Attention Seeking Democrats

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Are the Democrats attention seeking?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, what we need is more common sense.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Common breaking down the world's nonsense about.

Speaker 3 (00:12):
How American common sense will see.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Us through with the common sense of Houston. I'm just
pro common sense for Houston. From Houston. This is the
Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by viewind dot Com.
Now here's Jimmy Barrett.

Speaker 4 (00:31):
All right.

Speaker 5 (00:32):
We started today talking about your hairstyle.

Speaker 4 (00:35):
We talked about that this morning. It had some fun
with it. What got be going on the hairstyles is
a story which seems to ring pretty true to me anyway,
that that men are not really big on changing their hairstyle.
Number number one, we don't really have a whole lot
of hairstyles to choose from. When you get right down

(00:56):
to it, do you, I mean, you either have it
short or you have it long. You know, most of
the crazy ideas like the mullet have gone away, no
longer a part of it. And that and I think
generally speaking, unlike women, who I think crave changing their hairstyle,

(01:17):
especially as they get older, men do not usually like
to change their hairstyle. Eighty four percent of the men's
in this study say they feel confident with their current
hair do if you believe that your hair looks the
best that could look the way it is right now,
then what's the reason why you would change your hairstyle.

(01:39):
Fifty five percent of men have never once considered changing
their hairstyle. The other forty five percent have thought about it,
but they they chicken out and they don't really have
an idea of what they want it to be. So
you go in and you've got the favorite barber or
hairstylist that's been doing your hair for years, and you

(02:02):
can probably tell by the way if they think you
would look better with a different hairstyle. I've noticed that
the woman who cuts my hair, and I've been going
to her now for about five six years, that she
styles it differently. I kind of have, I guess, for
lack of a better definition, I have what you would

(02:24):
call the clooney as in George Clooning, and I've probably
had it, you know, certainly throughout the two thousands. I'm
stuck with. This is the hairstyle I probably have had
now for the better part of twenty five years. And
it was a change to go to the hairstyle. But
this is when you know a younger George Clooney and
I think he still kind of wears his hair this way,

(02:45):
where it's pretty short. For the most part, the hair
is pretty short except on top. The hair is just
long enough to lay down on the top, and then
you kind of spike it a little bit short, a
short spike in the front, which comes in handy if
you have a receding hairline. As long as you got
hair up front, if you're getting a little bald on top,
it kind of disguises the fact that you might be

(03:07):
getting a little bit bald on top. But I can't
remember the exact year I adopted the cliny, but that
was a big change to go to that. I haven't
changed it since, and I don't know at this point
what I would change it too. I don't think I
would grow it longer. I preferred shorter. I used to
like it long when I was a kid. And I
try to think of all the different hairstyles I've had.
I know that when I was a little kid that

(03:27):
I had like a buzz cut, crewcut, buzz cut kind
of thing, because for no other reason, I had this.
I have this cowlic on one side of my head,
and I think my mother I had it long for
a little bit when I was when I was young,
like maybe uh, kindergarten, first grade, but I think my
mom got tired of trying to get my hair to

(03:48):
lay down, and she just said that all the hell
with this, and then just you know, they went with
a buzz cut.

Speaker 3 (03:52):
And then I had a princeton. You remember princeton. Do
you know what a princeton is.

Speaker 4 (03:56):
Princeton is where it's kind of like a really short
buzz cut for everything but the front, and the front
is long enough to comb and and that was the princeton.
And then when when I got into college or making
a transition from college to high school, my hair got long.
I grew my hair long and and I had it

(04:17):
parted down the middle, and so I kind of kind
of like Peter imagine Peter Frampton back in the day.
That's kind of what I look like Peter Frampton back
in the day. And then when I started going short again,
then I just had the additional side part and then
ended up with the cloony. So I've had like what
four or five different hairstyles, and that's it over the

(04:38):
course of the time. But the barber, the woman who
styles my hair now, she keeps wanting to go to
the side part again. So I think she's trying to
She's trying to tell me that she thinks I look
better that way. Maybe I'm not sure, or she's trying
to tell me that, Hey, you know you're you're you're
still doing the clooney. The clooney is way out of style, dude,

