Newsom's Free Diaper Ripoff

In 2025, Americans lost more than $21 billion to fraud and identity theft. That's why so many people are turning to Aura. Aura helps protect your identity with fraud alerts, dark web monitoring, and up to $5 million in identity theft protection. And if you become a victim, Aura's 24-7 U.S.-based support team is there to help. Don't wait until your identity is stolen. Start your free trial today at Aura.com slash safe. That's Aura.com slash safe. News, politics, entertainment. This is O'Connor and Company. Good Monday morning to you from your nation's capital, Washington. It's the District of Columbia. It's O'Connor and Company. Live here from our flagship station, WMAL, the Mighty One. Democrats have explained exactly how they're going to resolve that Supreme Court decision from the Virginia Supreme Court. We'll just do away with the Supreme Court. Get rid of all of them. Just fire them all. They... They sort of hinted at what their scheme is to the New York Times. So we'll break it down for you. We'll give you a preview of it. And Hans von Spikoski, our legal analyst, is going to be joining us in about 30 minutes. We'll discuss that. Also, Ken Kuchinelli, former Attorney General of Virginia, who called the shot here. He told you this was going to happen, and that referendum would get struck down as it did. midday Friday. And we're also going to speak a little later in the show with Jason Yaris, the former Attorney General of Virginia, who warned them all, who said, hey, guys, you might not want to go ahead with this because it's unconstitutionally. He told them as they were meeting unconstitutionally when he was still Attorney General back in October before the election. So we'll get into all of it, unpack it for you. Also, we told you the UFO files got released on Friday, and there's actually some interesting stuff in there. Later on in our third hour, we'll speak with Tom Jay Jones, former astronaut, especially about how these apparent UFOs interfered with or at least interacted with some of the Apollo missions back in the 70s. And corruption in California as the governor wants to give everybody free diapers. Not only are those free diapers way more expensive than regular diapers, but also a lot of the money seems to be connected to the governor's family. We'll give you details about that. In fact, in just a few moments. But first, I'd be remiss if I didn't wish everybody a happy Mother's Day. You know, the motto here on this program is every day is Mother's Day. We have a lot of mothers in our life. We've got the physical birth mother of my children. I've also got my wife Meredith, who is their stepmother and has been raising them my children and helping raise them since a very early age. So my kids benefit from having really two moms. Not in the, you know, woke, liberal, let's give the kindergartner kids when they're five-year-old a book about Heather has two moms without a man in the, no, there's a dad involved here. Don't get me wrong. Also, of course, my mom, my stepmom, my mother-in-law, there's a lot of moms out there that we love. And as a Gen Xer.

who was formed in the 80s, along with the great executive producer on this program, Heather Hunter, who is also right there with me in Gen X. You know, this is our generation's time. We are having a moment, Gen X. So as we wish everyone a great Mother's Day and remind everyone that every day is Mother's Day, it doesn't end yesterday, let's remember what that great philosopher of the 80s, that cultural icon. At the time, someone who I've modeled my entire life after, really, had to say about moms. Of course you know who I'm talking about. Mr. T. Take it away. Mr. T. Treat her right. Treat your mother right. Treat her right. Mother, there is no other like mother to treat her right. Mother, I always love her. My mother. So treat her right, treat her right. It's for the moan and the miserable groan from the pain that she fell when I was born. Always for the oven with this burn and heat where she stood making sure I was something to eat. Teas for the time that she stayed up in night and took my temperature when I wasn't building. It's just for the hard-earned money she spent to keep holes on my back and try to pay the rent. He is every wrinkle I put on a face and they'd be worried that I called and I stayed out. I know Run DMC gets a lot of credit and says grandmatcher flesh in Africa bombasta, but I think Mr. T was actually the great-great-grandfather of modern-day rap. He rhymed mother with other. What more do you want? God bless you, Mom. All you, Bob's. Mr. C is a really good guy, by the way. By the way, that video. If you didn't know, comes from a 1984 VHS that Mr. Mr. T was at the height of his fame, height of his popularity. You had the A team going on. You had Rocky 3 going on. I know everyone loves Rocky 5. Rocky 3 was the best. Everything happening for this guy. So he releases a VHS called Be Somebody or Be Somebody's Fool. And that's just one of the... Hot cuts off of that VHS tape called Treat Your Mother Right. I don't think those backup singers were actually singing, by the way. I think, I don't know if that was. Well, they didn't have AI back then, did they? You need to see this fantastic video. He was wearing his gym shots all the, excuse me, his gym shorts, extremely tight, by the way, a little too tight. And the gym sat, but most of us did at the time.

Scott Bayo was very influential. And he pulled his socks, his gym socks, all the way up to the knees in a very authoritative manner. Thank you, Mr. T. And happy Mother's Day to everybody. All right, let's get straight to the news then. As I mentioned, Gavin Newsom yesterday, the governor of California, who wants to be president of the United States, has a brand new initiative. Because somehow, up until now, American and specifically California moms have not. figured out a way to keep their children in diapers. You see, you need an authoritarian Democrat to steal money from you via taxation and then redistribute it in such a way so you can finally get diapers on your kids. Either you're a negligent parent or in some way you're incapable of understanding how to keep your child. sanitary and clean. Diapers have been a mystery to you, or they've been a luxury that you just couldn't afford or something. So here's the governor announcing his brand new initiative on Friday. Mr. Mayor, to everybody that's assembled here today, it's an honor to be here. And by the way, honored it here, the secretary, she reminded, I don't know why, but as she's going on bragging about California, which I appreciated, and highlighting some of the things we've been doing on affordability, I was reminded what Pericles said to the Athenians, we do not imitate for we are a model to others. And it's a point of pride. It's a point of pride being here back in San Francisco and was our mindset. When I had the privilege of representing the city, I know it's Mayor Lurie's mindset, that we have a unique responsibility and obligation to lead. Not just identify problems, begin to solve problems. And the biggest problem defined universally in our city, our state, and our nation is the issue of affordability. This is what affordability. Affordability, affordability. Things just aren't affordable here in California. Affordable. But they've had one-party rule. for decades. And don't tell me Arnold Schwarzenegger counts because he really doesn't. Yes, he ran as a Republican, but he didn't govern as a Republican. They've had one party rule for three decades across the board. When was the last time a Republican was in charge of the House or the Senate there? It's a stacked deck. But now they're suddenly discovering, geez, things are too expensive around here. Well, who's been in charge, pal? So we're going to fix affordability by taking money, redistributing it and giving it to a nonprofit organization who will then allow mothers in California to get 400 free diapers. By the way, he kept saying mothers, mothers, mothers. And thank you. I didn't realize it was such a thing as a mother because this is the gang who wants to call them birthing persons. $20 million so that you can get 400 diapers. And if you're trying to do the math right now. Let me just cut to the chase. It makes no sense. It makes no economic sense. And by the way, it's a lot of things, this idea. But one thing it ain't is affordable. Steve Hilton is running for governor right now in California. He's the leading candidate and he's a Republican. And he's very good at utilizing and harnessing social media platforms to get his message out because Lord knows.

All of the woke leftist Democrats who run the media don't want him to get his message out. So here he is going straight to you explaining exactly what a expensive boondoggle this ridiculous idea is. Go ahead. Take it away, Steve Hilton. All right, so Gavin Newsom is taking $20 billion of your money to send 100,000 babies 400 diapers. That works out at 50 cents per diaper. We just came into Target to check out what you could buy it for in the store. Here you go. Just check this one out here. 162. $262.26 that works out at 16 cents per diaper. Gavin Newsom's diapers are three times more expensive. This isn't even Costco. Why is it three times more expensive for Gavin Euston to send diapers to 100,000 babies? And just leaving the money in the bank accounts of the parents in the first place because... going to some total nonprofit, which cronies of his are going to make money, and that is what is wrong with California, instead of just cutting taxes so you can afford diapers and sending it out in this ridiculous bureaucratic scheme. bureaucratic steam and it is ridiculous. That's right. So you go to Costco and it's what, 18 cents, 17 cents a diaper, he just said. But if you buy them through Gavin Newsom, I'm sorry, if you get them from Gavin Newsom for free, it's 50 cents a diaper. So where's it going? Well, of course, it's going to the middleman. And maybe you saw it's baby to baby. That's a non-government organization. A charity, we're told, that it will be the middleman on these diapers. Kelly Sawyer is the woman who runs baby to baby. It's an L.A. charity. And it's amazing after Gavin Newsom announced he's giving $20 million to baby to baby, people started looking up and saying, hey, what's baby to baby? How does that work? Well, Kelly Sawyer is the wife of Hollywood producer Jamie Patrickoff. Jamie Patrickoff is one of the top donors and campaign bundlers for the Democrats in California. He's the son of a venture capitalist, and he was one of the biggest bundlers for the Clintons. This is basically a payoff for Democrat fundraisers. Jen Van Laar. of redstate.com who's covering this story and more corruption in California. She'll join us in our second hour. Keep it here. There's more to come on O'Connor and Company. For nearly 3,000 years, Homer's The Odyssey, has shaped Western imagination. It tells the story of Odysseus as he faces monsters, shipwrecks, false comforts, and impossible choices on his long journey home. As one of the foundational works of Western literature, Homer's epic is more than a mythology, it explores permanent questions about courage, duty, loyalty, family, leadership, temptation, and the search for home. In one of the epic's defining moments, Odysseus rejects the offer of immortality from the goddess Calypso, choosing instead the long and difficult journey home.

