transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:02] The 2026 Chevy Equinox is more than an SUV. It's your Sunday tailgate and your parking lot snack bar. Your lucky jersey, your chairs, and your big cooler fit perfectly in your even bigger cargo space. And when it's go time, your 11.3 inch diagonal touch screens got the playbook, the playlist, and the tech to stay a step ahead. It's more than an SUV, it's your Equinox. Chevrolet, together let's drive.

Speaker 2:
[00:37] 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 3:
[00:56] All across America, we are Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Harley and I'm Gary McNamara. Good morning. All right. You and I were just discussing during the top of the hour and right before the scuttlebutt that the administration wishes to bail out Spirit Airlines. And we have said absolutely not.

Speaker 4:
[01:18] No.

Speaker 3:
[01:19] What's being thrown out there is $500 million for up to 90% government equity in Spirit Airlines.

Speaker 4:
[01:27] No.

Speaker 3:
[01:27] No, no. And hell no.

Speaker 4:
[01:31] No. I don't want the taxpayer investing in what appears to be a losing business model.

Speaker 3:
[01:43] We don't want the taxpayer investing in airlines or grocery stores.

Speaker 4:
[01:47] Well, it's exactly. It's because you'll think about that, and then the Democrats get in to power, and they come in and go, Well, Mr. Trump agreed. MAGA agreed. The government should own certain businesses. Right.

Speaker 3:
[02:04] We should have equity in businesses. No.

Speaker 4:
[02:06] No.

Speaker 3:
[02:06] No. And hell no. By the way, have you noticed that when the president's done any of the other equity deals, you don't see any support in the Republican Party for that?

Speaker 4:
[02:18] No, you don't.

Speaker 3:
[02:19] Now, in this one, because the loan would have to be approved by Congress unless he would use the Defense Production Act. Some have speculated that he might use that, the Defense Production Act, to claim that the airline is critical to national defense. However, as has been noted, Spirit accounts for less than 2% of domestic travel capacity and is not essential for military readiness in the United States. So if he did that, the courts would challenge that. Why he wishes to do this? What spark in his head to say, yeah, I think this would be a good idea? I have no idea.

Speaker 4:
[02:57] I don't know. I don't know.

Speaker 3:
[02:59] It's beyond me, but I do not see Congress passing this. No, no, I don't see that happening. One of the things that is hurting the Republican Party, and part of it is Trump doing right things, which is the war, which I think is the correct thing to do if we finish the job, or it's an airtight agreement that we get, and there's still a long way to go there, is what we see right here with the, well, let's bail out Spirit Airlines. You have so many of the populists, not us. We didn't vote for Trump because we believed he would give us something.

Speaker 4:
[03:49] No.

Speaker 3:
[03:51] No. You know, we weren't saying that, you know, we need to stop all foreign, you know, all foreign aid and give it to us. We understand the concept of foreign aid and how little that is of the actual budget there. There are a lot of other reasons that we voted for Trump, but it was not that we were looking for a handout from our side.

Speaker 4:
[04:15] No.

Speaker 3:
[04:16] But one of the things that Trump was elected in is people have said, Trump cares about United States citizens. He cares about us, you know, before anything. Well, you start bailing out failed airlines. Democrats are going to pound on you. He is giving, you know, half a billion dollars of a loan that the taxpayer would be receiving. Because if they go belly up, the taxpayer owns that. Exactly. And the Democrats would eviscerate, will eviscerate him and the Republicans of the Republic. I don't think you're going to find a Republican that would agree with this, unless it's the Congressperson in the Spirit Airlines Hub.

Speaker 2:
[05:03] Well, maybe.

Speaker 3:
[05:04] You know, but besides that, I just don't, you're not going to get a Republican on board. I have no idea why this intrigues him so much. Why this is even talked about or even mentioned, or even the possibility of it. But if they're negotiating to do something on this, what the hell is wrong with you?

