Welcome to Red Meat, a collection of the tastiest tidbits from Odyssey's conservative news talk radio stations across the country, a place where we're not afraid to dig in.

We've got a lot to get to today, from the latest brinkmanship in Iran to threats to Social Security, and a great moment with a military hero.

But let's kick things off with the latest in Trump v. California,

where the courts ruled in favor of the president's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles,

affirming his presidential authority to do so.

But there's a little more to it than just that, so let's get the news first from KCBS in the Bay Area.

Let's return now to the KCBS political analyst Mark Sandalo.

So, Mark, presidential authority affirmed for now?

For now, although with limit, what Trump had argued is that the statute allows him, first of all,

to protect federal officers doing their duty, which is what he says ICE was doing, and he can

federalize the National Guard to do that. He also made the argument that his commander in chief,

he can do whatever he wants. The National Guard is under his purview if he decides so, and that no court can tell him not to. The court rejected that

last argument, saying, absolutely, your actions are reviewable by the court. But in this instance,

it is very likely that the statue does protect you in that there were indeed rocks being thrown

at ICE officers and such.

And in that sense, they rejected a lower court and basically said that for now,

Trump has control of federal troops.

So they are in L.A.

And if, for some reason, say in San Francisco, ICE officers requested the National Guard accompany them,

there, it seems like nothing that would stop that.

But there is a limitation here.

Let's say, for example, that Trump decided, you know, California is doing this nutty thing

...