His decision reveals one of the central themes of the Odyssey that a life of duty, family, and home is greater than a life devoted to comfort or glory. Achilles chose glory. Odysseus chose home. That's why Hillsdale College has released its newest free online course, The Odyssey. Top by Professor Benedict Waylon, the course reveals why Homer's masterpiece remains one of the greatest works of Western literature. Find this free course at Charlie for Hillsdale. That's charliefor Hillsdale.com. Read the classics, study the West, the Odyssey from Hillsdale College. Go to Charlie for Hillsdale.com. Yeah, listen, it is breaking the story that actually broke Friday afternoon, but it continues to develop here. On O'Connor & Company and the latest from the Democrats about how they tend to resolve what happened in Virginia. See, they defied the Constitution. We've told you that. We told you that before the vote even took place. We told you that before the referendum was drawn up. We told you that when they met for their special session back in October before the election, that this. entire process defies how the Constitution lays out. You're supposed to do a constitutional amendment. We knew that because the Attorney General of Virginia at the time, Jason Miaris said, you guys are violating the Constitution. We had experts coming on. Experts like our guest coming up in a few moments, Hans von Spikoski, legal expert and former Justice Department official, Ken Kuchnewe, the former Attorney General of Virginia, who will also join us, as well as the former Attorney General Jason Miaris. All those guys are going to be on the program this morning. Talk about what happened in Virginia. But then more importantly, what the Democrats plan to do about it moving forward because they're not done. It's like a vampire. You know, there's only one way to kill the vampire. And this vampire has not had the wooden stake in the heart yet. Their newest scheme, according to the New York Times, is that they're going to change the rules in Virginia about the age of retirement. for Virginia Supreme Court justices, thus making all of them too old to be on the Virginia Supreme Court, they all have to leave, and then they'll replace them with their own brand new packed court who will then do exactly what they want. That doesn't sound like some sort of co-equal branches of government, does it? It sounds like an authoritarian Nazi putch because it is. All right. Let's get to the decision. Ken Cuccinelli, as I mentioned, former Attorney General of Virginia, and he's sort of an expert on law in that Commonwealth. He projected it. He was a guest on this program. And when the ruling came in Friday, he said the ruling's based on what I predicted, the failure of the Virginia General Assembly to pass its proposed gerrymandering amendment on both sides of an intervening election. It's really simple, guys. If you want to amend the Constitution, you need to have a session before the next election. That way, the people in Virginia know what you're trying to do, and they can vote you out. They can say, wait, what is that? We didn't put you up there to amend the Constitution. So you have to face the voters after you've had a session where you propose a new.

amendment to the constitution then the voters get to vote and if enough people are returned to the assembly based on that election then you have to have your second session and you codify the amendment language it's very simple and it makes very logical sense so the people have a say well they met 10 days before election day but in virginia early voting begins all the way back in september so people had voted already And that violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court just codified that, and they're going insane. So those four gerrymandered districts that they tried to tie all the way back to liberal, left, woke Democrat, Fairfax County, it's gone. Reactions were swift and they were great, not only from Ken Cucinelli, but also Jay Jones, the now attorney general, Nick Minnock of WJLA in Washington, D.C., reported on Jay Jones's statement. He said, today the Supreme Court of Virginia has chosen to put politics over the rule of law by issuing a ruling that overturns the April 21st special election on redistricting. And he went on to complain that the Supreme Court made this decision after the people had voted. But back when the Supreme Court was evaluating this referendum before the people of Virginia voted. Jay Jones argued that the Supreme Court shouldn't make any ruling before the people vote. Do you understand what I'm saying? So before the election, before the referendum, he said, hey, Supreme Court should stay out of this and not say anything. You can make your decision after the people have spoken. Then the people speak and Democrats barely squeak by with the victory. And then the Supreme Court says, okay, Jay Jones, we're going to make our decision now. And it's unconstitutional. And Jay Jones screams bloody murder and says, well, you can't do that. Literally, he's talking on both sides of this issue. Well, Jay Jones and the Democrats, they've put in a petition here to challenge this decision at the Supreme Court. Let's take a look at it real fast, though, because there's a couple of things here that might stick out to you, mostly that unlike your 12-year-old who has to submit a paper in sixth grade, the Attorney General of Virginia and his staff, apparently, of legal geniuses, they can't spell check. In their petition to the Supreme Court, they misspelled Virginia and they misspelled senator. But of course, here on this program and most people in Virginia and in the greater Washington area, they know that this is pretty normal because when he first became attorney general, Jay Jones put out this statement where he literally misspelled attorney general. He spelled attorney as a Tony general. You can't even spell, let alone argue a constitutional case. Hans von Spikoski on this and much more coming up next. Keep it here. It's O'Connor and Company. In 2025, the FBI reported that Americans lost more than $21 billion to fraud and identity theft. Identity thieves can steal your social security number. Open credit accounts in your name.

take over online accounts, and create financial headaches that can take months to fix. Most people don't realize they've been targeted until the damage is already done. That's why more families are turning to Aura. Aura helps protect your identity with fraud alerts, credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, and up to $5 million in identity theft protection. If something does happen, ARA's 24-7 U.S.-based support team can help guide you through the recovery process. You also get a VPN. anti-virus protection, password manager, and scam protection, all in one app. Don't wait until you're a victim. Protect yourself and your family today. Start your free trial at aura.com slash safe. That's aura.a-u-a-u-a-com slash safe. We started your day today with Mr. T, circa 1984, extolling the virtues of motherhood. And I don't know, I want an award for that. I demand one. I certainly deserve it. But it's okay. I don't do it for the trophies. I do it to make you happy. Good morning. O'Connor and Coler here. Coming up at the next hour, the former Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuchnelly is going to break down what the next steps are. And if Democrats even have a chance to... do the insanity that they want to do to fix this decision from their perspective. And also, not only does this have legal ramifications, it certainly has very real political ramifications. And to that end, we will speak with the chairman of the Republican National Committee who has a very different playing field now. going into these midterms. And it looks like Advantage GOP. We'll get into all those details coming up in a bit. Right now, though, we're joined by our legal expert as we are every week at this time. He is the senior legal fellow at advancing American freedom. He's Hans von Spikoski. Good morning, Hans. Thanks for joining us. Good morning to you. Yeah, it was quite a Friday, wasn't it? It sure was. First of all, just on the merits, if you can break this down, I'm guessing you weren't really surprised because you sort of predicted this last week when we spoke. Right. Is there any recourse? I'm told that they can petition this up to the Supreme Court, suggesting that maybe this decision and this law is a violation of the United States Supreme Court. Is there any chance SCOTUS would pick this up? No, that is a frivolous appeal, and they're just doing it to delay it. Look, the U.S. Supreme Court defers to state Supreme Courts when they are interpreting their own state constitution. And the only way the U.S. Supreme Court would pick it up if it somehow implicates the U.S. Constitution. But these are very straightforward procedural rules, as you described them, and they in no way. implicate the U.S. Constitution. So there's no way, I can 100% guarantee you that the U.S. Supreme Court will not take this appeal. And by the way, it's Chief Justice John Roberts. For every federal district around the country, one Supreme Court justice is sort of the go-to for these sort of things. In this case, it happens to be Chief John Roberts, right?

Yeah. So look, like I said, I seldom I'm willing to bet on the Supreme Court because they are unpredictable. But in this case, there's just no way they'll take this case. All right. That's good to know. So instead, we're told, if you believe the New York Times, that they're talking to each other, the Democrats in Richmond. And of course, they're directed by the likes of Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, who really want to see this redistrict happen so they can get the majority, that they want to change. The mandatory retirement date, right now it's 73 years old, they're saying, hey, let's just change that and arbitrarily make it, what, 52 years old because the youngest Supreme Court justice that ruled against the referendum is 53. And then they just clean house and reappoint new justices. Can they do that? Well, I guess they could try to do it. Even if they could get it through the legislature, I would actually hold. that even though Democrats now control the state government, that there are a few rational individuals left in the General Assembly that would realize that this actually is dangerous. It's a sign of the despotic base of the Democratic Party that when the courts rule against them. They want to just get rid of those courts and put in politicians who will go their way. That's the kind of thing that, like I said, leads to tyranny and despotism. And, boy, the founders of this state would be rolling over in their graves over that. Well, it does speak to a larger... concept from the left, isn't it? Because we hear this all the time at the federal level that they want to pack the Supreme Court instead of just firing everybody, although they'd love to do that too, or at least six of the nine. They just want to add four more seats and have them appointed in their image. This is a larger trend where if the co-equal branches of government aren't going your way, you just want to rig the system and tinker with it and fix it so that it will suddenly go your way. That's not really a constitutional republic when all of a sudden done. No. No. And it's basically upsetting what makes us different from every other country in the world. And that is really that we are based on the rule of law, not the rule of people, basically individuals in government doing anything they want to do. Hans, can you give us some historical perspective on this in terms of all these legal machinations over redistricting? Because I think this is a good thing. Frankly, for too many Americans, if they have any understanding of our Constitution and how our laws and Constitution work hand in hand with politics and how politics utilizes the system we've got for redistricting and things like this. Either they're uneducated about it or the extent of their education is really maybe schoolhouse rock. There's very few that actually see it play out in real time. And boy, boy, have we seen it in this 2026 year of our Lord. Well, that's true. But you know what disturbs me the most about this is I keep hearing Democrats say that, well, Republicans started this. No, they didn't. Blue states, places like Illinois, New York, Massachusetts.

They gerrymandered their states long ago. Democrats did. Massachusetts is a good example. Donald Trump got about a third of the vote of the nine congressional seats. All nine are Democratic seats. What is being done by Republicans is they're catching up. And I should mention the first gerrymander occurred where in Massachusetts? You know, it's named after Governor Edwards Jerry who started this, you know, 250 years ago. And I believe he was a member of the then brand new Democratic Republican Party, which is the Democrats. Right. That's right. And look, actually, I think we have less gerrymandering today than we used to have. Why? Because a lot of states have put in requirements for compactness, you know, contiguousness, trying to minimize breaking up counties, cities, and town. So people can complain about it, but it's always been part of our politics. And there's no way you'll ever get politics completely out of it. Yeah. And by the way, as a Republican, and I look at how blue, dark blue New England is, even though I know in states like New Hampshire, where, you know, oftentimes New Hampshire is seen as a toss-up state or Republicans come out and vote for a president every four years, maybe to the tune of 45 or 48 percent, but there are no Republicans in the House of Representatives for the Granite state. And the only solution there is, well, if you don't like it. then you need to get a Republican governor and a Republican majority at the state level. Otherwise, that's how the game is played. We've had, you know, decades of having to live with that. Democrats are now just starting to come to terms with it. And they also, I think, counted on those racially gerrymandered districts in the South. They didn't have to lift the finger. They didn't have to win elections. They automatically got those districts because of the misinterpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. So that's what we're seeing now in those states, yes? Yeah, that's exactly right. And, you know, the hysterical claims being made by the New York Times and others about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Louisiana case, what are they saying? They're saying that they think there's nothing wrong with racially discriminating in the drawing up of political districts. I mean, not only is that unlawful, but people ought to realize that is really an immoral. position to take, and yet liberals think there's nothing wrong with that. Hans, how are we to respond to people, though, who will look at this and they'll look at the scenes in Tennessee and they're, you know, they are provocative. You know, the videos that you see of black lawmakers, you know, burning the Confederate battle flag in the state house and acting like this is the Jim Crow era. And they're claiming things like, you know, we have now been disenfranchised. By redistricting, we no longer can elect the representatives of our choice.