Speaker 4:
[05:29] Yeah, it's, I, again, I don't see this happening because I don't see this getting through Congress. But this idea, floating this idea of the government owning business. And it's not the first time we've heard it. Tell me how that's a good move. You know, it's, it's honestly, it's right. Look, we've talked about how liberals would love to take over the means of production. They would love to take over companies. Now if Trump does it, of course, they're going to scream bloody murder about it. But then they're going to down the road. If he were to get this done, they'd look at it and go, oh, well, he wanted to take over companies. I think it's okay. It shouldn't be okay.

Speaker 3:
[06:23] Why can't we do it?

Speaker 4:
[06:24] Why can't we do it? And the fact is, is that there is a solution here. And I don't know what that is. I will say- It is, it is either spirit goes away or there's an acquisition, or there's a merger. It's a very tough business to be in. The airlines business is extremely difficult. Building it on this discount level, the way Spirit did, was always in question. People wondered, well, can you actually make it fly? So to speak. Are you going to actually be able to keep this thing afloat with discount prices? And the fact is, you've got to be competitive, but there are costs that you have to cover, and you can't maintain a profit without that. They have to be in business to make a profit. And if they can't make that profit, then they go out of business.

Speaker 5:
[07:36] This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home. With agents who close twice as many deals, when you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get started at redfin.com. Own the dream.

Speaker 6:
[08:05] Half Man, the new HBO original limited series from baby reindeer creator Richard Gad, examines the tumultuous relationship between two estranged brothers, tracking the highs and lows of the pair over the course of 40 years. Starring Emmy Award winner Richard Gad and BAFTA Award winner Jamie Bell, Half Man is now streaming on HBO Max.

Speaker 3:
[08:34] You know, where I looked at social media yesterday and just everywhere, I didn't see one Republican come out in favor of this, not one. No, I didn't see one. Every single Republican has condemned this. And of course, Democrats aren't going to be for it. You're bailing out the fat cat, not taking care of the people you claim to care about, is what they're going to do if you decided to do this. That would be the political narrative from the Democrats. But the fact that he didn't read the tea leaves on what Republicans think about this universal condemnation and let it go anywhere to this particular point, and if they were all rumors, should have said immediately, no, absolutely not. But he started it. He got it going. And it was like, what are you doing?

Speaker 4:
[09:22] Doesn't make any sense at all. Doesn't make any sense at all.

Speaker 3:
[09:28] But that's where you knew it. Where you went to social media, every single Republican that commented on it in Congress. So I just was reading Ted Cruz. Absolutely not. You're not going to get this by Republicans and Democrats aren't going to do it. And if you try to use it as, you know, and use the, what is it? The Defense Act, whatever it is, what it's called and say Spirit, we need to do this because Spirit Airlines is, is critical for military readiness. You're going to lose that lawsuit.

Speaker 4:
[09:57] Yeah, you will. And it's not a, again, there's no, there's no way to convince any true conservative that this is a good move.

Speaker 3:
[10:11] There is, Or populist.

Speaker 4:
[10:14] I don't know where you justify it. Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[10:17] Even you can't, you can't convince the populist inside the Republican Party that this is a good idea.

Speaker 4:
[10:22] Well, because it's not like a private sector move where you go in and say, okay, I could buy a dog of a company that I believe I can turn around. Because at that point there are considerations for, and there's a reason why a lot of times it doesn't happen in the private sector is because you're dealing with your own money or money that you have to leverage, which means you have to convince banks, investors, in order to get that. You have to justify that at every point, either with yourself or the investors and banks along the way or all the above. With a government, you're spending other people's money. And I don't know what spurs these ideas from President Trump, the fact that he's an investor himself, but it is not anything like the private sector investment considerations. You have to convince, again, banks, if you're going to leverage, or you have to go through great thought to determine and go through the books of the company you're going to buy to determine whether there's anything salvageable and where the critical mistake was. And if you talk about, well, their mistake was being discounted on their pricing. Okay, so now you're going to raise prices and make them less competitive. Now, how does Spirit stand out? There's a reason why it hasn't happened in the private sector to date. But if it's going to happen, let the private sector handle this or let them go away. Again, don't want to, I hate to see people lose their job. But it happens when companies aren't run in a good way. And don't have a sound business model. It just, and also headwinds. You look at the cost of fuel right now, because you've got to raise the cost of those seats when that fuel goes up. There's no way around that.

