We are Red Eye Radio, and here's Eric Harley, and I'm Gary McNamara. Welcome and good morning. Download our Red Eye Radio app today, and you can listen when and where you choose. You know, on yesterday's show, when you were out, I was just reading a couple of paragraphs from Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal saying, ah, yeah, you know, what is victory? And he said, technically, we have victory already. We do. He said, because if you look at it, their nuclear program is gone for a significant period of time. I look at it and go, their nuclear program is gone for a decade, but if you look at where they are right now, you simply say, you know, end the war now. And if you do anything, if you start rebuilding, we blow it up again. Well, that's it. And because the other point would be, because the nuclear enrichment, you can't do anything if you have no possibility of enriching the uranium. And if you keep blowing it up, this is about the best you can do. If you can't get the people out to do it, if you're not going to go for the regime change, or now you'd feel it's not possible to do the regime change, and now he didn't say this, I'm adding to this. If you don't believe it's possible to do the regime change, then just say, we've accomplished what we've accomplished now. Do you take the blockade out? That's the entire point. You're choking them at the moment. And by the way, and we said this from the very beginning, none of us know what really is going on. We really don't know. It's pure speculation on all of us. When the media comes out and says, Iran is winning this, they're full of crap.

Speaker 3:
[23:21] They're absolutely making it up as they go along. The president posted something about that just hours ago on Truth Social, and he's right. And we have been saying this for, I don't know, a few weeks, but there was this narrative that the liberal activist media seems to be on that Iran is winning this. You talk about clueless beyond clueless.

Speaker 2:
[23:46] Now that we do know, there is no way, military speaking, that Iran is winning anything on this. Their armed forces have been absolutely decimated. It's where you go from here. And if you remember when this all started, or before it all started, when the possibility of it happening was there, we said, this is the challenge that the president has. When the conclusion, when he talked about it, even in his eight-minute speech, we went in, would be the Iranian people, you know, rising up and taking over the government. And there were the two, not shadow governments, but two proxy governments, what do you want to call them? Yeah, right. You know, from the old Iranian parliamentary leader, and then the Shah's son, you know, going in there. Well, there's a lot that's not under your control for a conclusion of this war, if that's a goal and that's a problem. And we stated that from the very, very beginning.

Speaker 3:
[24:48] Right.

Speaker 2:
[24:49] And we said at the very, very beginning, but at the minimum, if you take their ability out, whether they have your rich uranium or not, if they can't do anything with it.

Speaker 3:
[24:57] Right. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[24:58] And you keep hitting the sites.

Speaker 3:
[25:00] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[25:02] In that way, you have control and have neutered Iran. Now, the problem with that is, do you pull back and allow them to sell the oil again? Or do all the sanctions, you know, remain? What is the goal? And because we hear, all right, but the goal is to get a deal. Well, what's in the deal?

Speaker 3:
[25:21] Right.

Speaker 2:
[25:21] You know, what is in the deal? What are the parameters? And I don't know what the parameters are yet from the president as to precisely what he wants from Iran. I don't know that.

Speaker 3:
[25:32] Yeah. And it's interesting because you bring up allowing them to sell oil. You want their power infrastructure to remain because you just don't want the power completely gone. You want the what we call citizens, it was pointed out by Andrew McCarthy more correctly, that they are subjects, rulers and subjects here, not citizens as we know them. But the people of Iran, you want them to have that access so there is not great hardship in terms of any humanitarian situation that would arise. Having said that, the regime itself, prior to this, the old regime itself has actually created to a large extent a humanitarian crisis that goes even beyond the thousands of those Iranian people that they killed. So there is, you know, you have to, the measurement is, and I think, I really do believe that this pause was, and to a large extent, an effort to let the dust settle, to see movement, as we have pointed out, in order to gather intel. You need, you need to see, let them move as they're going to move, so you can see how they move. You need to develop patterns of behavior here by those who are left in charge, and that tells you, that pattern of behavior will tell you who was in charge and who was not, who was left and who was not.

Speaker 2:
[27:10] Right, because you need to know whether, can we negotiate? Is there a moderate, and then you learn from that, and then you take the next step, whatever that is going to be. I do not see at the moment, because now we're at the point of not negotiating, but now the hardliners that seem to be in control according to Fox News, are saying we need to negotiate to negotiate. Well, you're taking a step backwards from where you were two weeks ago, if you're actually going to get involved in that. I don't think they're going to, but that's where it is right now.