How is one to respond to that kind of hyperbolic rhetoric? They are not being kept from registering. They're not being kept from voting. They are guaranteed by the Constitution equal opportunity with everyone else. And they have that opportunity. What they're not guaranteed is that the candidates that they want to win will win any more than Republicans in blue states. are guaranteed that the Republicans they would like to have run and win will win. Somehow they've gotten this idea that the Voting Rights Act was put in place to guarantee that Democrats win elections. That's not its purpose. It was to stop racial discrimination and registering and voting, and it's been very successful in doing that. Yeah. Going, obviously, every state has the ability and the right to move forward with redistricting however they choose. And we want to maintain that. But in your mind, Hans, what is the best and fairest way to do that? I know there are, for instance, in California and in Virginia, they had to amend their constitution to be able to redistrict the way that they wish to do it. Because constitutionally, they have to have sort of a third party or a court. overseen redistricting. Not every state has that. What do you think in an ideal world? How should this be done? Well, I don't like those independent redistricting commissions because they're not really independent. When you look at who staffs them and who appoints them, it's the political parties that are appointing the members. And the idea that they're somehow independent has proven not to be true. Look, the best way I think to do this is to put in... very good standards, what I was just talking about, compactness, contiguousness, not going across geographic barriers like rivers and mountains, keeping towns, counties together. If you do that, you're going to get fairly consistent districts. And the other thing that every legislature now ought to do is when they're getting population data from their demographers, they should say, You can send me voting patterns. You can tell me where they live. Do not send me any racial data. I do not want to know the race of the population. And that should be left out entirely when they're drawing up new districts.

That's the conservative position. That's the Republican position, right? Ironically, that position that says, don't tell me about the race of the voters, you know, that's irrelevant. I don't care what their skin color is. That's being labeled as racist right now by the Democrats and by the left. I can't make it make sense. But I think I'm grateful, actually, that it doesn't make sense to me. One other quick question real fast. What does the Supreme Court say about how states should determine this? Is it sort of like how they determine states should come up with their electoral voters? It's just sort of this shall be up to the states and they leave it at that? Well, there's an overlay. There's two overlays. One, remember, the populations of each district have to be as equal as possible. And second, the Voting Rights Act says you cannot use race in making that determination unless you first prove that there was intentional racial discrimination going on and you need to use it as a remedy. And that's it. Hans, always a great conversation. Thanks for joining us on this very important day. We'll talk to you next week. Thanks for having. Hans von Spikoski there, advancing American freedom. Hey, I take supplements. I bet you do too. And when it comes to supplements, there's two things that matter most. It works and you can trust it. Both are essential. I know you've heard me talking about relief factor for a while there. And my colleagues here have been talking about it for over a decade. That's over 10 years of lending our voices to help get you out of pain. drug-free because Relief Factor works, plain and simple. I want to tell you about their quick start option. They actually lose money on this offer, my friends, at Relief Factor, but it's worth it. They do it so people can try it for themselves and experience how it can improve their lives. More than a million people have tried Relief Factor, and about two-thirds go on to order more. It's because it works, and it's because you will feel the difference. The founder, a Vietnam veteran, he wanted to help people heal them in a drug-free way. And that's what Relief Factor does. Try that three-week quick start today and see how it works for you. Go to Relieffactor.com or call 800 for relief. Relieffactor.com, 800 for relief. In 2025, Americans lost more than $21 billion to fraud and identity theft. That's why so many people are turning to Aura. Aura helps protect your identity with fraud alerts, dark web monitoring, and up to $5 million in identity theft protection. And if you become a victim, Aura's 24-7 U.S.-based support team is there to help. Don't wait until your identity is stolen. Start your free trial today at aura.com slash safe. That's aura.com slash safe.

855-7-8-8-4-2-55 if you want to call in and have a conversation, especially those of you who are Republicans and are sort of rejuvenated now by the look of the map and how things are going to fall out here for Republicans in the midterms after the redistricting mania here and the decision in Virginia. Love to hear from you, 855-784-4-2-55. You're still an EOR Republican? You still black pill and you think it's over? Love to hear from you. I'll talk you off the ledge. Don't you worry about that. Also, Ken Kuchinelli, former attorney general of Virginia, former DHS official in the first Trump administration. He'll talk about the way forward here and how Democrats will not let this die in Virginia. That's coming up in a moment. Speaking, though, of what the left wants to do here, you see the pattern. Oh, the Supreme Court's the law of the land. Remember when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land? Oh, the Supreme Court decided you can't change that. And as soon as the Supreme Court decide something they don't like, they want to fire every justice, they want to pack the Supreme Court, they want to expand the Supreme Court. They don't want a third co-equal branch of government to determine whether the laws they pass are constitutional or not. They just want a rubber stamp in a black robe. Don't believe me. Listen to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She was speaking to David Axelrod over the weekend, and she's got a few viral videos. Here's the first. Say, do something about it. What do you mean? Do something about the court? Well, when it comes to the courts, there's court reform. There's plenty of, there's a menu of things that we can look at. There is, there is. There is ethics reform. There is financial entanglements that we're seeing on the court. There are, of course, open discussions about expanding the court to match the number of circuit courts that we have, going from 9 to 13 specifically. There are a lot of those options. By the way, Donald Trump has the opportunity to do the funniest thing here. He should show up today and say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's right. We are going to expand the Supreme Court by four more justices. Here, here's my list. Let's do it now. She was also asked about her political philosophy, which is Marxists. And, of course, all Marxists look at everything through race, class economics. And she even thinks our revolution, the American revolution, was a revolt against billionaires here. Here she is. The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time. And we're declaring independence from such an extreme marriage of wealth and power and the state. Yeah, okay, the problem, and I guess she's making the case that it was against King George III, a billionaire. If you look at the Declaration of Independence and all of the writings of the founders and the Federalist Papers and the writings of Thomas Payne, no one criticized the king for being rich. They criticized him for being an authoritarian tyrant who didn't give the people a voice, you know, the kind of thing that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's talking about and her pals. In fact, the richest Americans, Robert Morris and George Washington, led the revolution.

They were the billionaires of their time. They were not the target of the revolution. They were the inspiration of it. Finally, a lot of people wondering what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's plans are. A lot of people want her to run for president. David Axelrod asked her about that. And what you're about to hear should terrify you because from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's perspective, the presidency isn't big enough. Here we go. Oh, yeah. But last thing before we go to the students, because I would be drawn and quartered if I did not say this. There are a lot of people who would like you to run for president in 2028. Apparently, some of them are here. And there are people who, there are others who would like you to run for the United States Senate. Chuck Schumer's up in 2028.

Apparently more people want her in the Senate than in the presidency. That's the University of Chicago, by the way. It's a long clip, but let's try to get as much in here as we can because she basically says that she has bigger ambitions than the presidency. I'm not kidding. Here. I don't know. It sounded like even more. Should we do it? To New York or to other parts of the country? How many would like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to stay in Congress? See? Yeah. They want you to make a move. Yeah. What say you about all of this? You know, it's funny because in this op-ed that Jeff Bezos paid for in the Washington Post.

There was this line that you even mentioned earlier about, well, as a potential 2028 contender, XYZ. And in the context of that, it was very clear this was a veiled threat, right? So the elite saying, if you want this job, you just stepped out of line. And we want you to know where the real power is. And it's in the modern day barons who own the post and own the algorithms. And we're going to, we'll make an example out of you. And what's funny about that is that they assume that my ambition is positional. They assume that my ambition is a title or a seat. And my ambition is way bigger than that. Yeah, way bigger. Yeah, I hope you're scared. I am way bigger than the presidency. This is the Relief Factor Studios. I'm Larry O'Connor. Ken Cucinelli on Virginia next on O'Connor and Company. Thank you. I'm Larry O'Connor, and I'm live in the Rilly Factor Studios here in Washington, the District of Columbia, on the mighty WMALR flagship station here in your nation's capital. Thanks for tuning in this very upbeat and exciting Monday morning as the playing field has shifted for Republicans coming up this midterms, not only with the referendum getting struck down by the Supreme Court of Virginia on Friday, but also state after state now redistricting. So going in, any very one who's predicting to you, how horrible it's going to be for Republicans this November, they were predicting that before, A, they knew what the playing field was going to look like, which is kind of dumb when you predict a game without knowing exactly what the field of play is and the rules of the game. Number two, they're predicting based on not knowing who the players are on the teams. Right? We're still going through a primary process. Let's see who the Democrats nominate to unseat Republicans right now in Republican or purple districts because if they keep nominating people like Zohran Mamdani, well, they're not going to appeal to those by definition Republican or right-leaning districts since they're currently represented by a Republican. Don't believe the experts who are telling you that Republicans are doomed. They're saying that to you because they want you to be Eeyore. They want you to be depressed. They don't want you ready for action this November. But we won't let that happen, will we? No, we won't. And coming up in about 30 minutes, we're going to speak with the chairman of the Republican National Committee. He's a happy man today. Joe Gruders. Also, Jennifer Van Laar, our colleague, get Red State, part of the whole town hall media family. She's been reporting on the corruption in California, personified perfectly.

by Gavin Newsom's plan to give you all free diapers. Those free diapers, pretty expensive. Funny how socialist programs work out that way. That's all coming up in this hour. But first, let's go straight to one of the top newsmakers of the last week. He's the former Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He's also the chairman of the election transparency initiative, and I can give you all of his other great jobs he's had, but we'd be running out of time. Suffice to say, Ken Kuchinelli knows what he's talking about when it comes to these things. And, well, You predicted this. I mean, you went out on a limb, Mr. Cuccinelli, and you were right. Reflect a little bit on this decision by the Supreme Court and whether you were surprised that they actually had the courage to support the Constitution. Well, I'll start at the end. I wasn't surprised that at least a majority. supported the Constitution. I will say I was disappointed that it wasn't seven to zero. It was four to three for your listeners in Virginia. And historically, we have not had nearly as political as Supreme Court as some other states. And unfortunately, one of the signals here, this was four to three, and you could, and it divided along the lines of the Republican selected justices voted with the Constitution and the Democrat selected justices. dissented. And they argued things like the language of six-year-old statutes over the language of 150-year-old constitutional provisions. And I won't bother trying to educate everyone on the silliness of that. But we haven't previously encountered that kind of a problem. in Virginia. But the four held. They held the map on constitutional. The opinion was issued by a justice originally appointed to the Virginia Court of Appeals by Mark Warner when he was then the governor of Virginia. And he was voted unanimously onto the Supreme Court, including by the Democrats currently there, and wrote a whirlwind of an opinion. of law and history being the oldest state we have a lot more history than everybody else and he tapped all of it madison jefferson mason all showed up uh in the opinion and it it threw out the democrats referendum gerrymandering amendment to try and amend Virginia's constitution. And the basis of it was there was no intervening election. The Democrats gave us a 45-day election, as you know, Larry, last time they had control of the House Senate and governorship. Well, it came back to bite them here because in the 2025 election, we have odd-year elections in Virginia. In the 2025 election, it began September 19th. By Halloween, 1.3 million people had voted.