Speaker 3:
[12:32] Yeah, you saw United.

Speaker 4:
[12:33] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[12:34] Like 25%.

Speaker 4:
[12:35] Yeah, it has to happen.

Speaker 3:
[12:36] Could be up to 25%.

Speaker 4:
[12:38] Yep, it has to happen. Well, that hurts a discount. Any discount retailer, or in this case, a discount airline company, that hurts them, because again, their prices are going up.

Speaker 3:
[12:49] Well, and the other fear is too, once you own the airline, and if it is going to go, it's gonna go bankrupt and it's not your money, and you say, wait a minute, we can't let it go bankrupt. We've invested half a billion dollars in it. We need to throw in more capital to keep it going. You've got good money chasing bad money.

Speaker 4:
[13:09] You think of the GM bridge loans that turned into government equity in GM. GM's a much larger global company, but even still, it wasn't the right move. And we know this because the private sector had buyers at the table. The moment the government, then President Obama, started talking about basically turning this into ownership of GM, the private sector backed away from the table knowing we're going to get kicked to the curb. Because if we come in and make our move and put our money down, the government comes in and kicks us to the curb first. So it's a losing proposition. But there were buyers at the table, and maybe it wouldn't have been the same GM. Maybe parts of GM went to different ways. But it still would have been because they were such a major player, are still today a major player. That would have actually put them in a better situation, I believe, when you talk about profitability. What are we seeing right now with regulations? The EV thing where the OEMs have turned around and said, we can't do this. The closer they got to certain deadlines and marks on mandates, they said, we can't do this. Well, it's a flawed business model that faces headwinds, in the case of Spirit Airlines with fuel and everything else that they couldn't withstand because the margins were so slim. So when you go up on ticket prices, you become a lot less competitive by comparison to other companies out there, and people start making other choices because the other airlines have greater access to different markets. You just, it was just always going to be this way if there was going to be a spike in costs along the way. And you can't change that. And putting taxpayer money into it, all of these reasons, everything we've laid out here are the reasons why we shouldn't put the taxpayer on the table for this. I don't want our money going down the drain. No, and government ownership of business is not something I support ever. We are Red Eye Radio, brought to you by FPPF Fuel Power Max.

Speaker 7:
[15:41] Idling a diesel uses about a gallon of fuel per hour, which can cost you about $180 per week at 450 per gallon if your truck idles eight hours a day. Idling easily can cost you a few thousand more in fuel alone per year, not including the added engine maintenance expense results from excessive idling. In addition to operating costs, many governments impose no idling laws and regulations with fines as high as $25,000. Instead, there are many alternatives, an extra blanket for cold temperatures, window screens for when the weather is warm, bunk heaters and various auxiliary power unit options abound in this day and age too, many powered just by batteries. Owner-Operator Business 101 is provided by Overdrive's Partners in Business program. Go to overdriveonline.com to the Partners in Business section of the website for more details on this and many other topics.

Speaker 8:
[16:29] Brought to you by Shell Rotella. With advanced synthetic technology is designed to help keep your rig running with more mileage and less maintenance.

Speaker 2:
[16:37] We'll be right back with more Red Eye Radio with Eric Harley and Gary McNamara.