(04:58):
You really need to come up with something else. So anyway,
prompted a question of the day this morning on our
morning show on ktr H about you know hairstyles that
you've had, maybe a hairstyle you had that you looking
back you're embarrassed by it, or the hairstyle you have
now and why you have the hairstyle you have now,
And it was mainly men. Few women responded. And women

(05:18):
are different. I think they're more open to changing their style.
And they all get to a certain point life where
they cut their hair, where they had their hair was
relatively long, and then they cut their hair and they
got their hair short. Well, my first wife is like,
right after the honeymoon, I came home one day and
her hair was showing up.

Speaker 3 (05:36):
What happened? What happened to the long, beautiful hair?

Speaker 4 (05:39):
I got tired of dealing with it.

Speaker 3 (05:41):
Well, what about me?

Speaker 4 (05:42):
I liked I liked your hair long anyway, here's a
couple of callers on their hairstyles, good, bad and ugly.

Speaker 3 (05:52):
Hey morning, Jimmy.

Speaker 5 (05:53):
Let's see your favorite hair gets that had is most favorite?

Speaker 3 (05:59):
My mohawk I had, Dan, I would go.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
With current haircuts that I love right now, cliffbo.

Speaker 6 (06:05):
Agree with me?

Speaker 1 (06:06):
Bald bald at sixty guys.

Speaker 3 (06:10):
Skip from Webster. I always parted my hair on the
side haircuts I.

Speaker 1 (06:14):
Don't like the mullet and parted down the middle otherwise
known as the zipper.

Speaker 4 (06:19):
You know, there's still a few people with mullets. I
go to a barbecue place and the owner there, he
has a mullet, and I mean, it's it is what
I would call an extreme mullet. The party in the
back is super long and the business upfront is super short.
So it's what I would call an extreme mullet. And
I keep wondering, I keep trying to get the courage
go up and ask him. I'm just curious, why why

(06:41):
do you still have a mullet? Even Billy Ray Cyrus
got rid of his mullet. Let's get a few more.

Speaker 7 (06:46):
Worst, the worst haircut known to man as the scullet.

Speaker 5 (06:49):
That's a mullet in the.

Speaker 4 (06:50):
Back and a skull on top.

Speaker 1 (06:52):
You're bald, bro, just.

Speaker 6 (06:54):
Shave it off.

Speaker 1 (06:55):
Hey, Jimmy, about the time women want to cut their
hair short is right about the ti women want to
speak to the manager. Long hair doesn't necessarily go with
excuse me, I'd like to speak with your manager. So
you got to get that bob or that little weight
line going so that you have the official careen cap going.

Speaker 7 (07:14):
Jimmy, skuy My, this is ead from summer Wood Hairstyles
had the same hairstyle for probably forty years now. I
just stick with what works as far as rollers. I
use hot rollers to make my hair smoother, and I
get a carrotin treatment because otherwise I look like David
Coverdale from White Snake with the hair. So y'all have

(07:36):
a great day.

Speaker 4 (07:38):
Everybody knows what David Coverdale, lead singer White Snake with
that hairstyle. Kind of kind of kind of wild and thick. Yeah,
Elizabeth has very thick hair. She's Sicilian. She had that
very thick Italian hair and she always wants to go short.
But the shorter she goes, the more like an afroid looks,
so she could only go so short. Anyway, it's fun

(07:59):
to talk about with born a moment Jimmy Beart Show
here at AM nine fifty k PRC.

Speaker 5 (08:18):
All right, well to a little bit about the best
talks and where this whole thing is going during this segment.
But here's here's what I would like to start with
as it relates to the media and President Trump. I mean,
the the MSNBC, which is now changing to I forget
what they're changing to, but they're they're no, it's no

(08:38):
longer going to be MSNBC. It's going to be something else.
They're kind of rebuilding and retooling themselves. I don't know
if this means that it's gonna be the same old,
same old programming or different programming. I'm sure it's still
gonna be an ultraliberal slant. I'm sure it's still could
be anti Trump, but they're retooling MSNBC. New York Times

(09:02):
has a story. I think it's an opinion piece. Of course,
everything in the New York Times these days is an
opinion piece, but it questions about the way President Trump
talks and how more and more Americans are talking like
Trump we're thinking like Trump. We're talking like Trump. Listen.