And it was on Halloween when the General Assembly passed for the first time their proposed gerrymandering amendment and they wanted to use that election as the intervening election required by Virginia's state constitution as a matter of the English language and law. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected that through the referendum out. And so we still have. the maps we got in our bipartisan redistricting effort. It's huge. And by the way, there's a couple of other arguments that they're trying to make now. One of them, if you could quickly address this one, which is, well, sure, but if that was the case, you should have decided that before we went to vote. Now that the people have voted, their opinion and their wishes should override this technicality. But didn't they, correct me if I'm wrong, Geng Cougnelli, didn't they argue before the election took place on the referendum that the Supreme Court shouldn't? chime in on this and should let the election play out and then render their decision after. They're trying to have it both ways here. They are trying to have it both ways. And I love seeing the Democrats complaining about this now when they were screaming in February that the court shouldn't touch the case. And so for people who thought they were ducking in February by not addressing the case before the referendum, over 100 years of law and precedent in Virginia. requires the court to withhold any judgment until after the referendum takes place, until after the vote. The analogy, the simple analogy, is that the vote of the people in the referendum is the equivalent of a governor signing or vetoing a bill coming from the General Assembly. And you would no more, if you were a court, entertain a lawsuit on a bill just because it got out of the General Assembly. But before the governor acted on it, then you would judge a referendum before the vote of the people. And the court anticipating the public complaining, I think, walked through the Commonwealth's demands and requests back in February that the court withhold judgment until after the referendum took place. So it's right there in the opinion itself. They anticipated the... the false gnashing of teeth here, and they did it brilliantly. Ken Kuchinelli, there's now some, first, I think you can dispense with this quickly, and we just had your friend and colleague Hans von Spikoski talk about this. They're talking about petitioning to the Supreme Court, and Jay Jones, the Attorney General apparently misspelled Virginia and the word senator in their petition here, their appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court, they're not going to touch this. Are they, is there any basis for them to jump in and say that there's something that violates the U.S. Constitution?

Well, look, yes, Jay Jones misspelled the state and stentator. But it was a long petition. It was two pages. It wasn't just one page, Larry. Well, who among us don't let a typo in? When you've got two pages. There's a lot. And no, the Virginia Supreme Court is the final authority on the Virginia Constitution. Right. All, as I said, all of the legal and constitutional issues in this case were Virginia constitutional issues. So the Supreme Court isn't going to touch it. The state Supreme Court isn't going to delay implementation to await the U.S. Supreme Court's action. And the Chief Justice has the Fourth Circuit, which Virginia is in. So that's who we're going to hear from on that. And I expect we'll hear from him today. All right. And then I've got two other questions for you. The first has to do with the mechanics of the election because we've got declared candidates running right now in these primaries. Most of the Democrats who declared, they were all sort of vultures coming in on these brand new districts that they thought were going to be in their favor here, all terminating in Fairfax County. How quickly now does the game change in terms of the primaries? Well, it changes immediately because the filing period for candidates was May 1st to 25th. So obviously the opinion didn't get issued until a week into that period. But the new lines never took effect. You'll recall there was a second case, and I know you know this, Larry, but for your listeners and viewers, there was a second case. addressing the 2026 violations of Virginia's constitution and laws. And the trial court ruled on that the day after the referendum in favor of the Republicans and enjoined the certification of the election. So nothing ever moved forward on the new lines. And we never left our old lines, the current lines we have today. And look, the Virginia Democrats were used. by the Washington Democrats. And there was some using in both directions. Back in October, I know you talked about it, Larry, that the Virginia Democrats were demanding election money for the 2025 election out of the Washington Democrats in exchange, I believe, in quid pro quo, for making a run at this gerrymandering effort. And the Washington Democrats delivered the money. That money has now been burned into nothingness. And they outspent us over three to one in the referendum. They also contributed more money to the Democrats' elections in 2025, where unfortunately they ran away with the elections from us. They obviously didn't need the money. So a lot of money got wasted. And in exchange, the Democrats made a run at this brazenly unconstitutional gerrymandering amendment. And, you know, we've seen the results here now. They lost. And basically, I likened it, Ken Kuchinelli. And thanks for joining us, as always, sir. We'll talk to you again. I likened it to Hakeem Jeffries making a giant pile of $80 million in cash and setting it on fire in Fairfax County. That's money they don't have for the midterms. All right, your turn, 855-784-425- Republicans, conservatives. You got to spring in your step today? Tell me about it. Next.

855-7-84-4255. I'd love to talk to you, especially if you're a Republican, certainly if you're a Republican in Virginia or in the greater Washington area. But if you were black-pilled, if you were sure that Hakeem Jeffries was going to be the Speaker of the House, if you were following the lead of so many in my business who were, I guess, trying to, you know, lower your expectations and ensure you that the, then prepare you for the November elections. that Republicans were doomed, doomed, I tell you. I'd love to hear from you because it's a brand new day here. It's a new dawn. And Republicans, frankly, have the advantage now against all historic norms. They have the advantage in this midterm after a presidential election where, in my opinion, it's the Republicans to lose at this point the way the seats are shifting. The playing field is shifting. And oh, by the way. The way the economy is rebounding right now, we had huge numbers last week on the economy, on economic growth, on the employment situation, employment situation benefiting the private sector, not the government hiring a bunch of people with money they've taken from your paycheck. No, these are real businesses, real manufacturing entities, hiring real Americans for real wages to do real jobs. And that's the foundation for a very strong economy going forward. If the Iran military excursion can be resolved expeditiously, and gas prices will rebound immediately. It's nothing but upside right now for the GOP this November. And coming up, we're going to speak with the chairman of the RNC about that. But I do want to hear from you. 855-784-4255. Stop blackpilling. It's time to actually be positive about our outlook right now as Americans. Let's start with Nancy in Philadelphia, listening on 990 The Answer. Hey, Nancy, that's my buddy, Chris de Gaulle's old stomping grounds. I'm nervous to talk to someone from Philly because, you know, I'm filling some pretty big shoes here with Krista Gall. Good morning, Nancy. Good morning. Chris is great. And by the way, be nervous. I'm a Philadelphia lawyer, okay? Oh, I'm very nervous now. Listen, you asked Hans Sikovsky how to react to the crazies on the left, for example, the New York Times when their hair is on fire because of the Supreme Court in Virginia's decision about redistricting. Oh, you can't use race. Uh-oh. What are they going to do? Well, here's my reaction, my suggestion. I would react to that the same way I react to anything Whoopi Goldberg says, Joy Bihar says, Sonny Hosson said. I laugh. And in addition, here's how I would react to what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said. Oh, I laugh at everything she says. She's a joke. But obviously, he said she wants something bigger than the presidency. I got the answer of what it is she wants. Oh, what's that? She wants to be just like her boss, Chairman Xi Jinping of China. She wants to be God's representative on earth and dictator of the world for life. Okay. Dear leader, Alexandria, I think you're right. I mean, that is, that's the only, or wait, maybe she wants to marry George Soros.

and inherit all of his, or no, George's son, Alex, inherit all that money. And then you're the kingmaker, right? That's the real power. That's the irony of these Marxists saying that there's these powers that be in the institutions that buy the government. And they show up in Alex Soros's living room there in his penhouse and take all of his money to do their nefarious things. That's not a big enough job. I think alternatively, maybe she wants to be God's representative on earth. She's Catholic. Maybe she wants to be the Pope. Well, she's she's Catholic with a with a small seat. Nancy in Philly, thank you so much for calling it this morning. And that's actually very witty. And you're right. Nancy in Philadelphia is a thousand percent right. The only response, appropriate response to the left, especially the organized left, who are now saying that by no longer drawing congressional districts solely based on race, that you are acting racist, which again, I. I don't have an advanced degree from a liberal arts college, so I can't explain that to you. But that's what they're saying right now. By ignoring race, you're being racist. You see, the only appropriate response is to laugh at them. The only appropriate response is to mock them because it's not worthy of a serious response other than to just lay out the facts. And I know you have to deal with that when your liberal brother-in-law comes over for Sunday dinner. And I know you have to deal with that on the sideline of your kid's soccer game, right, when you're trying to watch seven-year-olds chase a ball around the field. And then suddenly some liberal neighbor comes in your ear and starts screaming about Trump. But that's just how you respond. You sort of politely smile, shake your head, and walk away. Coming up, we're going to speak with the chairman of the Republican Party, Mr. Gruders, and we'll keep taking your calls as the morning goes on. It's O'Connor and Company. I love to hear from you all morning long, 855784 4255. Now, I want to talk to you if you're living with everyday pain because a lot of people think they're just stuck with it. It is what it is. But it does not have to be this way. George from Oregon, he has a perfect relief factor story. He's a hardworking guy, spends 10 hours a day in a garbage truck. That's tough work. It's a job made even tougher because he was dealing with a sore right knee that wouldn't bend. Think about that. Well, George started taking relief factor and it changed his life. He told me, he said, I can bend my knee again and with very little pain. And I know what he's talking about. I ran a marathon, my very first marathon last year. And I'm not in my 30s, okay? I was sore. It was hard to get around. Relief factor, just a few weeks after taking relief factor. The pain was gone. Why don't you give them a three-week quick start try? It's only 1995 in a few weeks or even days. You'll feel the difference relief factor can make. Go to relieffactor.com, relieffactor.com, or give them a call, 804 relief. That's the number four relief, 804 relief.