Speaker 3:
[16:55] We are Red Eye Radio, he is Eric Harley, and I'm Gary McNamara. Coming up on the bottom of the hour, more on the Southern Poverty Law Center Grand Jury Indictment. But first, we wanted to get to this. This is from the California gubernatorial debate yesterday. All right? And this is something a lot of our audience can relate to. The question is, should language proficiency for truck drivers be strictly enforced? And what was noticed by many people is, none of the Democrats could answer the question directly. Right. But here's billionaire being supported by Bernie Sanders and his anti-billionaire pack, billionaire Tom Steyer, on it.

Speaker 9:
[17:37] Mr. Steyer, where do you draw the line on this? Should language proficiency for truckers be strictly enforced, even if it means that some of them will probably lose their jobs? You have 60 seconds.

Speaker 10:
[17:49] I agree with what was said, which is we don't know the context of this stop. But what I can say is this, racial profiling is illegal.

Speaker 3:
[17:58] Anybody talking about racial profiling? No. No. Not even a part of the discussion. No. And this was brought up, this was Megan Hayes and Keira Davis on News Nation talking about it yesterday. Here we go.

Speaker 11:
[18:09] Megan, we've had Delilah and her family on our show repeatedly. Marcus is a truck driver himself. He understands this issue. Why can't Democrats just get on board with making sure that people driving very dangerous vehicles and getting CDLs have proficiency in English?

Speaker 12:
[18:27] It was a little bit surprising that no one had an answer or just couldn't answer their question straightforwardly. I think Mayor Mayhem was the only person who said that the DMV is in charge of regulating this and they should be able to decipher who gets a license and who doesn't get a license. So it was really shocking that they could not figure out a better answer for this, maybe yes, you should have to read a road sign and be able to drive safely or driving a semi-truck. But this is, I think, sometimes where Democrats get themselves into trouble, they miss common sense and I think that that was definitely missed and just lack of answer. If you don't agree, just say you don't agree.

Speaker 3:
[19:01] I mean, it's fascinating and we have said it, whether it's the, I mentioned the ACLU ad before. The fact is, Democrats cannot actually tell you when they'll say it, then when they're campaigning, they just won't answer the question directly.

Speaker 12:
[19:21] Right.

Speaker 4:
[19:22] No, they won't. It's because if they do that, we mentioned the willfully ignorant. If you say it out loud first as a part of your campaign, then people have a chance to measure it. But once you've got the willfully ignorant on board, they're fully invested and they won't change their mind. That's what you're hoping. And that's their game, is to get the willfully ignorant on board. And if you go out and just say something and it's fact-based as a part of your campaign and explain it, you're gonna lose a lot of people in that initial onboarding. And that's just the game. They know it. So you keep the willfully ignorant, ignorant, and then when they're confronted with the truth, they've already invested so heavily in it, they're not going to change their minds now.

Speaker 3:
[20:11] Well, look, off the top of my head, I'm a Democrat, okay? I'm really not. I'm pretending. And here we go. Safety on the road are imperative. We need to make sure that all of our drivers have the knowledge, the training, and the understanding of all road signs. So yeah, it is reasonable. It's definitely reasonable that people who drive and have a CDL and drive a truck should be able to understand the language and should be able to read and understand what the signs mean.

Speaker 4:
[20:53] Right.

Speaker 3:
[20:53] End of story. Where's the controversy?

Speaker 4:
[20:55] There is none.

Speaker 3:
[20:56] There isn't the Democratic Party.

Speaker 4:
[20:58] Of course, because they make it up where it doesn't exist.

Speaker 2:
[21:26] The show that never stops Red Eye Radio.

Speaker 3:
[21:36] And we are Red Eye Radio, he is Eric Harley, and I'm Gary McNamara. All right, the best headline that I saw yesterday was Dan McGlocklin National Review, Southern Poverty Law Center indicted for gain of function research into racism.

Speaker 4:
[21:54] That's perfect.