Speaker 3:
[27:59] Well, it's interesting because I think of something that my father told me when he was 18, he enlisted in the Navy, went over to fight in the Korean War, USS Samuel and more. It was a destroyer. And he said that part of what he did, and it was kind of a, it was his first taste of being involved in military intel, is when they had detainees from the enemy. They were not in uniform, so you couldn't tell who was the ranking, right? And so they devised a plan and said, here's what we'll do. When we feed them, we will no longer feed them in a line where they all come through and we serve them. We're going to set the food out and set the bowls out. And what will happen is that the lower ranks will actually feed the higher ranks first because it was an order set that was in place that we knew they would not break. We knew it was militarily and culturally, they would not. Those lower ranked individuals were going to go and make sure that the highest ranks were going to be the next eight first. Something that simple, and it's stuck in my mind. When you look at the breakdown of Iran, the new military leadership here, this could be a flex for power in that they believe they're going to be the next, they're vying to be the next leader. And because it makes sense. And the question is, where is their loyalty? Are they true hardliners as we know the regime has been? Do they have their own mindset, their own dream, their own fantasy of how they're going to rule if they become the rulers of Iran? You know, these are all questions that Intel has to find out, which is why you let the dust settle and you let them move about and you gather that pattern of behavior and those communications accordingly. And so it's not something that can be done. And I don't even know, I got to be honest with you, I don't even know how much they can gather in two weeks, probably quite a bit between Israeli Intel and our Intel. But I think that's a big part of it. The ultimate would be that we get possession of their uranium. But you're right, it's not absolutely necessary if we believe the rest of the infrastructure is going to... And we can stay on top of the basically damage and make sure it's not being rebuilt. And we can strike again and again and again. That's not a deal, that's not an agreement. I think choking Iran out in terms of their funding has to be in play to some extent. I think there has to be that pain because the alternative would be if you allow them to trade, sell oil on the open market as the Biden administration did, and you're lifting sanctions in a big way, which I suspect this president would not do, but if you did that, then we know the funding that they would have available to them and how fast they would be able to rebuild. I do believe that they are getting plenty of intel assistance from China and Russia, whether they're getting the weapons that we suspect these shoulder-fired missiles from China or not. China says, well, no, we're not doing it. And how dare you, United States, engage in false propaganda, says China. And all of this that's in play here, I think we know the answers to a lot of those questions.

Speaker 2:
[32:28] Well, when you talk about the intelligence, and again, this is speculation, but it's speculation based on the intelligence that was gathered before we went in last year and before we went in now. The how precise we were in the targeted attacks of scientists where we knew where people in the government were at that particular point in an Iran that had all of their infrastructure intact at that time and now does not. I would, and again, it's speculation. I would speculate that we have gathered a tremendous amount of intelligence because what is your goal now? And Trump talks about taking out the power plants and bridges. We know that one thing that's always been on their mind is we want the public to come out there and protest. And to me, again, one of the options would be, and it's very, I'm saying one of the options, I don't know the negatives that they may know on this, but it would be keep the blockade going. And if you go back in, it's targeted at the leadership. Whoever's leading now dies. Whoever the replaces them in a week dies. You keep the blockade going on, and you just keep hitting that over and over and over again. What is the negative on that? I don't know what they know. So everything that you've heard, all this speculation, again, we believe our speculation, when we do speculate, is a lot better than the mainstream media because ours is based on, for example, the intelligence of what we believe they have now is based on the intelligence they've already proven that they have in a completely different situation. But the mainstream media, as we've said, to pay any attention to what they've been throwing out about Iran is winning the war or whatever. What I like, though, are the people on the left and the Democrats that are basically on says, oh yeah, we'd rather have a ran win over Trump getting a victory here. And yes, we trust Iran more. I mean, it's amazing how blunt they are on that. But the president wins if the people of the United States say there's a clear victory here and it's moved us forward. Yes.

Speaker 3:
[35:01] And I think to a large extent, we're at that point. We have the upper hand and there's no way Iran...

Speaker 2:
[35:10] I don't think we're at that point yet.

Speaker 3:
[35:12] Well, I think, no, I think to a large extent, this has been a victory so far.

Speaker 2:
[35:15] Oh no, it's been a victory, but I mean the clear victory where you say, here's what we have done. Without question, we have... Their ability to produce a nuclear weapon is done for a decade.

Speaker 3:
[35:31] And the point I was about to make is there's no way you can say Iran has the upper hand going forward. The only leverage they have is that they still have enriched uranium. That's really to me the biggest part of their leverage. And I don't know to what extent that even works for them. It certainly, short-term, doesn't work for them at all.

Speaker 2:
[35:50] We are Red Eye Radio.