Speaker 4 (09:24):
I don't think anybody talks like Trump except for Trump.
You know, you could say what you want about it.
But one of the things that will drive you a
little bit crazy and listening to him is that there
are very few if you notice this, there are very
few periods in any Trump sentence. It's like it's the

(09:44):
ultimate run on sentence. And he'll switch topics right before
he's going to finish a thought. He'll switch the topic
to something else, and he'll just move from one to
the next, to the next to the next, and it
makes it really hard. But I when I try to
share audio from the press with you, editing is very
difficult because there are no natural pauses. There are no periods,

(10:09):
there's no This is the end of the sentence and
that's where you want to stop it. He also, and
a lot I know a lot of other people who
do this too, he ends with his voice going up
on sentences quite a bit. In the logical conclusion to
a statement, to your voice usually goes down, and his

(10:31):
rarely does that. Again, makes the editing really tough to do.
But the New York Times is concerned about this so
Greg Guttfield had some fun. First of all, nobody talks
like Trump, and you'll see that because there's a couple
of Trump cuts in here. We'll see what Greg Gutfeld
thinks about the idea that we're all starting to think
and talk like Trump.

Speaker 3 (10:51):
Trump He's different.

Speaker 8 (10:53):
I wonder does he want to get to heaven if possible?

Speaker 3 (10:56):
I want to try and get to heaven if possible.

Speaker 4 (10:58):
I'm hearing I'm.

Speaker 3 (10:59):
Not doing well. I really get at the bottom of
the total bo If I can get to heaven, this
will be one of the reasons. Last month I signed
one big beautiful bill and he takes the fat to
fat shot drug.

Speaker 8 (11:13):
I'm in London and I just paid for this damn
fat drug I take.

Speaker 3 (11:18):
I said, it's not working.

Speaker 1 (11:19):
They want transgender for everybody, everybody transgender, That beautiful frug.

Speaker 3 (11:25):
This is a different panel that I've met. Everything's computer,
Everything's computer. We get that.

Speaker 8 (11:35):
It's not surprising his vocab is popular because he is
using his own words. Trump's policies are beautiful, the Dems
are a total disaster, and Rosie O'donnelly's huge. He's easily
understood and uses words a high school dropout understands it's
why cab drivers.

Speaker 3 (11:55):
And Jesse Waters love him, but it makes me.

Speaker 8 (12:00):
Has The New York Times ever done a piece on
how the left twist language into an appealing cover for
their dreadful ideas. I mean, what's worse, blunt honesty or
this dishonest muck.

Speaker 9 (12:12):
We talked about racial and economic justice, racial and social justice.
We started to add to really extend those issues to
the issues of economic justice, environmental justice, and the intersectionality
and interconnectedness of all our fiens.

Speaker 8 (12:28):
Climate change is having a disproportionate effect on the physical
and mental health of Black communities.

Speaker 10 (12:34):
I have often said that gender firm and care is healthcare.

Speaker 3 (12:37):
It is mental health care.

Speaker 7 (12:38):
She will be the first black woman, the first out
LGBTQ plus person to serve.

Speaker 3 (12:45):
In this role.

Speaker 11 (12:45):
Cabinate is majority people of color for the first time
in history, The cabinet is majority female for the first
time in history, the majority of White House senior staff,
and as female forty percent of White House senior staff.
And to defy as part of racially diverse communities, a
record six assistance to the President are openly LGBTQ.

Speaker 5 (13:03):
I am Kamala Harris my son answer, she and her
and a woman sitting at a table wearing a blue suit.

Speaker 3 (13:10):
Not anymore, Kamala.