I'm telling you, you're waking up this Monday morning and you're in charge of a major political party out of Washington looking at the midterms this November. I assure you you would rather be the chairman of the RNC than the DNC, not only obviously because you're sitting on a whole lot of cash way more than the DNC. In fact, I think the DNC might even be in debt still, let alone actually holding on to a war chess going into the election. But now. after the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act and the state Supreme Court of Virginia striking down the gerrymander referendum in that Commonwealth. Well, you're looking at a very different field of play, a field of play that is now in your advantage. And that man that I'm describing, the chairman of the RNC, joins us now. Joe Gruders, you've got to have a smile on your face this right. There's a lot of game to be played. But boy, oh, boy, had things shifted in your favor in the last seven days. Well, no question about that. And listen, we're just executing the plan that we laid out, and this is all expected. But yes, you know, for a while there, it looked like we were getting kicked in the shins in a lot of ways. But it's a, we're slowly doing what we need to do to prepare for these upcoming midterms. And I think now more than ever we have a chance to defy history. You're exactly right. At least 10 seats have shifted over. And what I tell people, it sounds like 10 seats shifted over. There's only 35 seats in the entire country that are competitive now because of all the gerrymandering redistricting that's occurred over the last couple of years. And so now we're probably down to less than 30 seats. And so every one of these seats is so valuable that we're in great shape. And then we combine that with our candidates that we recruited. And with your exactly right, we're sitting on about $120 million. The Democrats have minus four. They've been raising the money. They just spend it. And we've, like I said, we've been moving forward in executing the plan that we laid out. And I think that we're in great shape. Well, it is funny you should say how many seats are competitive right now. The Cook Political Report, which, listen, I think the Cook Political Report is a little cooked, if I may say, like most political organizations and entities in Washington, D.C. It sort of evaluates things from a more Democrat perspective. But that said. Their current evaluation shows 187 solid Republican seats, 17 likely Republican, 5-leaning Republican. And on the Democrat side, 185 solid, 11 likely, 12 lean. That means there's only 18 right now they're categorizing as toss-up. And you only have to win about half of those to secure the majority. Is that how you look at this? Do you crystallize these things down when you start figuring out where to spend your resources and where to execute the ground game?

100%. You know, we've already deployed field staff and we've hired state directors and election integrity directors. And I think 17 states we've deployed people already. And those are obviously where the targeted races are and some of the more competitive seats. But it's a, but yes, we are, we look at that very much. And you're exactly right. So they say 17 or 18. And that may be what we're at the end of the day. But let's say if we. go back to the 35 number and say, okay, so the 10, if it was 200 or 200, right, likely, likely, and then you had 10 seats that shift. out of the toss-up category, that means we're sitting at 210. They're sitting at 190 with, let's say, 135, with 35 seats left. We only need to win eight seats at 35 to maintain control. Right. 218 gives you the majority. That's all you need, 218. And when you think about the fact that only four times in the last 150 years has the incumbent party been successful, you know, people, you know, could say what they want about the party, but what we focus on. is we focus on the big picture, we focus on winning, we have a plan, we're executing the plan. Oh, and by the way, we have the most, you know, popular, most successful president ever in Donald J. Trump in his ability to bring out these low propensity voters and his willingness to barnstorm the country. And we're going to be able to be in an absolutely phenomenal position as we start gearing up and heading towards November. So I'm speaking with Joe Grutter as the chairman of the Republican National Committee. A lot of people get confused about the RNC's role in these campaigns. They think that you're just a giant piggy bank and you dole out, you write checks to candidates that they can then use for television ads. And by the way, do you do that? Is that something you can do? Or is the money that the RNC raises really more about the operation and getting people in the field actually doing the work of building the party? Or is it both? It's really both. But first and foremost, we are there to support the president and his administration in every way possible. But we do, you know, we have local parties in every part of the country, state parties. They help us with our redstring voters getting out to vote, making sure we have safe and secure elections. We have 130 lawsuits. But now, you know, the Supreme Court's also about to rule on this thing called coordinated campaign limits. And this has been in the background. A lot of people don't know what it is, but it's going to give us the ability to fully coordinate with federal candidates, which people think that we do right now, that we're talking to all these campaigns nonstop. But there's a barrier. There's only a limit of what we could spend. But now we're going to be able to go out there and spend what we will be able to look at their campaigns, help direct them. uh... make sure there's no duplication of resources being spent so we can maximize the advantage that we already have and then go out there and spend at the candidate rate that's the real kicker that it's a non-profit mail rate the tv rate so in the past yes we've been more of the nucleus in terms of uh... getting out the vote and making sure we turn out our voters but it's a now we're going to be not only doing the turning out of the vote the election integrity stuff

all the support for the president, but then you add on the firepower because of the cash and finish that we have. And when you combine that with the coordinating campaign limits, it's going to make the R&C and on the DNC, I mean, if they have the ability, it will make them much, much stronger moving forward because their ability to coordinate and spend directly with the candidates. Joe Gertr's people who only read Politico on their Monday morning as they're getting ready. If they tune into our conversation, they might be in a bit of a twilight zone because Politico tells me that Republicans are in disarray right now, that Mike Johnson and John Thune are at each other's throats. House Republicans want to move a lot more legislation. Senate Republicans are stalling and they're ineffective. By the way, it kind of looks that way from my perspective, too. How important is it? for those who are currently holding the majority in the House and Senate, the Republicans, to actually get to voters this November and say, look what we just did. Not just we got to stop Democrats because they'll impeach Trump, but actually proactively say, here's what we just did in the last six months to make your life better and more affordable. Is that important, do you think, for the party to have that message for voters? Yes, and I talk to the base all the time all across this country, and they want actions. And we're thankful that the president's delivered in a lot of ways. But yes, the Save America Act, basic things that the Senate should be moving on. But at the end of the day, I really blame the Democrats. It's them that are holding it up. They're united. We have the overwhelming majority on our side. We have about four, maybe five holdouts, but we're slowly working on them. And some of those are coming back in the next cycle. And so we are going to be moving some of these things. It just takes time. But the Republicans are very much united, and they're united behind the President of States and his willingness to move America forward in a way where we have common sense and reasonableness. We're on the flip side. The Democrats, everything they want is crazy. I mean, it's lunacy. To me, it's like they want to try to destroy America with, you know, they, they're against law and order, putting the girls and boys' bathrooms on and on and on and on. It's just the craziness on the left, common sense and reasonableness on the right. And we have a president, like I said, who's moving the ball to help the average everyday American out there, you know, achieve and go after the American dream. One other bit of good news, or at least I think it's good news in Politico today for Republicans, and that is Z.N. Lume is reporting that at a gathering up in Canada, where this Canadian think tank, liberal think tank, had Barack Obama there as a guest speaker. I guess Barack Obama wants to fix Canada or something. I don't know. He said that he plans to get more involved in the campaign trail this November and this entire election season. At this point, I think that might be good news. Do you welcome Barack Obama engaging in this fight? Yes, they can bring whoever they want. The problem is, is the leaders of their party now are people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Zohran Mamdani. And what's happened is the rise of the socialist Democrat in this crazy left-wing, these crazy left-wing lunatics.

has given their candidates the ability to go further and further to the left and empowered them. And as a result, you know, they end up with... You know, these candidates are so extreme that you take these races off the board, like in Maine and, you know, and then in Michigan and on and on and on. So remember a couple years ago where there should have been a red wave, but we may not have had the right candidates. The president's been very careful. This is part of our overall plan, is to make sure we have candidates that could win the districts that matter. And so we've been spending a lot of time going out there and making sure we have the right candidates in place. Uh, if you don't, then, then, then, but as a result of all that work that you do, that by the way, nobody sees that work that you do, uh, it's going to pay major dividends when it matters. All right. Don't be a stranger. Joe Grutter is going to have a lot to talk about this entire year leading up to November. Hopefully you'll be a regular here. Thanks for joining us today. Awesome. Thanks so much. That's Joe Grutter. He's chairman of the RNC. And I told you, you hear the smile on his face. It's a good day. I hope you've got a smile on your face as well. As things are moving in the right direction, there's going to be a roller coaster ride leading up to Election Day, but we're moving in the right direction. That's the key. I want to continue with your calls here, too. Where do you stand? And what do you think happened here with this Virginia referendum and how the Democrats overplayed their hand? 855-784-4-2-55. How about Reed in Roundhill, Virginia, listening on our flagship WMAL? Good morning. Reid. Thanks for calling in. Hey, Larry. It's actually Hoke. I used to talk to you in a different time. Oh, of course. Hoke, Hoke from Roundhill. Absolutely. Legendary. Good morning. So it's great that the Constitution won. It's great that the Democrats spent a lot of money and got nothing out of it. But what they did is something that has been sorely lacking. They woke up rural and western Virginia with this attempt. Yep. I agree with you. The numbers that came in from those areas outside of Northern Virginia were phenomenal, Hoke. And whenever everybody says, hey, Virginia's purple, yeah, it is, but the red part of that purple often does not show up the way we need them. But Hoke, they did this time. Do you think that that's going to last? I think it will because I think they finally see the results or what can happen to their state and their representation and their way of life if they don't. And they've never seen that before. Yeah, the best thing for Republicans is when the extreme of the political left in this country, represented by the Democrats, tell you exactly who they are, what they believe, and then try to do it when they get power. Hope, great to talk with you again. Hopefully we'll talk more all year long. It's O'Connor and Company. Coming up, we turn our sights to California. Gavin Newsom and his free diapers. How corrupt is it? Jen Van Laar of Red State next.

It's amusing to see all of the candidates for governor in California to talk about how lousy everything is and how much it needs to be fixed, considering they've had one party rule since Pete Wilson for crying out loud. And no, don't tell me Arnold Schwarzenegger's a Republican. He didn't govern as a Republican. That doesn't count. So Gavin Newsom is finishing up his second term as governor, just like he started it, with a bunch of socialist boondoggles that will cost the taxpayers a ton of money and not actually do anything. Just look at the bullet train. His latest announcement on Friday right before Mother's Day is meant to be one of those things that... We'll launch him to the White House, I suppose. It's free diapers for everyone. It costs $20 million, and each diaper is going to cost a lot more than a diaper you could just buy at the store. So what's really at play here? Jennifer Van Laar, she is the managing editor of Red State, Red State.com, a part of the town hall media family. She is probably one of the most ferocious, fearless, and detail-oriented investigative reporters on the scene. Proud to call her a colleague. And Jennifer, you're going to be our new California corruption correspondent because you know where all the bodies are buried in the golden state. Talk to me about the connections here between Gavin Newsom, the so-called free $20 million dollar diaper, $20 billion, I'm sorry. Wait, how much is it? 20 million or billion? It's a million billion. What does it matter with Gavin? That's true. But there's a nonprofit stuck in the middle here that directly connects to his family, right? Right. So it says baby-to-baby nonprofit. And honestly, I thought it was the babies are us. company at first when it came out. But it's a nonprofit that one of Jennifer Gavin Newsom's friends started. And this friend is married to a guy who is a big bundler for the Democrats. His dad had been a big bundler for Bill Clinton. And now the dad's 94 years old. So the son Jamie took over and is a big Democrat bundler. And they're paying 50 cents a diaper made in Mexico diapers. And you could get the same in a diaper for 15 cents each at Costco. It's just insane. Honestly, and the reason why these things happen without anybody actually saying what you just said is that, like I said, one party rule. There's no Republicans in the room to say, hey, guys, this is stupid. But also the media for the most part in California, they just, are they bored by this or are they part of the rigged system? For the most part, they are. I have to say Ashley Zavala has done a great job. I know I'm sure you've followed her. She's uncovered things about the no, about the NDA. Sorry, I was trying to remember the right words. The NDA is about the capital project where they're overpaying for everything in this capital annex and including a little special tunnel where the legislators don't have to meet the press once they go out of the building.