Speaker 1:
[35:51] Coming up, more with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley. It's Red Eye Radio.

Speaker 2:
[36:14] We are Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Harley, and I'm Gary McNamara. Well, one thing is, well, we should know by the time we come in tomorrow where the direction of all of this is going. The United States talking out about negotiations starting Thursday. Iran has made it clear they don't wanna negotiate, so with the ceasefire ending today, we'll see what direction the United States is gonna go into.

Speaker 3:
[36:41] Yeah, we'll see. I, again, they don't have leverage. I think Iran believes their leverage is the fact that they still have enriched uranium and stockpiles and that we want that. Again, how you convince them that that is not leverage, I don't know. So we'll see, but I think we're gonna learn a lot by the weekend. The top of the hour news is brought to you by Howe's Products.

Speaker 2:
[37:22] Visit Howe's products.com.

Speaker 1:
[37:24] This is Red Eye Radio on Westwood One. And now, it's Red Eye Radio. Gary McNamara and Eric Harley 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.

Speaker 2:
[37:57] All across America, we are Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Harley and I'm Gary McNamara. Welcome and good morning. One thing I just wanted to mention about Iran and people's, and it's true, they have no military leverage at all. There's no leverage they have. But what leverage do they have? The leverage of what's left of the Iranian regime has, which seems to be one of the leaders of the IRGC, is one thing and one thing only. They believe that anything America does, they will not finish.

Speaker 3:
[38:37] Yeah, that's another point of leverage. I mean, I think-

Speaker 2:
[38:41] That's their only point of leverage, I believe. I don't think there's any leverage.

Speaker 3:
[38:44] I think they think that they have leverage on the uranium that we, I think they believe that we need that uranium in order to dismantle their power completely long-term. But immediate leverage, I think, that's pretty much the only leverage they have.

Speaker 2:
[39:06] But that's the point. We won't do what's absolutely necessary to ensure that the regime is completely destroyed.

Speaker 3:
[39:15] Right. And I think they've underestimated this president if they believe that.

Speaker 2:
[39:19] But that's, you know, because people ask, you know, they have no leverage, then why are they doing it? Because they look and they say, the United States, and again, you know, you've got Republicans and Democrats, but you look over the last 50 years, you look at how many Western interests and United States military bases and what they have done over the years. And what do they get? They're like, we can wait Trump out. Delay, delay, delay, because we know if Democrats get in power, they will finance our proxies of international terrorism. And so they view it because of the history of the United States. The Democrats get in, they'll sell us uranium, enriched uranium. And when you think about it, think about the fact that there's no outrage, very little outrage. I mean, and I say, I won't say no because you do have Federman, very little outrage that the Democrats, think about this, the Democrats actually insured that the Iranian regime and Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis were well-financed, and Obama and Biden made sure that they did it. You know, we know that, you know, because they've thrown out there, well, this wouldn't have happened because Obama did this deal, and then it gets torn apart. Right. You know, even if there's even Democrats out there, well, the Democrats, we play the audio with the Obama, with the Obama deal over and over. Schumer was against it. Everybody was against it, because what it did was it created a path to Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Yeah. And the Democrats really, there's no outrage from the Democrat voter on that. They don't care.

Speaker 3:
[41:05] No.

Speaker 2:
[41:06] And so, you know, that's, I believe, the Iranian leverage is the fact that we believe that America, even under Trump, is a paper tiger, and they actually will not do what they say that they will do.

Speaker 3:
[41:20] Which, again, is...

Speaker 2:
[41:21] We'll find out whether that's true.

Speaker 3:
[41:23] Yeah, no, I think they believe that the clock is on their side, that he doesn't have enough time or won't finish it in the time that he has as president.

Speaker 2:
[41:37] And they also believe that he doesn't have the support of independents and Democrats that you have. I mean, they've heard it. You've got Democrats out there saying, well, no, we'd rather, you know, I trust Iran. Who said it? What Democratic congressman last week said? I trust Iran over this president. And you know, I'd rather have Iran win than Trump win. I mean, these people are absolutely, you know, crazy. They're insane when you think about it because they're supporting, as we've talked about before, a Sharia government. A Sharia government that will massacre, a genocidal Sharia government that will just murder people, their own, excuse me, subjects, they're not really citizens, you know, without any hesitation whatsoever. You know, did you see the poll on young people? It's almost 50-50, you know, where they believe that Iran and Israel are morally equivalent. Or they believe that Iran has the higher morality than Israel. When you promote the anti-Semitism and the hate that the Democrats have done over and over and over again, you know, it gets to be like identity politics.