Speaker 8 (13:14):
Now you're a woman laying down in a corner booth
at Chili's, and your pronouns are and faced. It's the
shared code of over educated brains using jargon to hide

(13:38):
nefarious intent. There are people who start their senses with
so and finished with a smug smile and folded arms,
just like they invented fire at that moment.

Speaker 3 (13:49):
But Trump's the opposite.

Speaker 8 (13:50):
He's direct, honest, and fun, three things the Democratic Party
isn't and can't be.

Speaker 4 (13:56):
Well, here's the other thing that is frustrating. I think
the Democrat already right now. And one of the reasons
why you're hearing so many negative comments coming out of
the media on these peace talks between Trump and Zelenski
and Putin and the European leaders is that it seems
to be gaining traction. It feels like it's working. Maybe

(14:20):
not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it feels like we're
going to end up somewhere out of war. As it
relates to Russia and Ukraine and the Trump comment about
going to heaven, he thinks one of the reasons why

(14:41):
he might go to heaven if he can solve this
is that there are seven thousand people a day dying
in Russia and Ukraine, you know, troops and civilians who
are dying as a result of this war. And if
he can bring that to an end, he can save
thousands of lives each and every day. Imagine how many
lives could have been saved if the war hadn't begun
to begin with. So how's all this going? I mean,

(15:03):
are we making progress here? How are you feeling? You
feeling like this is going to get done? That somehow
that the brokers some sort of a peace deal. I
don't know if it becomes a permanent peace deal, but
wouldn't that be amazing if it did, because if you
could just get to peace now, as long as Trump
is in office anyway, you got to think the peace

(15:26):
is going to be successful. So anyway, Marco Rubio's secretary
of State, got asked about the progress that's being made
and how he feels about the chances of its success.

Speaker 12 (15:37):
I think the whole thing was a big moment, unprecedented
really when you think about all these European leaders came here,
seven that were there, and that included the head of
the of NATO and the head of the EU, and
they all said the same thing, which is this. You know,
after three years a sort of deadlock and no talks
and no change in circumstances, this is the first time
where there seems to be some movement. Now, look, this

(15:58):
is a complicated war, there's no doubt about it. I mean,
this has been going on for three and a half years,
a lot of people have died, a lot of territories
exchanged back and forth, so it's not an easy thing
to unwind.

Speaker 3 (16:08):
But nothing was happening on this war.

Speaker 12 (16:10):
Literally the only option that we were given under the
previous administration was continue to fund Ukraine for however much
they need, for however long it takes. And now you
have people actually talking about pathways towards ending it. Now
it's going to take a little bit more work and
a little bit more time, but we are making progress.

Speaker 3 (16:26):
It's not me saying it.

Speaker 12 (16:28):
That is virtually every leader there today said that in
front of the cameras, and they're saying it for a
reason because it's true and they're witnessing it and they've
been a part of it.

Speaker 13 (16:36):
So these European nations, and some of these are NATO countries.
Are they willing to put troops on the ground in
Ukraine to cement this piece deal? Would that make Ukraine
kind of like.

Speaker 12 (16:49):
A NATO ally, Well, what's being contemplated. Look, any sovereign
country in the world has a right to enter into
security alliances with other countries. It's not just NATO. We
have such a alliances with South Korea, we have it
with Japan. Other countries have it with each other, and
so I think everyone would acknowledge, including by the way,
for the first time the Russian side under President Trump's

(17:09):
sort of pressure or a suggestion, is that in fact,
a Ukraine post conflict has a right to enter into
a security agreements with other countries, and we will work
with our European allies and non European countries, by the way,
to build such a security guarantee. We're working on that
right now, we'll continue to work on that, and that'll
be something that'll have to be in place after a

(17:30):
peace deal so that Ukraine can feel safe moving forward,
and we're coordinating that as we speak, we're involved in
the coordination of it. So yeah, there are a number
of countries that are willing to step forward and provide
Ukraine security guarantees. But as the Ukrainians have said to us,
and I think have said publicly, the strongest security guarantee
they can come up with their futureist to have a

(17:50):
strong military moving forward.