Amazing. Yeah. And at the same time, Gavin Newsom is complaining about the new ballroom at the White House, and yet they've got a bigger boondoggle going on with no transparency in Sacramento. Can anybody stop this diaper boondoggle, though? Or is this an executive decision? Was this passed by the legislature? What's this all about? It's an executive decision, and it goes through, I don't know where he finds this money. Earlier this year, he did get something through the legislature with $80 million in emergency funding for Planned Parenthood of California because, of course, the federal government cut off some of their funding to Planned Parenthood. So we have $100 million this year. going to this kind of just handouts to friends essentially because the woman who owned plant parent in California, her husband drew the new maps on Prop 50. Of course. Meanwhile, he won't pay the money for Prop 36, which is something the voters passed to have more law and order in the state. He won't fund that, but he'll give $100 million to his friends of his wife. Jennifer Van Laar and her incredible team over there at redstate.com have been reporting on, well, frankly, government corruption all over this nation. Red State does that better than anyone else. But in California, I mean, you were reporting on the open secret about Eric Swalwell as much as you could at least and avoid a defamation suit until witnesses came forward as we saw. Eric Swalwell's gone now. How is that race shaping up and why is it shaping up in the way that it is, in your opinion? So at the top of the Democrat heap right now, we have Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer. And Xavier Becerra has basically been anointed by Gavin Newsom without coming out and saying it because Gavin Newsom's allowed top staff members to go over to Xavier Becerra's campaign. People who are running his pack are also now running Xavier Becerra's campaign, which I think is also a way for Gavin Newsom to keep his eye on Xavier Becerra because as we know Xavier Becerra's former chief of staff. has been indicted along with Gavin Newsom's former chief of staff for embezzlement. Incredible. Incredible. But he is kind of the establishment pick. And it seems like everybody's rallying around him. But then you saw the Democrat Socialists, you know, the Carl Mark Zohran Mamdani's type. They endorsed Tom Steyer, the billionaire who's never held office before. It's crazy. People outside of California, I know that they have to just look at us and laugh and point. It is exhausting to live in this state, as you well know. It's all this going on. It's just like complete insanity. The DSA people going for a billionaire, you can't make this up. It is exhausting. But they would be a lot less exhausting if we thought we had a chance, we Republicans. Quickly, only about 20 seconds left. Does Steve Hilton have a chance? Absolutely. We just need to get everyone to turn out. Whoever turns out wins. He really has a chance, even in the general, if he makes it to the general election. All right. We'll see you all that, but he has a chance to get through here. All right. Jennifer Van Laar, thanks for waking up early on the West Coast for us. Always great to talk with you, my friend. Great stuff. More to come. O'Connor and Company rolls on this Monday morning. I'm Larry O'Connor.

Good Monday morning to you from your nation's capital on our flagship station, WMAL, shooting across the terrestrial radio airwaves into your home wherever you are. Good morning. It's Larry O'Connor and O'Connor and Company. Coming up in 30 minutes, we're going to have a conversation with the former Attorney General of Virginia, Jason Maris Rising Star, and the Republican Party. A lot of people want him to run for governor. of the commonwealth none too soon as abigail spamburger sits in that seat right now but he uh called the shot he predicted that this referendum to jerrymander districts out of existence republican districts out of existence in virginia was unconstitutional we'll talk to him about that effort about that fight and about one last ditch effort democrats have now to revive that gerrymandered district by well firing everyone on the Supreme Court and replacing them. I wish I were kidding, but that's an idea that's been floated in the New York Times. We'll get to that coming up in 30 minutes. Also, in just a few moments, I'm going to play for you an attack ad on Spencer Pratt, the Republican running for mayor in Los Angeles. It's an attack ad that... Well, I just think Spencer Pratt approves that message. You'll see a minute. What happens when you attack your political opponent and you actually do them a favor? That's what's going on here. It's going to be amazing. That's all coming up in a moment. But on Friday, we talk to you about the release of what's being called the UFO files. Although I think they call them UAPs now. Either way, it's stuff flying around out there that's been seen by the military, seen by astronauts even. Stuff that can't be explained or identified, and most people immediately assume it means they are aliens from another planet. Well, we're going to speak with Tom Jay Jones now. Tom Jay Jones is an astronaut, veteran of NASA, and author of Space Shuttle Stories, a very cool book that if you're a space guy and you love space exploration or if you're married to a space gal. as well uh this is the perfect book to have as every single one of the space shuttle missions are chronicled with amazing stories that only tom Jay Jones has told uh astronaut tom Jay Jones thanks for joining us this morning always good to talk to you sir great to see you larry good morning uh so my first question here is an easy one do you believe that there are aliens from other planets that have the technology to visit us and they have in fact done so and they've interacted with us No. As a scientist, I'm a skeptic of aliens visits to Earth. I think there is a good chance that life is out there in the universe. I just don't think that we have the evidence to say that they're visiting us. Okay. That's fair. I tend to agree with you too, but a lot of people were looking at the release of these files on Friday and they're going to continue to trickle out here. And one thing that jumped out of them was files that had never been seen before describing interactions with a couple of Apollo missions.

Buzz Aldrin, apparently, on Apollo 11 saw some unexplained stuff, including lights in the cabin, and one light that he described as potentially a laser. Did anyone at NASA at the time sort of come up with a solution as to what that was? You know, I just don't think that NASA pursued these sightings as anything other than, you know, one-off sightings of perhaps debris from the spacecraft. And since they didn't impact the missions themselves and pose no safety factor, you know, NASA just didn't get involved in trying to run down every last little sighting. So I read the transcripts that were released by the Apollo crews, and it resemble, in my experience, a lot of the things that we saw on the space shuttle in that a spacecraft sheds. water vapor and thruster exhaust gases and carries with it into space, frozen ice on the outside of the spacecraft as you go from the Earth's atmosphere into vacuum. And these things flake off and then they tumble in the sunlight. And they could be 20 feet away. They could be a mile away. And you can't really tell how far away they are from you, but they look like glittering, flashing objects out there. And in my experience, they're just phenomenon that come along with spaceflight carrying humans into the void. So I don't think they're alien spacecraft at all. This is legit experience when Tom Jay Jones says from my experience. How many days have you spent in space, Tom? Well, 53 days and up to the space station. And, you know, of course, we have had people living on the space station for the past 25 years. And I've yet to see that for, you know, the high definition video of the alien spacecraft flying information with the space station. And yet we have observers up there for a quarter century. So it's very scarce, this evidence. And I think people are seeing things in the sky and in space. But I just don't think that equates to proving that they're alien spaceships. We do have images now. They're not high definition, but I was struck by the images from Apollo 12. Now, these were taken from the moon's surface. Astronaut Alan Bean said he saw flashes of light. And you can see them. They're sort of in uniform, sort of a direct line up out into space. It appears as though they're sort of... in sync with each other, I guess, for lack of a better term. I mean, it has that bad. Because I got to tell you, when you say, yeah, NASA didn't really explore or investigate this because it didn't affect the mission, there are people going to hear that and say, that doesn't make any sense. You see stuff like this, of course you're going to investigate it. Not to my knowledge. They didn't put a lot of effort into it. I think if you look at the photography from Apollo at the time, we're using Hasselblad cameras. These are film cameras that have a 70 millimeter negative. And if you're looking into an angle that's close to the sun, you're going to get a lot of internal lens reflections from the sunlight bouncing into the multiple glass elements of the lens.

And so I think the photography often shows these internal reflections. And, of course, no concrete, not being hollowed, they're looking through a less-in, the gold bloodline on the outside, and there's reflection from one of those layers on the local glass for protection there, too. And so you can see all kinds of artifacts out there. These reasons are very hard a very hard in a day and in terms of distance. Tom, Tom, I got to jump in. Oh, my gosh, this is what gets the UFO people crazy, but we're having some interference on your line. And they're all going to say, you see, you see, they're trying to block Tom from telling the truth or something. All right, so we're going to try to switch to telephone if we could with Tom and reset that connection. Because, see, that's the last thing I need is all the emails and all the tweets and all the, because we both said we're skeptical. And now you're getting, you're getting the interference. Could be from the aliens. Could be from NASA. Could be from a secret black suit, men and black kind of organization or entity. And again, we're. All right. Let's connect back with Tom Jay Jones. And if you want to jump in on this, we'll take calls in the next segment, 855784-4255. You know the truth is out there, Tom. And I know you have to do this all the time. No, we're still have interference. We still have interference. All right. So we're going to reconnect with Tom. But this is the issue here. And this is why I don't think people who believe. and are sure that aliens have interacted with us and could even be walking amongst us or some people think that because a lot of these videos show these aircraft like emerging from the sea. So it's like, see, that's where the base is. That's where they're living. And that's where their construction is so far exceeds what we can do. And people who believe this stuff, and I'm not criticizing you, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that I don't think there is anything that the government can tell you that would change your mind. The only thing the government could tell you, that you would believe at this point on the unidentified flying objects or alien encounters and things like that. The only thing you would hear from the government that you would believe is affirmation of what you already believe. And you may be right, honestly. I'm kind of agnostic on this. It doesn't make a big difference to me. It really doesn't. I know that shocks people, but it doesn't make a big difference to me if there are alien creatures. I have enough to worry about here at home. I have enough to worry about with my four kids and my grandchild who's coming. We got enough to worry about aliens. I mean, look at the power base of the Democrats right now. I got enough to worry about with them and their alien perspective on where things should go in this country. compared to what most Americans have thought for the last 250 years. So I'm relatively agnostic about it. So when I challenge or when I recognize the the