Speaker 3:
[43:01] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[43:02] Identity politics. Identity politics is racism. Yeah, it is. You've got a political party that practices and has institutionalized racism in this country through identity politics. They do it every single day. They accuse the other side of being racist while they practice and promote the fact that they're the racists. I mean, it's mind-boggling, but they're doing the same here and they look at it and they go, we're effective at doing it because the Republicans are a bunch of damn morons who can't communicate the simple message that we're actually the racist. They can't even promote that and do that effectively. There's so much infighting going on and who knows where the Republicans really want to go on these issues and why they won't fight the 80-20 issues and market against them, sell the American public that the radicals are the Democrats. Every election in this country should be 70-30 right now in favor of the Republicans and that's taking all their flaws into consideration because the other side is nuts. Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[44:09] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[44:09] And you look at the misogyny of the radical transgender movement. Think about it. Democrats will now proudly sit there and say, you women, you're weak. You're weak. You don't wish to compete against men. Well, then just how talented are you? What's wrong with you? You're a woman. Why don't you just get used to a male genitalia in the locker room? You are such a weak and pathetic sex that you can't deal with naked men and men competing against you. They're blunt about it.

Speaker 3:
[44:44] No, they are.

Speaker 2:
[44:44] They are. The misogyny, the threatening of what happened in the Ivy League schools. Now, it doesn't help when Trump comes out last week and says, I never liked Riley Gaines. And it's like, oh, God, for God's sakes. And he got blasted by conservatives. And he was like, shut up. If you look at anybody out there who's been the hero. So Trump, the Republicans, they can't even message against the radical transgender movement or the racism of identity politics of the Democrats that has been institutionalized and they promote that they're doing both. And the Republicans are, we don't know what to do. Let's just yell and scream, but we won't, you know, we won't come together with the United Message to completely destroy what these people believe in.

Speaker 3:
[45:31] Well, and it's, it was stupidity over a meme. You know, think about that. The whole purpose of that, of that illustration, basically of him as a deity, he said he thought it was him as a doctor. And then he was asked if Riley Gaines was the inspiration for him removing that post. He removed the post for a reason. And but he said, well, no, and I don't really care for Riley Gaines. Do you remember 2024? The number one women's issue was not abortion. It was men being in women's locker rooms. And Riley Gaines is the face and driver of much of that. Whether you like her or not, she was a big part of bringing women to the polls for you.

Speaker 2:
[46:31] So we had said the longest time, you know, you and I were talking about this over a decade ago. And through the years, we just went, this is ridiculous. Why aren't women standing up against this? You know, we're men talking about it every day about the misogyny here. And then you saw the liberal feminists, they just, you know, when Gloria Steinem came out, we just said, well, that's the end, remember, that's the end of feminism. Remember in 2016, you had the, you know, the, the, what was it? The Women's Protest or whatever they call it.

Speaker 3:
[47:05] Yeah, Women's March.

Speaker 2:
[47:06] The Women's March. And then the next year, it all fizzled because, well, there's the new feminist against the old feminist and the new feminists don't want to wear the pink hats because not all women have vaginas.

Speaker 3:
[47:20] Right.

Speaker 2:
[47:20] And it's like, and then it just blew up. And then by 2017, 2018, It's gone. Gloria Steinem came out and supported the radical transgender movement.

Speaker 3:
[47:29] Gloria Steinem.

Speaker 2:
[47:30] I know. And we said, for God's sakes, whoever thought, you know, whoever thought that feminism would die because the man dictated that we wish to compete against women and we want to expose ourselves to women in the locker room. And that's what defeated liberal feminism.

Speaker 3:
[47:51] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[47:52] I mean, that's as shocking as saying that's as shocking as yesterday seen Dershowitz saying I'm becoming a Republican.

Speaker 3:
[47:59] Yeah, right.

Speaker 2:
[48:01] I saw that yesterday and I'm like, yeah, because one of the things when I became a radio talk show host back in 1989, we viewed him as radical.

Speaker 3:
[48:13] Oh, no, no. It was when well, remember the whole LJ dream team thing. It was like, man, look at this. I mean, he's got it.

Speaker 2:
[48:23] He was viewed as a leftist right. I was watching yesterday Harold Ford on Fox News pounding on Mondani.

Speaker 3:
[48:29] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[48:29] And I'm like, I remember when I thought Harold, well, I remember when Harold Ford looked like he was 13 years old and when he was a congressman. But I remember thinking to myself, this guy is really one radical leftist. Now he's a moderate Republican. Yeah. And talking about, he actually said yesterday, you can't tax yourself to success. Right.