Speaker 3:
[21:57] Now, the one thing that we have learned and this is, you know, yesterday when you were out and I was talking about it, I woke up to the story and I was looking at the indictment and trying to get a handle on it throughout the entire show. You know, what does this mean? And asking, as we always do, asking so many, you know, asking questions when something first comes up. Because my first question was, and I looked at, for example, the grand jury indictment and said, all right, I see the indictment. What is the actual crime? I know they seem to be implying what the intent was, what the motivation was, that the motivation was that, hey, racism is really not a problem. We got to make it a problem. If we're going to raise money and continue as an organization, racism always has to be horrible. It always has to be happening. And so they took that money. And if you look at it, and I thought about this during the day yesterday, which I didn't think as much yesterday when I was analyzing everything and it was all new and going through my head, is that they were paying leaders. And in some cases, the heads of these groups. It's not that they got an informant to go in there and as a low level person and move their way up and pay them to do it, like law enforcement would do. And so I was looking at the legal case and saying, but the legal case is, you know, you always need to know what the motive is. But when it comes down to it, I ask the question, does it matter what the motive was? Because once you made up, once you made up the groups that were fake, the incorporated groups that were fake.

Speaker 4:
[23:50] Yeah, the shell companies.

Speaker 3:
[23:51] Right, to move the money through, you were attempting to hide the money for some reason.

Speaker 4:
[23:57] Right.

Speaker 3:
[23:58] And that's where the money laundering would come in.

Speaker 4:
[24:00] That's your intent. That builds your intent right there, in a case.

Speaker 3:
[24:05] And the point would be, what was your intent? Now, here's my question. This has not been answered. Did the leaders who got the money from those groups, did they have any idea that it was coming from the Southern Poverty Law Center? Did they know? Because if they weren't, this is to me where the Department of Justice probably has a great point. If they knew it was coming from the Southern Poverty Law Center to send the information back, so they knew what was going on in these particular groups. Well then, for example, the leader, as was pointed out in National Review, one of the leaders of the Charlottesville thing wouldn't have remained on the payroll for six years after. And so, why were you paying the leaders and did the leaders know that the money was coming from these groups? And so they had, because they saw the checks were cut by these groups, they did not say Southern Poverty Law Center, so they were just being funded. Or, do you fund the leader? Or pick out a leader, because that's the incentive for the leader to keep recruiting, to keep stirring up the racist pot, to do all of this, because you're funding the leader. Why are you funding the leader? To do what? Or the leaders of these organizations? So, one of the things that was brought up is the possible civil lawsuits from if a donor decides to do it. Because you say, what is, and the fraud is the fact that, well, you thought you were giving it, you thought you were giving it to an organization that was fighting racism, and they're giving it to the racist and the racist leaders of these groups. Why were they doing it? And their argument was they were doing it in order to gather information, which then they told the police. But the Department of Justice said, not that they've never communicated with the police. We can't find anywhere where they communicated with the police in these, all these instances here. And we know, for example, you know, the fake hate crimes that exist out there. Yeah. We've said it for the longest time. If you want to find, they've got to find it. As we notice, they expanded what hate was. Hate used to be neo-Nazis, you know, that were anti-black, anti-Catholic, you know, and I mean, they were specific in the things that they were, absolute racist without question. Then as that started dying down in America, and it has died down in America, we're not the same country we were 100 years ago, or even 80 years ago. It's completely and totally changed, except for the Democratic Party that has institutionalized racism through identity politics. But other than that, the average person isn't as racist. You can't convince people, you know, except if they're extreme narcissist, that they are, you know, genetically superior to somebody else. The narcissist would say, well, no, I'm just superior myself, I don't need, you know, I'm not gonna say other people that share my same genetics, or close to my same genetics are superior. I'm a narcissist, I'm superior to everybody.

Speaker 10:
[27:53] Right.

Speaker 3:
[27:55] So, so when you, so when you look at it, you saw that, that if you were an anti-abortion group, you became a hate group. If you believe that it was wrong to mutilate children, and you believe that there's a mental health problem with the transgender movement, you were considered part of the extremist hate right.

Speaker 10:
[28:27] Yep.