obvious impossibility of the government finally putting an end to this conversation by saying, nope, it just didn't happen. I recognize that you will never believe that. And I get it. There's no reason why you should. We haven't had transparency up until now. It's taken Herculean efforts to get this data released. I mean, we just spoke with an astronaut who spent, you know, over 50 days in space, who has a perfectly reasonable explanation for these lights and these phenomenon and the stuff. that happened back in 1969. And the obvious reaction is, all right, if that's the case, why did it take you 50 plus years to release this? If there was a reasonable explanation and it wasn't even worthy of investigation, then why in God's name did you wait 55 years to tell us about it? And there is no answer. There is no answer. Unless the government wants you to be paranoid. Unless the government wants you distracted. There are no aliens, but the government wants you to be distracted by this and confused and paranoid about it. And that's another, again, problem with trust in the government. Do we have the Tom back? Oh, we don't. All right. We weren't able to connect with astronaut Tom Jay Jones. I do commend his book to you. And by the way, it's a great Father's Day gift. If you're looking for a Father's Day present, check out his book, Space Shuttle Stories. It breaks down every single Space Shuttle mission and tells you some really unique inside information that only the astronauts can tell. They all spoke with Tom. And that whole era of American space exploration and experimentation and testing out what we can do with the shuttle and with the space station, Tom is the go-to guy on it. And listen, if you want more on these UFO files, if you want to talk about the midterms coming up, California politics, Virginia politics, whatever's on your mind, we'll take your calls coming up in a moment. Love to hear from you. It's 855-784-4-2-55. And that... anti-Spenser Pratt ad that actually makes Spencer Pratt look awesome. We'll talk about that next. I'm Larry O'Connor. This is O'Connor and Company from your nation's capital. 855-8-8-8-4-2-55-8-8-5-7-8-8-8-4-2-5. Well, we do have astronaut Tom Jay Jones back here. I just wanted to ask him one more question. Tom, thanks for joining us. Sorry about the glitch there, you know, aliens in the system or something. Right. People will hear this, and I completely understand. You say, well, there's a reasonable explanation, and none of this was really a big deal. Why did it take them 50-plus years to release this information, then? That's sort of what feeds into the idea that the truth is out there, but it's being kept from the American. people. Is there a reason why it took all this time and all these efforts to release this information? I don't think NASA is hiding it at all. Those transcripts from the Apollo missions, every word that the Apollo crew spoke to and from the moon and on the moon is in the Apollo Flight Journal website. It's been out there for decades. So this is just, you know, somebody at the Pentagon gathering up all the stuff they're aware of and then releasing it. It's a re-release, in other words.

All right. So it's just re-releasing it, but packaging it all in one place and so people can access it. Correct. All right, all right. So the truth is out there and the truth has been there for all of us to see. I think that we're not being visited by spacious, but I'm an optimist in terms of finding life in our solar system and in the Milky Way galaxy where we live. Yeah, and you're pretty high on the Artemis mission, getting back to the moon and then beyond. This is the whole point is to get to Mars eventually so we can pursue the discovery of life on alien worlds like Mars, like Europa, like Enceladus in our solar system. Amazing. Tom, it's always a great conversation. Don't be a stranger. Thanks for being a friend of the program. Good luck, Larry. Bye. You bet. Thanks. All right. Monique in Frederick. Let's get you in here as we're talking aliens and politics and crazy Californians. Monique, what's on your right, Frederick, Maryland? Hi, thank you so much. Love listening to your show. Have been for years, and congrats on going national. That's awesome. Thank you. I guess my biggest question is, and it's frustrating because I do have, I'm extremely, you know, conservative and I've got a Republican forever. But it's really hard for me to remember and dispel a lot of the myths, I mean, all of the myths that are out there, the lies. And I would love to see more commercials. Looking at the positives. I mean, we have to dispel the myths because we have to get our truth out there. But, you know, we have the border crossing down sharply. The inflation lower than, you know, than we have seen in years. Stock market strength. I mean, domestic energy output. These are powerful things. I remember going to a Trump rally. I've only been to one. It was awesome. And they had these slides up there. And they were amazing. They were so, so powerful just showing. a litany of all of the successes, I would love to have that at hand and have these people who are listening to these lies all the time have that great information. Amen. Monique, you're so smart and you're so right. And I got to hope these guys aren't dumb. They know what they're doing. And certainly the president knows how to message. I got to think that they're just, they're planning that. They're keeping their powder dry, collecting their resources until we really get into the campaign season here. A website with all of that information. constant correcting the record and the facts put out there on a regular basis would help. And I know that they have social media platforms to do it. And Monique, you know, it's great for you to be able to share on your social media and your Facebook the truth instead of the lies that we're hearing because you're 100% right. But also Republicans aren't great at this, Monique, and thank you for the call. On tax day, why weren't Republicans in the House having events in all of their home districts and all of their states with waiters and waitresses and bartenders and people who live on tips celebrating the fact that they didn't have to pay any tax on their tips? Because that only happened because of Republicans. Why weren't they? doing that. Where was that visual? Where was that messaging? I don't know. I wish I could answer that for you. But hopefully it will be before Election Day. Hopefully it'll be out there. Speaking of messaging.

Democrats aren't great at this either. Here is a political action committee. I think it's propped up by unions or whatever. They put together an attack ad on independent Republican Spencer Pratt running from mayor of Los Angeles. Here, take a look at this attack ad and you tell me if you're Spencer Pratt, if you're damaged at all by this. Here, take a listen to this, everyone. Republican Spencer Pratt is the last thing Los Angeles needs for mayor. Pratt opposes using taxpayer money to build brand new houses for our unhoused neighbors, saying it's time for the homeless to get help or get out. Pratt thinks L.A. needs thousands more police officers rather than more social workers, and Republican Spencer Pratt thinks public employee unions should have less power, not more. L.A. is on the right track and needs to stay the course. Vote no on Republican Spencer Pratt. It's amazing. It's like, who disagrees? He thinks we need police officers instead of social workers. Yeah. He thinks the public employee unions have too much power. Yeah. And hot and on and odd. It's hilarious. Spencer Pratt should rerun that ad and say, I'm Spencer Pratt and I approve this message. I guess the whole point is he's a Republican. He's a Republican. And, hey, that might be enough in L.A. But I pray that it's not. This year, we're celebrating our 250th anniversary in America. For 250 years, Americans have believed in one powerful idea that we're meant to live free, free to work hard, free to move, free to enjoy life without being held back. I say this because a lot of you are being held back. You're holding yourself back right now, or you're letting everyday aches and pains. hold you back you reach a certain age and you think oh well that's it i've just got pains in my knees pains in my back pains in my muscles and that's just the way it's going to be well no it's not or maybe you're exercising the way you did 15 20 years ago and now it's harder for you to recover and you think oh well that's it i'm just old life's over no it's not But it's time to proactively do something about it. Relief factor. Relief factor is 100% drug-free, research-based formula designed to help your body fight inflammation, which is one of the root causes of pain. It's not a quick fixer, temporary mask, but it works. I know from personal experience. Go to Relieffactor.com or call 804 relief, 804 relief. It's the Relieffactor.com studio. It's Larry O'Connor. It's O'Connor and Company. And momentarily, we're going to connect with Jason Maris. He's the former Attorney General of Virginia, who as Attorney General warns the legislature in October of last year, don't meet to try to put a referendum out. to alter the Constitution because that's against the law. It's against the Constitution. You've got to do that sort of thing before voting takes place in an election. It's very clear. Supreme Court of Virginia just affirmed that on Friday. If they had just listened to the Attorney General who actually knows how to spell, unlike our current Attorney General Jay Jones there in the Commonwealth of Virginia, maybe.

They would have saved themselves a lot of time and money. But Virginians, the Virginia Democrats, I should say, have not given up. They couldn't rig the maps, at least the way they did it, by rigging the procedures. And the Supreme Court has just struck that down. So now, well, it's obvious what the only solution is, and that is to completely rig the Supreme Court of Virginia. There's a left-wing blog in Virginia called the down ballot. They floated this idea. Current law sets the mandatory retirement age of 73. They said that number is arbitrary. States around the country with similar laws mandate retirement across a wide range of ages. Virginia lawmakers can simply lower theirs. Make it 54 for Supreme Court justices, the age of the youngest justice, Stephen McCullough, who joined the majority opinion and make it take effect immediately. And this hairbrained lunatic authoritarian idea. made its way into the New York Times yesterday. And apparently Democrats are actually considering this. All right, Jason Miaris, as I mentioned, the man who warned about all of this when he was Attorney General, he joins this. Now, first, congratulations on this, not just on the victory Attorney General Miaris at the Supreme Court, but also the fact you led the way on this referendum and you brought in votes and made this thing so close. especially considering the election in November. So you should be commended on really sort of rallying the Republican base and common sense Virginians after an election where they were sort of downhearted and thought that they had sort of lost Virginia. You showed them a new way. So congratulations to you. Well, I mean, I appreciate it. I think it was a lot of us. I really appreciate Gluten Glenn Youngkin going back on the road as well with me those last couple of weeks. But I realized from the beginning, Virginia is not some D plus 15 state. If you see the results of the referendum, 14 localities flip their boats from Abigail Spanberger to No. And even though we were heavily outspent, obviously, three or four to one, I think it showed the reality as Virginians were shocked in aghast. and what this left-wing power grab was. They were shocked at a gas that spanned or broke her word after saying she wasn't going to gerrymander. And now here we are. So grateful for the Supreme Court's decision. It was a victory for the rule of law. The people they should be directing their anger to is Louise Lucas and Don Scott, who foolishly were pushing this, even though every lawyer on the planet that actually looked at the Constitution said, This has a host of problems and legal exposure. They decided to ignore it, wasted $70 million of campaign funds and probably close to $10 million of taxpayer money for this special referendum in April. And then us in Virginia having us separate through about five months of miserable TV ads lying and distorting what the yes vote was. So glad for the victory. Now we're seeing some disturbing things pop up. We'll see where that goes. Yeah, I want to get to this. Truly disturbing is the way to describe it, idea that Democrats could just arbitrarily change the retirement age and throw all the justices off the court. Are they serious about that? I mean, that truly is that sort of Maoist kind of behavior.

Listen, this should be really easy. I mean, last night I publicly demanded that Abigail Spanberger answered the question. Does she support this power grab or not? And it's been deafening. And I know there's been reporters that have reached out to their comms directors and have asked them this. So far, it's the best that I could see has been deafening silence as well, some of the Democratic leadership. So the ball is in their court. Now. You know, Abigail Spanberger's already the least popular governor in modern Virginia history. If she wants to really tank her approval ratings and put them in the low 30s, support this insane idea. I have real doubts that this would be succeed, even if they tried to run this play. I mean, you've had the commissioner of elections in Virginia already say, listen, we have to know what the maps are by May 12th. That's tomorrow. Because you have to realize if Democrats created this 45-day early voting, primaries are in August. So you're talking about early voting is going to be starting soon. There's a host of just administrative, bureaucratic things that have to be done at the state and local county levels at every county in the state, depending on what happened to these maps. They don't really have much of a time frame. I'm a little bit dubious. But listen, nothing would surprise me anymore. I mean, think about it. Abigail Spanberger said in August of 2025 that she was not going to gerrymander, not going to redistrict to Virginia. And literally, to show you how little Louise Lucas and Don Scott thought of her. Then they just ran through the constitutional amendment through the special session a week before the governor's race when a million people had already voted. And that's the other thing that I think the meeting is completely lost. Justice Kelsey, who authored this opinion, was originally appointed to the Court of Appeals by Mark Warner and was elevated to the Supreme Court of Virginia by unanimous vote. Every Democrat in the General Assembly voted for Justice Kelsey to be on the Supreme Court, including... Louise Lucas. Don Scott wasn't in the Congress and wasn't in the House of Delegates yet, but it's pretty delicious to see them decrying the supposed completely out of control Supreme Court that they supported the justice who wrote the opinion. Well, let's face it. I mean, it's a great point, Jason Maris, but let's face it, that Mark Warner from back then, if you look at what he stood for, what he claimed, he believed, today's Mark Warner. would call that Mark Warner, a right-wing extremist. That's how far Virginia Democrats have come. I want to get to the crux of this decision. You just mentioned early voting. And listen, I think we agree. We'd love to make Election Day election day again and stop with voting, you know, six, seven, eight weeks before Election Day. I'm hearing Democrats say that the Supreme Court came in and they just found some sort of technicality, some sort of arcane procedural thing. that should not override the will of the voters. But there is a very real reason why if the legislature of Virginia wants to put forth a referendum to change the Constitution, that needs to happen before voters go and vote in the upcoming election. Can you explain what the basis of that is? Because it's actually quite important, I think.