Speaker 3:
[48:56] I mean.

Speaker 2:
[48:56] And I'm like, because this is how radical, this is how radical the left has gotten in this country. And elections shouldn't even be close right now. They shouldn't even be close.

Speaker 3:
[49:09] They shouldn't. Look, they warned you we're coming for your children on the radical transgender movement. And they are officially, they're suing to give kids, children, minors, the right to mutilate their own body and to make that decision. And they're warning parents, if the parents don't agree with it, we'll consider that abusive in nature. Well the next logical step is that the government comes in and says, we now have control over your children and we'll punish you for being abusive because you disagree with them making irreversible changes to their body. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[50:04] Absolute, absolute one of the most evil, perverted things I've ever seen and they defend it on a consistent basis.

Speaker 3:
[50:11] Well, and we asked the question, you're sitting around a room. You know, the thing is they didn't sit around a room because we talked about this. This isn't a conspiracy. This is, I mean, there are people that are acting together, but this is not this grand plan. Here's what we'll do. It is like-minded individuals. And that is more dangerous. Because none of them have to be inspired to think that way. They already do. They're already in motion. And that's who they are. It should be at least 70-30. Every time. And yet, they're still winning elections. And they might win bigly in November.

Speaker 2:
[51:04] Yeah, there isn't one thing. Not one thing that they've moderated on.

Speaker 3:
[51:10] Nope. None.

Speaker 2:
[51:12] The talk is, we need to moderate. And maybe we can get someone to moderate. And then you see, we mentioned yesterday, what's his name, the Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel out there. And it was over the weekend we was talking. It's like, when he was on Bill Maher, it's like, oh, okay, he's running. Yep. But where's he going to get? Because he's not a moderate. Even Bill Maher hit him on the whole thing of, you said that no men shouldn't compete against women's sports, but you also then said, well, I'm gonna get in trouble for it. And I shouldn't be saying this. And he goes, why do you have to say that? Right.

Speaker 3:
[51:48] Bill Maher goes, why do you have to say that?

Speaker 2:
[51:50] Because he knows he won't be able to succeed if he runs as a Democrat, unless the Democrats know, look, I'm lying on this in order to get elected. Yeah, right. It's like the whole Spanberger thing. I really didn't believe any of this stuff. I lied. And the idiots voted for me.

Speaker 3:
[52:15] I wonder though, and I was thinking about this the other day, I wonder, can you get away with that anymore?

Speaker 2:
[52:24] Well, you and I talked about how long will it continue because of Spanberger, because the one thing we look at it for as the problems that Republicans have right now, you saw the poll, was it about 10 days ago, that said, and CNN, you know, Harry Endon was pounding on it, saying, for all the problems that Republicans have, the Republicans in Congress' favorability is better than the Democrats, and it's because on the issues, the people still look at it and go, whoa. And on prices even, even on prices, on the economy in that poll, the president was viewed as more favorable because people remember what Democrats, Democrats are not the option right now, Democrats are not the option right now for right now. They may be in November, but according to the poll, they weren't the option to replace Republicans.

Speaker 3:
[53:16] Well, and I think it is just, it's just this weird dynamic that's going on. And so much of it comes from the perversion that is part of the, it is the very basis of the radical left.

Speaker 2:
[53:33] Did you see Woody Harrelson was on? Bill Maher. I don't like either party. I'm an anarchist. I don't believe in any government.

Speaker 3:
[53:41] Okay, all right.

Speaker 2:
[53:42] Go smoke a doobie.

Speaker 3:
[53:43] Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2:
[53:44] And shoot some baskets.

Speaker 3:
[53:45] Yeah, exactly. Out there somewhere, there's a sack not being hackied.

Speaker 2:
[53:55] We are Red Eye Radio.

Speaker 6:
[53:57] This morning's USDA Farm Report is brought to you by Howes Products.

Speaker 2:
[54:01] Tested.

Speaker 6:
[54:02] Trusted.

Speaker 3:
[54:02] Guaranteed. Since 1920.

Speaker 6:
[54:05] The threat of evasive plant pest and diseases to our nation's ecosystems, whether a farm field or your backyard plant and vegetable gardens. It is why USDA annually generates public awareness through its Evasive Plant Pest and Disease Awareness Month.

Speaker 7:
[54:20] Evasive pests often arrive accidentally on plants, produce, woodpacking material or even outdoor gear, and people can unknowingly spread them by moving firewood or outdoor equipment, buying agricultural products from overseas, traveling with fruits and vegetables.