Speaker 3:
[28:30] So all these things, if you were saying illegal immigration is wrong, you were being called xenophobic and a hate mongerer.

Speaker 10:
[28:39] Right.

Speaker 3:
[28:40] They expanded the definition of what hate was to people that politically disagree with us on things that have nothing to do with hate or racism or sexism or whatever. And they actually became in their promotion of the Democratic Party, enablers of the identity politics of judging people by groups and not as individuals. They became what they claim they hated. And so they had to keep expanding and attempting to rile up the racist out there to make it appear as if it's a huge problem.

Speaker 4:
[29:21] Yeah, right.

Speaker 3:
[29:24] No, that's the allegation, it seems to be from the Department of Justice.

Speaker 4:
[29:27] Right. And again, the funneling of the money, you can build intent right there fairly easily. This idea that, oh, we're just setting it up so that we could share information with the police, can't even demonstrate one contact, any meetings with the police as to what that would look like, as to what that would be. Because if the police had gone to them or they had gone to the police saying, hey, we think these people that we've met might be into some wrongdoing, or the police came to them and said, hey, some people connected with you or that you know, might be doing some criminal wrongdoing, we'd like to set something up, that would be different.

Speaker 3:
[30:23] Other dubious recipients, the National Review with Leadership Positions and Extremist Groups allegedly included a former Imperial Wizard to the United Clans of America, a person who led the National Socialist Party of America and was a former director of a faction of the Aryan Nations, a former chairman of the National Alliance, the reported president of the American Front, who was a convicted felon for his participation in a cross burning and a clan member who was the spouse of the exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan, a marriage between two clan members. Hey, love is love, right? That's from National Review. In other words, it wasn't just a matter of paying the small fish in these groups to rat out the big ones.

Speaker 4:
[31:09] If you were gonna be married, I think it would have to, wouldn't it have to be to another clan member or somebody who they has to, even if they're not an official member, share those horrid beliefs? Can you imagine not sharing the beliefs in your spouse and yet they're going to clan rallies?

Speaker 3:
[31:35] Yeah, wow.

Speaker 4:
[31:37] My gosh.

Speaker 3:
[31:40] You know, and when you look at it too, when you see, for example, that they came out and said, well, we did it, but we wouldn't do it again, but we did it because it was a totally moral thing, they go, then why would you stop it?

Speaker 4:
[31:52] Right. If you wouldn't do it again.

Speaker 3:
[31:53] If you wouldn't do it again, why are you saying you're glad you did it?

Speaker 4:
[31:56] Right.

Speaker 3:
[31:57] If you wouldn't do it again.

Speaker 4:
[31:58] You should be saying, we did it, and it was the right thing to do, and here's why. Right. We wouldn't do it again. It's the kind of thing you hear when people get caught.

Speaker 3:
[32:13] Now, the Babylon Bee, can't play it because it's just so bad, but I mean, it's so bad because it's so great.

Speaker 4:
[32:19] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[32:19] The whole thing, basically, Southern Poverty Law Center with that music, the soft music in the background.

Speaker 4:
[32:27] It's like the Sarah McLachlan ads.

Speaker 3:
[32:29] Yes.

Speaker 4:
[32:29] You know, and they've got sad music in the background.

Speaker 3:
[32:33] Well, it mirrors also the ACLU ads and the Southern Poverty Law Center has the ads too.

Speaker 4:
[32:37] Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3:
[32:38] They've got the ads.

Speaker 4:
[32:38] Right.

Speaker 3:
[32:39] These long form ads that are running during the day, I've seen them.

Speaker 4:
[32:41] Yeah. And so they're trying to make an emotional argument that racists need your money, your donation every month goes to help racists.

Speaker 10:
[32:52] Right.

Speaker 4:
[32:53] Because racists are marginalized, too. Again, it's a parody.

Speaker 10:
[32:56] Right.

Speaker 3:
[32:57] That they don't...

Speaker 4:
[32:57] Coming from the Babylonian.