Speaker 3 (17:52):
And that's the other dynamic that's changed.

Speaker 12 (17:53):
We're no longer giving Ukraine weapons, We're no longer giving
Ukraine money. We are now selling them weapons and European
countries are paying for it through NATO. They're using NATO
to buy the weapons and transfer them to Ukraine. That's
another big change from the way this war was approached
just a few you know, just under the Biden administration.

Speaker 4 (18:10):
No US troops involved. By the way, the press has
been very clear on that we would not send US
troops as far that security force that would be provided
by these other European countries who say they're willing to
do so. It will be provided by NATO countries. I
wonder if I'm a little surprised that Putin agreed to that,
but hey, hopefully that works out all right. What more,

(18:32):
we'll going a little along on this one. We'll make
up for it our next segment. But I want to
finish the thoughts here on the peace talks. What is
the key to getting to Putin? What is the leverage
that we have on Putin? According to Victoria Coats with
the Heritage Foundation, the key to all of this in
dealing with Putin is energy.

Speaker 3 (18:52):
I think this is.

Speaker 14 (18:53):
The key to President Trump's approach to this peace, approaching
it from a position of strength. And you look at everything,
the unleashing of American energy dominance, which is already happening
in the first six months of his administration. We feel
that in my home state of Pennsylvania, with the emphasis
on upping the production of natural gas that can go
to Europe to offset those Russian imports, we're seeing the

(19:18):
Indians start to pull back from buying Russian energy. And
we know the Chinese drive a very hard bargain with
the Russians in terms of their price, that's not going
to be enough money to keep them going. So I
think this is why the President is hopeful about getting
Putin to the table, getting him to make a.

Speaker 3 (19:36):
Reasonable deal with Ukraine.

Speaker 14 (19:38):
And I think he's going to approach that, as I said,
from a position of strength, and he may actually bring
it home. Then in forty hours, the President of the
United States literally puts up the bat signal and everybody
shows up, from the head of the EU to the
Prime Minister of the UK, President of Italy, Chancellor of Germany,
President of France, and also, I think tellingly, the President

(20:01):
of Finland as well as the NATO Secretary General, because
if you think about it, Finland has the longest piece
of the Eastern front with Russia between a direct border
with NATO, and we've talked to him before, President stub
about what he's doing in terms of border security. I
think what they're going to be talking about in terms
of NATO help to Ukraine will be on eastern border security,

(20:25):
so that whatever gets drawn on the east of that
country is secure.

Speaker 4 (20:30):
Interesting. Okay, we got to take a break. We'll be
right back in the moment. Jimmy Barrett Show. You're an
AM nine to fifty KPRC. All right, they are back

(20:51):
in Austin. There is a forum. The Democrats are no
longer running. They're taking up redistricting today. They realize that there,
you know, there's no way to find this, not that
they didn't know that before. I think they were just
using the opportunity to get some publicity. And you know,
whatever else it is, I think most of our were
attention seeking. Most most things that seem to happen right

(21:12):
now with the with the progressive left is all about
getting attention for whatever your cause. Is the same thing
with for example, Bethel Rourke. The only reason why he
you know, took some of his daddy in law's money
and funded some of these runaway Democrats was to get
back get back on the map here because he probably

(21:33):
wants to take another stab and running for the Senate.
Democrats had nobody to offer. It's going to be about
either Bethel Rourke trying to take on Ted Cruz again
or what's that what's that other loser's name that laws
last time out? I can't even remember his name anymore. Anyway,
those are the only two, that's it. They nobody else

(21:53):
evidently who's interested in taking on Ted Cruz and running
for the Senate. So, you know, right is just all
about getting attention, and certainly that is what Gavin Newsom
is looking for. He's looking for attention. He wants to
run for president, so that's why he's making all these
you know, blustering statements about well, we're going to read

(22:13):
district California already one of the most gerrymandered states in
the entire country. There are some Republicans in California and
they're fighting back at the idea of doing redistricting right now.
So that's not a done deal, even if he can
get it through the state legislature and put it on
the ballot for a special election. You know, the question

(22:34):
is can they do or would they do a special
election in time for you know, November twenty twenty six.
Hard to say. Maybe they couldn't, Maybe they couldn't. And
if they did, and let's say, for the sake of argument,
they did, and you know, what do we think is
going to happen? There are there are a total of

(22:58):
three Democrat states that could technically legally do redistricting right now.
There's a ton of Republican states that could. So if
we're going to go to war over this, it's going
to be a war of attrition. I had Will Chamberlain
on Senior Council at the Article three project on our
morning show today on katrh to talk about all this.