Speaker 6:
[54:35] David Grouchot of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service notes an online resource for people to learn more about evasive plant pest and diseases and how to prevent their spread. www.hugrypest, alloneword.com.

Speaker 7:
[54:49] It has photos and all sorts of information on different pests. You can even select the state that you're located in to help narrow it down to pests that may be of concern locally. And you can also check State Agriculture Department websites for more information.

Speaker 6:
[55:00] I'm Rod Bain reporting for the US. Department of Agriculture in Washington, DC.

Speaker 3:
[55:05] This report brought to you by Cinex Fuels and Loops.

Speaker 1:
[55:09] Wind open for your calls. 866-90REDI, on Red Eye Radio.

Speaker 2:
[55:28] We are Red Eye Radio, and he is Eric Harley, and I'm Gary McNamara. Good, the Labor Secretary is out.

Speaker 3:
[55:34] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[55:35] We weren't fans of her pick from the very, very beginning by Trump, and we said it way back when.

Speaker 3:
[55:40] Well, that and then the series of alleged behavior since she's been in that office is just, you know, again. But based on her ideology and things in her past, politically, we said from the beginning, this is a horrible pick, a horrible pick for the Labor Party. Horrible pick. So we'll see where it goes from here, but yeah, that was a complete miss. And I don't know, you know, again. Well it makes me think, well, just about anybody else would be better. Robert Reich. Bring him back. I'm just joking.

Speaker 2:
[56:28] No, it's like putting Robert Reich in charge of health care after his speech at Berkeley back in 2007.

Speaker 3:
[56:34] Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2:
[56:35] Just let old people die. That's the guy we should put in.

Speaker 3:
[56:39] Yeah, he's going to be the head of Health and Human Services. Let him be in charge. It really was a horrible mismatch for this administration, and I am happy that it's over.

Speaker 8:
[57:17] This episode is brought to you by Indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed Sponsored Jobs to find the right people with the right skills, fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate C. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs have four times more applicants than non-sponsored jobs. So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply.

Speaker 1:
[57:56] Catch Red Eye Radio live every night on the Red Eye Radio app, available in the App Store. Red Eye Radio.

Speaker 2:
[58:07] And I'm Gary McNamara, along with Eric Harley. Coming up, that Supreme Court decision that Jackson dissented on, and I'm reading this going, I don't see the controversy at all. We'll get to that in a minute and a half.

Speaker 1:
[58:26] All right.

Speaker 3:
[58:27] You know, I'm very selective about supplements that I take. I know most people are. I need that supplement to work. I need to know that I can trust it. And I'll tell you right now, that has been the experience in both cases there with Relief Factor. I've been taking it for a while. You've heard my friends on the radio that have been endorsing Relief Factor for over a decade. And this is a way for you to deal with your pain naturally. This is what I love about it. And it is so much different after Relief Factor. Before, the before and after, that's what I love telling you about it. Because projects, I was working a little bit yesterday in the yard. Again, I don't have to worry about the pain before, during or after, keeping me from doing it or suffering after doing any work around the house, any chores. And I love that. And again, it is 100%, 100% drug free. Four key ingredients, go to the work, go right to the source of the inflammation and help you with Relief Factor. You can get started, the three week quick start, just 1995, relieffactor.com or call 804-RELIEF. relieffactor.com or 804-RELIEF. Use Red Eye at the drop down for your three week quick start at 1995.

Speaker 2:
[59:53] So here's the Supreme Court case, all right?

Speaker 3:
[59:55] All right.

Speaker 2:
[59:56] Here we go. That was decided yesterday, 7-2, and Justice Jackson dissenting on it, but she had a lone dissent. You had a, I forgot, was it Kagan who also dissented or Sotomayor? But I don't know, they didn't mention her comment on it. But here's the case, all right? The case arose from a dispatch call to Washington DC police at 2 a.m. in 2023, reporting a suspicious vehicle. So somebody called and said, there's a suspicious vehicle, all right? When an officer arrived on the scene, two people ran from the car when they saw the police, while the remaining passenger slowly began backing out of the parking lot with the door still open. The DC Attorney General's office argued on behalf of the police that this totality of facts amounted to reasonable suspicion to stop a person who remained in the car, just stop them. When they stopped the car and said, hang on there, that within moments of stopping the car, they observed a smashed window and a punched out ignition. All right?

Speaker 3:
[61:17] All right.

Speaker 2:
[61:19] Do you see anything wrong with stopping that car?

Speaker 3:
[61:24] No.