Speaker 3:
[32:58] Yeah, I've heard that the racists are a marginalized group. They're a marginalized...

Speaker 4:
[33:01] They also are marginalized.

Speaker 3:
[33:04] And there is no money in racism, so we need your $19 donation. Right.

Speaker 4:
[33:08] The one guy that they use as an example, Randy, a local racist.

Speaker 2:
[33:14] Yes, I have to agree.

Speaker 13:
[33:15] What? A local racist?

Speaker 4:
[33:17] And then he speaks and, you know, again...

Speaker 3:
[33:19] And he's slumped over. Yeah. You know, he's like slumped over a little bit because there's no money in racism. I can't...

Speaker 4:
[33:25] He says, I can't get my KKK robe dry cleaned. Can't afford to get it dry cleaned. So they need your help. The Babylon Bee did a great job on that. Just pointing out the absurdity of this whole thing. Again, it's a parody. And it... But it tells the story, as it often does through the comedic genius there at the Babylon Bee, telling the actual story. Unlike the activist media, the liberal activists in newsrooms across America, this honestly is not surprising. If you think about all the money that's been poured into organizing everything that's been going on, you think about how bad it has been, what we have dealt with, the issues that we have dealt with. Right now, the liberal activists are fighting for the rights for children to mutilate their own bodies.

Speaker 3:
[34:41] And if you're against that, you're a hate monger.

Speaker 4:
[34:44] You're a hate monger, and if you're the parent of that child against it, you're abusive. Yeah. So this is no surprise in the line, in the long line of things we have learned in recent years of how extreme the radicals are. And I don't think we're anywhere close to being over on this.

Speaker 3:
[35:08] Neither do I. We are Red Eye Radio.

Speaker 2:
[35:11] Get in touch with Red Eye Radio, toll free at 866-90REDI.

Speaker 3:
[35:30] We are Red Eye Radio, he's Eric Harley, and I'm Gary McNamara. Oh, okay, but my favorite Babylon Bee headline of the week, Democrats propose 100% flat tax. Isn't that the best? Before we get out of here, because I know you're not going to be in for tomorrow's show because the funeral for your brother is Saturday, just let your family know that everybody here, the entire staff, they're in our thoughts. I lost my older sister years ago, and it was very, very tough on my parents. It's just not, you know, and anybody who's lost a child understands that. I know some people that have lost a child, and it's just so devastating. But we grieve with you.

Speaker 4:
[36:16] Thank you.

Speaker 3:
[36:17] And we're saying prayers for your family and everything else. And just know that you've got a heck of a lot of support.

Speaker 4:
[36:24] Well, thank you very much. I greatly appreciate that. I always lean on my faith. I do that in good times and bad times. This is no different. And I also, you know, thank the audience who's already started reaching out to me, and thank you for that. We great, I greatly appreciate that. It means the world to us. The fact that you choose to be here for our little program every night and or download the podcast means a great deal to us. We don't take that for granted. And for anybody listening, that may be going through any grief based on a loss or anything else. Our love, our thoughts, our prayers are with you too. So thank you.

Speaker 2:
[37:28] This is Red Eye Radio on Westwood One.

Speaker 13:
[37:34] Hi, I'm Joe Salci, I hosted the Stacking Benjamin's Podcast.

Speaker 14:
[37:37] Most economists agree, small amount of inflation is actually good. 2% is what you're going for. But why is everybody freaking out?

Speaker 13:
[37:44] Oh, because it's the fallout. People don't track their budget. You have this slow slipping that happens every month, till all of a sudden you go, man, I don't have any money. The reason is now two people go to a restaurant, the bill is 60 bucks for two.

Speaker 8:
[37:56] Two guys walk into a restaurant.

Speaker 13:
[37:58] They start screaming, isn't that hilarious?

Speaker 3:
[37:59] 60 dollars.

Speaker 13:
[38:00] Stacking Benjamins, follow and listen on your favorite platform.