(23:19):
Here's a little segment of that. I think the question
isn't whether or not Republicans could win a redistricting war.
The question is would they fight? What do you think?

Speaker 6 (23:30):
I think that's a good way to frame the question,
But I think they would. I mean, I don't think
that the other states are going to stand by. Why California,
you know, decides to jerrymander out, you know, everyone but
three or four Republican congressmen in a state where you know,
we lost to California by less than we won Florida
and Texas this last presidential election. So yeah, that's not

(23:52):
something I think people would stand for, and I expect
the Republican states would respond in kind.

Speaker 4 (23:57):
Yeah, I'm looking at the map right now. California did.
They could only redistrict if they put it up for
a vote. They'd have to have a special election, which
evidently they're willing to at least Gavin Newsom is willing
to do. If you can come up with enough votes,
Oregon they could do it. Illinois could redistrict, and I
think I want to say maybe Maryland could redistrict. But
you'd look at all these red states Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida,

(24:24):
South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, New York, Ohio, like Indiana,
they could all redistrict and those are all red states.

Speaker 6 (24:32):
Yeah, there's a lot more red state thick and redistrict
and the red states that can district have more Democrat
congressmen in them generally speaking, you know, if you look
at it broadly, largely because of the Voting Rights Act
and how it used to be interpreted, So you have
a lot of these majority minority districts and states that
could easily completely lock out Democrats from having any seats,

(24:53):
like Louisiana for example. It's a good example of that. Alabama.
I think Alabama might have two Democrat seats of all things,
which is actually when you think about it, because Alabama
is one of the hardest read states in the country.

Speaker 4 (25:03):
Yeah, I think it's safe to say, you know, to
get back to the are willing to fight thing? Certainly
Democrats know that. Are they counting on the idea that
the Republicans wouldn't fight back against them? Redrawing maps and
blue states all right?

Speaker 6 (25:18):
I think they're sort of in this weird spot where
they don't have any because they don't have a leader,
they don't have strategic command and control, so they're all
just doing things to get social media likes, and there's
it doesn't if it doesn't fit into a strategy or
leads to negative consequences for the party as a whole,
well there's nobody who can you know, take the larger
view and stop it.

Speaker 1 (25:40):
You know.

Speaker 6 (25:40):
In a sense, Republicans are much able to act much
more strategically because Trump is the leader of the party.
So Trump and is confident that if he makes a
decision and sees what the right move is, everybody else
will fall into line. So Democrats don't have that. They're
just stuck trying to, you know, appeal to their base
and act and resist in any way that they can,

(26:01):
even if there's ultimately leads to worst consequences down the road.

Speaker 4 (26:04):
But all this acting up seems to be eroding their
base at least to a certain extent, don't.

Speaker 3 (26:09):
You think, Yes, Oh yeah, I mean, well it's you.

Speaker 6 (26:12):
Know, moderate Democrats are leaving the party in droves, that
kind of I mean, and it really gives you sort
of wonders that who's going to be you know, the
nominees going forward, because you know, all the kind of
people who would have voted for the moderate Democrat, A
lot of them are becoming Republicans, even in big city.
So you know, you see, this is how you get
somebody like Zarin Mandani as the Democrat nominee in New

(26:33):
York City. You know, the kind of people who would
have voted for a moderate like a Cuomo or in Adams,
They're they're becoming Republicans, and so they're not even in
the party necessarily.

Speaker 4 (26:45):
I have the one last one for you here, and
that is, with all these moderate Democrats coming over to
the Republican Party, is there a danger that that pushes
the Republican Party more towards the middle, less MAGA and
more towards the middle.