Speaker 2:
[61:27] And she just was like, people are secure in their possessions, Fourth Amendment, but it was like, but when you look at the totality of that happening, you get a call, there's a suspicious car. Police go out. You approach the car, two people get out and run. By the way, they noticed that in the lower court ruling, they left out that the two people ran from the car.

Speaker 3:
[61:51] Right. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[61:55] They left that out, but they left and goes, no, you look at the totality, two people get out, the police approach the car, they get a call about a suspicious vehicle. They don't just pull it over randomly. They get the call. There's the car.

Speaker 3:
[62:11] Right.

Speaker 2:
[62:12] They approach the car. Two people see the cops. They run from the car, leave the door open. The person in the car starts backing out of the parking lot with the door still wide open. Well, is there justifiable reason to stop that car? Well, there would be just to say, your door's open. Right? Yeah. You're parking in the parking lot, you're pulling out, you know your door's open. But the two people running out, getting the call, two people running out, the door open as the person backs out, and then when you approach the car, you see the broken window, and when you look inside the car, the smashed ignition, the car was stolen.

Speaker 3:
[62:58] Well, it is this very liberal mindset that you can't make a stop basically for any reason. And the police shouldn't be able to pull you over. It just, that really, remember, this goes back, in fact, it's been going on for several years on and off with different cases. Well, why would you stop this car if it just, you know, was, remember the, how many municipalities wanted to move, maybe a couple of states, to you should write the license plate down and send them in the mail their citation. Don't pull them over.

Speaker 2:
[63:52] Right, even if there's a traffic violation, don't pull them over.

Speaker 3:
[63:54] Don't pull them over. Just say, we witnessed a traffic violation and we're sending you this notice or whatever.

Speaker 2:
[64:04] You have a headlight out. You send them that you just get the license plate.

Speaker 3:
[64:08] Remember that.

Speaker 2:
[64:08] You send them the notification.

Speaker 3:
[64:10] Well, that's what you have here, that there shouldn't be any justification for pulling a car over. And there was every justification. It's a very simple case.

Speaker 2:
[64:26] I was thinking, all right, what am I missing here in this case?

Speaker 3:
[64:30] Right.

Speaker 2:
[64:31] There has to be, does she have a point at all?

Speaker 3:
[64:35] Right.

Speaker 2:
[64:36] Like, police get a call. Just run it over one more time, because it's like, what am I missing? Police get a call. Suspicious car. They had to identify the suspicious car and give you the license plate. Otherwise, you wouldn't know what the car was.

Speaker 3:
[64:52] Right.

Speaker 2:
[64:53] Police get there. They approach the car. Two people get out and run. The car door is left open. The other person slowly is backing out of the parking lot. And police stop them. Right. With the door still wide open.

Speaker 3:
[65:07] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[65:09] Are you violating that person's Fourth Amendment by stopping to see what's going on? Because number one is a police officer, if someone's parked pulling out and the door is wide open, even if the people didn't run away, you'd probably go up and say, Hey, hey, hey, hey, look, your door is open.

Speaker 3:
[65:28] Well, because you look at the totality of the situation, you realize that while if you set apart or take apart any of the elements in this situation, it may seem mundane. But when you look at the totality of the event of what's going on there, it creates, and officers have the right, the ability, as they quoted in the decision, to rely on the totality of the circumstances. And that's what you look at. Okay, it's not just the one thing. It's not even just that it's a broken window. It's, we got a call, suspicious vehicle. When the vehicle stops, the two occupants of the vehicle get out and run. You look at the entire set of circumstances surrounding that event, that stop. And they were well within their ability to do so. Here's what she wrote.

Speaker 2:
[66:45] I am not sure why our court seems fit to intervene in this case, let alone do so summarily. If the intervention reflects a worry that the District of Columbia Court appeals misunderstands the Fourth Amendment's totality of the circumstances analysis, that worry seems unfounded. She argued the lower court properly considered the Fourth Amendment, which says people have a right to be secure in their persons' houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the case was not worthy of taking the unusual step of summary reversal. Sure was. Oh, absolutely was. Because if you set a federal precedent, if the lower court sets a federal precedent on, you know, on the totality of that particular incident, it's going to be hard to pull any car over.