Well, there's a right way and a wrong way to amend the Virginia Constitution. And the idea has been it needs to be a very thoughtful, deliberative process that you have an informed electorate that's quite aware of what you're doing. And so the traditional way for your listeners is the General Assembly, which usually only meets in January and February in the winter years, 60 days of the winter months, will pass a constitutional amendment in the winter. you then have to have an intervening election of the General Assembly, which would presumably happen, as you know, in November. By the way, and the reason for that is, if I may, so voters, if they don't like where the legislature is going, where the House of Delegates or the Senate is going, they can then say, oh, I don't want to change the Constitution. Let's get rid of you right now for even trying, right? That's why. You're exactly right. It's supposed to inform you. and inform the elector before you vote. It's why one of the requirements is before they intervening election, you have to post the amendment and all the 95 courthouses throughout the state. And the idea is you're going in as an informed elector. You realize, hey, this is a substantive issue. They are going to be amending the Constitution. And then you come back in a newly constituted General Assembly votes on. It has to be the exact same language. You can't even change a comma. Has to be exact same language. And then after that, then it goes to the voters the following November. So in a normal world, it's a two-year process. They decided to ignore this. Back in 2020, when I was, and I've always been a champion of nonpartisan redistricting, I championed the amendment that we got through, took a long time. Even when my party was in power, it was bipartisan, which of the voters, closely divided state by Virginia, it won by 30-point margins. I'd remind people that said, well, everything's changed because of Trump. Donald Trump was in the White House in 2020 when this passed, our nonpartisan redistional passed. Now you do this. They decided to ignore all of those guardrails that have been very explicit. And the Supreme Court did not rule on whether it's okay to gerrymander, not okay to gerrymander. They were narrowly focused on, did they amend the Constitution according to what is dictated in the Constitution on our course of amendment? And they noted over a million people had voted already. in the November and the bubble, when they pass this on literally Halloween, October 31st, just a few days before the election for governor last year. And in, I thought this was an amazing moment, Larry, the solicitor general, the now solicitor general of Virginia that was arguing this case, admitted when the justices asked them, well, what would you say to the million people that had already voted and then you come out of essentially out of nowhere with little warning amend the Constitution? They said, well, that's just, that's a risk you have to take if you're voting early. In other words, your suckers, if you vote early, after they created this regime of 45, no excuse voting, it's not election day anymore in Virginia. It's election season. And so it is pretty remarkable for them to essentially say, well, election day doesn't really begin until. that Tuesday in November, all those other votes, well, they just run that risk. That's, candidly, that may violate some equal protection laws. I'm not going to get completely wonky, but there's some real serious questions that you're treating voters differently because they vote early versus they vote later. That's a serious question mark that may end up in federal court. I don't think we're going to get there. I think the Supreme Court's, the Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled. This is dead. It also does show you how little they think.

of their absurd chances to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That's not going to go anywhere. And I think this is going to be a real reflective point for Abigail Spanberger of what she does. Agreed. Agreed. Because... A chance to actually be the moderate she claimed she is. Actually, I don't think this is moderate. I just think this is such a loony idea that should be easy. She should have already come out with a statement today saying no. Right. No, it's basic fairness and basic, you know, in keeping with a constitutional republic. We only have a little over a minute left here. Former Attorney General Jason Mierrez, I keep hearing your name pop up. Listen, you stayed in the political game right after the election because of this referendum. Highly effective. I'm hearing your name as a potential candidate for governor in Virginia. I'm hearing your name as a potential senator from Virginia because you wax so poetic about Cuba and foreign policy and the rise of communism around the world. And your family, of course, with your Cuban origins. What's next for Jason Miaris? What should we expect from you? What are you looking to do? Well, you can't have a comeback with a setback. You'll see some more information coming out on how I want to help and be in the fight in Virginia. But I will say this, I think the rise of Marxism, the fact that 66% of Democrats today say they admire socialism versus only, I think it's low 30, say they admire for enterprise free markets. That should send a chill down everyone's spine. This is the most murderous ideology in all of human history that's taken more lives. And the idea that you have so many young people right now, particularly young liberal Democrats who are the future leaders. And Larry, I think one of the pinpoints for us was December 4th of 2024 when Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare, was murdered. Half of America's college students said his murder was justified. So I'm staying in the game because I love this country. Excellent. Please do and let us know what your future plans are as soon as you know them, Jason Mierrez. 855-784-425-O-Connor and Company. I'm Larry O'Connor. Larry O'Connor here for O'Connor Company getting you started on this Monday morning. And we make no secret of the fact that this is a Washington, D.C. based show. I'd like to tell you what's going on here in your nation's capital at the federal level, but also in the greater region. Because most of the issues that we've got with local politics here, even at the school board level, at the granular level, there are issues that you're dealing with wherever you are as well. If we talk about the Fairfax County. school board, it resonates to the Prince George's County School Board here in the greater Washington area or the Frederick County School Board or, for that matter, in the Los Angeles County School Board. This is stuff that we're all dealing with right now. And to that end, a fascinating development has happened here in Washington with our major newspaper, The Washington Post. For decades, it's been dominated by left-wing thought. And Jeff Bezos, the owner, and the...

brain trust behind the Washington Post realized after the last election that they're not really delivering news and opinion and good journalistic practices to the readership here in Washington anymore. They just became a propaganda organ for the left. And so they cleared house. Some people left on their own because they didn't like that the Washington Post didn't endorse Kamala Harris in the last election. Many of them were fired and they brought in some new journalists. And I want you to see and listen to, if you could, listen to this video that was put out by a new... Opinion journalist at the Washington Post exploring the problem with mass transit. And what they talk about for mass transit in Washington, D.C. and the metro system, you could repeat this in every major Democrat dominant city in this country. Here we go. D.C. mass transit has recovered better than other cities since the pandemic. The service is reliable and the system is safe. There's just one problem. It costs too much. Not the price you pay when you tap your card. That actually doesn't even come close to covering the cost of your trip. Federal, state, and local subsidies accounted for just over half of the system's operating costs before the pandemic. In 2024, it was 85%. And a lot of that burden is falling on the D.C. government. D.C. now spends more on Wamata, the city's public transit agency, than it does on police. And D.C. has its own budget problems with funding other vital public services. About 70% of operating costs come from just one source, labor. WMATA employs 13,681 workers to complete 304.7 million trips a year. That's about 1,000 more workers than it had in 2014, when it completed over 100 million more trips. For perspective, Berlin's public transit authority, with over three times as many annual passengers as Womada, has 16,500 employees. WMATA has taken a significant step in the right direction to save transit in a world where more people work from home by approving a plan to fully automate the red line, but it's going to cost almost a billion dollars. That's only worth it if labor expenses will be cut once the project is done. The problem is that making those cuts requires taking on the transit workers' union and circumventing an archaic federal law that prevents job cuts at transit agencies that take federal funding. WMATA needs a credible plan to reduce operating expenses. And the only serious way to do that is to make significant labor cuts. This basic financial problem isn't just an issue for D.C. It's an issue for every major transit system in the country, especially the ones that have worse service than WMATA. If politicians view transit jobs as more important than transit service, there's only one direction that the cost to taxpayers can go up. Well done. And by the way, the Washington Post even followed up on this video expose with their own editorial board editorial saying, can D.C. continue to have mass transit with these out-of-control labor costs. And the answer is no. They can't. But that's because in every major city in America, mass transit has been, first of all, pushed on the American people.

against our will. I mean, we just canceled a light rail program in Washington, D.C. that nobody wanted a trolley to nowhere. that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It only lasted 10 years and it was a complete debacle. It ruined traffic on the street where this trolley took place. It ruined parking on that street. And now it's dead. It's kaput because the money dried up. And even the Democrats who run D.C. recognized that it was a mistake and a mess. Think about where that money could have gone. How about lowering our taxes so we can afford a car and parking and more parking spaces in the city? And I'm repeating something that happens in every major. metropolitan area democrats all decide that we have to have light rail and mass transit they have a war on cars they have a war on parking they want to make bike lanes instead of where you used to drive your car down in the midtown downtown area of whatever city you're near it makes life miserable so then they force you into the mass transit and then of course they give huge gifts to the unions who are entrenched in these mass transit programs and those unions then in turn spend a ton of money supporting those very same Democrats that prop up the program. And it all ends up costing you hundreds of millions of dollars. And now finally in Washington, D.C., it appears the major newspaper in this town is seeing the light. What needs to happen next? Well, Republicans in Congress can start. Did you hear that little item there? There's an arcane law right now. where any city that gets funding from the federal government for a transit program can't fire and lay off workers, union members in that transit program. What the hell is that? What kind of racket is this? Republicans. Should get rid of that immediately. Let cities run these transit programs like businesses, or at least closer to businesses, and start saving these programs that are costing way too much money and making the unions way too powerful. Light at the end of the tunnel here in Washington as the Post finally gets one right. Keep up the good work, Washington Post. Did I just say that? O'Connor and Company. I'm Larry O'Connor. Have a great Monday. In 2025, Americans lost more than $21 billion to fraud and identity theft. That's why so many people are turning to Aura. Aura helps protect your identity with fraud alerts, dark web monitoring, and up to $5 million in identity theft protection. And if you become a victim, Aura's 24-7 U.S.-based support team is there to help. Don't wait until your identity is stolen. Start your free trial today at Aura.com slash safe. That's Aura.com slash safe.