Speaker 3:
[67:44] Right. Well, again, so you look at if you've ever seen, there are a couple of YouTube channels, there were some cable shows along the way. We've seen these reality shows where they either do a recreation or it's based on dash cam video of officers making stops, right? And they see something that looks out of source. They, again, in this decision, the court writes, they do have, officers have this broad ability to assess the situation as a whole, right? While it, you know, some of the items in that assessment, if you set them aside and separate them, may seem trivial in and of themselves, but combined, including suspicious behavior by the people behind the wheel, right? How often your primary force stop can be you're speeding, or you've got a signal out or something like that, right? One time I was pulled over in Colorado, it was late at night. I was with my nephew and my son. We were on a ski trip and it, and I was hanging out in the left lane, which, and the state trooper pulled me over, just, he just wrote me a warning. And I was on I-25 and he's, and he said, you were just hanging out in the left lane. He goes, you got to get over, you know, because there was nobody else on the highway. It was the middle of the night. And he says, you know, just need you to stay in the right hand lane. That's just, that's our state law. I said, okay, no problem. Right. But he had a primary for pulling me over, being in the left lane. Well, Justice Jackson probably would push back on that. Well, how dare you? Well, no, that's part of the law. And suspicious behavior. There can be a number of things. Man, the number of people that text while they're driving, distracted driving. If an officer notices someone looking down at what looks to be a device or even can see the device or whatever it is, even if they can't see the device, they do have the ability to have this broad judgment. They got a call, in this case, on a suspicious vehicle. But again, imagine the situation. And it's interesting as I've watched certain depictions of this. One was a recreated part of a documentary. But they realized after the stop that the two individuals were acting nervous, suspicious, just acting nervous. Now, Jackson would argue, well, when you get pulled over, you are nervous, all right? By the way, a fair point. But officers have a sense, if you have the experience and the training, that training goes into effect, that experience goes into effect, and can tell you, there's, I think there's something else going on. And you start questioning the subjects, and then when another officer is there, if they're already on site, you can separate if it's more than one person, those two, and start questioning them separately to see if their story's out up, if they are telling the same story. And in the one case, they were drug runners, and they were dressed in business suits, and they said they were coming from a, you know, a business meeting or something, and they looked otherwise legitimate. And I thought to myself while watching this, wow, that was great police work. They were able to confiscate a bunch of drugs in that vehicle. They were able to do so, and it started with a simple stop. And it is that broken windows theory, but this started with, again, a call about a suspicious vehicle. And then when the vehicle does stop, the two occupants flee, leave the doors open. This is a very clear cut case.

Speaker 2:
[72:04] Yeah, to me, there isn't even something I would question going.

Speaker 3:
[72:08] Nothing.

Speaker 2:
[72:09] But what about this?

Speaker 3:
[72:10] Right.

Speaker 2:
[72:10] That's why I was shocked by it. I'm like, well, what's the controversy here? Well, there isn't any.

Speaker 3:
[72:14] There isn't any.

Speaker 2:
[72:15] We are Red Eye Radio.

Speaker 1:
[72:17] We'll be right back with more Red Eye Radio with Eric Harley and Gary McNamara.

Speaker 2:
[72:43] We are Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Harley, and I'm Gary McNamara. Yeah, so I just found that analysis when I saw the story. I always love stories where I look and I go, okay, do they have any point on the left? And that SCOTUS ruling is where I went, all right, what point are they trying to make? Because I find it, the last thing we want to do, and we've said this many times before, is censor the left. Because of, for example, that yesterday, Senator, excuse me, Senator, Justice Jackson scolds the Supreme Court.

Speaker 3:
[73:20] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[73:20] Okay, what's her point? There isn't one.

Speaker 3:
[73:23] There isn't one. There isn't one.

Speaker 2:
[73:27] That was clearly a legitimate police stop that we just explained if you were listening.

Speaker 3:
[73:31] Right.

Speaker 2:
[73:32] In the last segment.

Speaker 3:
[73:33] Well, that's her activism right there. Again, part of that mindset that, no, we shouldn't pull those cars over, just send them a citation letter.

Speaker 1:
[73:42] Later. This is Red Eye Radio on Westwood One.

Speaker 4:
[74:02] Vince Colonese is redefining News Talk.

Speaker 8:
[74:05] I'm Vince Colonese, host of the Vince Podcast.

Speaker 6:
[74:08] I'm bringing you the truth beneath the headlines of all of the nation's top stories. In-depth interviews.

Speaker 2:
[74:13] We feature newsmaking interviews with the top guests on the whole planet.

Speaker 8:
[74:16] And I'll ask the questions you only dream of other interviewers asking. And a front row seat to the most important conversations of the day.

Speaker 2:
[74:23] It's a show with an obsessive focus on what's good for America.

Speaker 6:
[74:25] You are going to love Vince.

Speaker 4:
[74:28] The Vince Show.

Speaker 6:
[74:29] Follow and listen on your favorite platform.