Speaker 6 (26:59):
I to a degree, but I think, I mean, you know,
in a sense Trump Trump has already done a decent
job of that if you look at and not in
a bad way. I think the Republican Party's platform now
is much more in the middle of the country than
it was, say, twelve years ago, under with Mint Romney
and Paul Ryan. You know, we're much more moderate on
things like entitlements than we were, but we're hard on immigration,

(27:22):
which is the number one issue for a huge chunk
of the country. You know, you look at where we are,
we just we've embraced a really, really tough immigration policy,
which is what the majority of the country wants. And
so we were just in a very strong position in
terms of our policy platform, much stronger than we were
a decade ago.

Speaker 4 (27:39):
That's uh to day we get Oh yeah, Will Chamberlain
not Wilt leave off the tee a Will Chamberlain senior
counsel with the Article three project. You know something I
want to try to get on the show tomorrow. We're
gonna work on getting doctor Carrol Haynes on. Uh, there's
a in Oklahoma and I may matter of fact, maybe

(28:02):
I'll talk about this a little bit in our next
segment and we'll see if we can follow up with
her on an interview on this. But in Oklahoma they
are testing, or are going to test, or making plans
to test incoming teachers who come from New York or
California or any Blue state. If you're a Blue state

(28:26):
teacher and you're moving to Oklahoma, they want to test
you for your ideology. They want to find out if
you're going to be prone to teaching progressive left policies
to your students. Because, as we know our nation, schools
have become very adept at doing that, especially in blue states.

(28:48):
So there's a concern in Oklahoma is a concern that
they have too many liberal teachers and they want to
evidently do something about it. I have a lot of
questions about that. We'll talk about it a little bit more.
Stand by Jimmy Bart Show, you're on AM nine to
fifty KPRC. Okay, if they started to mention their last

(29:22):
segment here, there is a concern in Oklahoma, and I
would think any other red state at this point that
has people who are fleeing from places like California, New
York where it's just super expensive. It's not just it's
not just conservatives or Republicans that are leaving these deep
blue states. In some cases, it's people who really do

(29:44):
have a deep blue philosophy, but they just can't afford
to live there anymore. Now, you would like to think
that they would put two and two together and realize
that one of the reasons why they can't afford to
live there anymore is because of those progressive left policies.
That's what's left to them having to abandon their state.
But they don't seem to put those two things together.

(30:06):
So Oklahoma wants to, evidently its devise some sort of
a test to give teachers and depending about how they
answer the questions, well determine whether or not that teacher
is too progressive to teach in Oklahoma. They don't want
they don't want their students to be indoctrinated by people
from California or from New York. Now, I would suggest

(30:28):
that there's a potential problem, a legal problem, an employment
legality problem with only testing people who are coming from
blue states, or only testing people coming from California or
from New York. I don't know that you could put
that requirement on somebody as part of a job application
process if you're not doing it with everybody. So my

(30:51):
suggestion to the people of Oklahoma would be is, if
you're going to administer some sort of a political philosophy test,
then you best give it to everybody who's applying for
a teaching position. And you probably should also give it
to the people who are already working for you, because

(31:12):
you probably already have some of these progressive love teachers
and you just either don't realize it or don't feel
like there's anything you can do about it. Of Course,
the attrition right now in the teaching ranks is such
that all systems are getting new teachers all the time
from all over the place. A lot a severe burnout factor,
and a lot of teachers feel like they aren't getting

(31:33):
back up from their administrators or the support that they
need in order to be able to do their job.
So there's a lot of other issues going. But I
understand where Oklahoma's coming from. I wouldn't mind if we
did that in Texas. I would like to know, But
I don't know how you test. I mean, if somebody
really wants to get a job and they know that
they're going to be tested on this stuff, they know
what the quote unquote right answer is, don't they There

(31:56):
must be a better way to do this through the
interview process than giving them some sort of a test.
Or are they counting on the fact that people who
are that liberal can't hide how liberal they are?

Speaker 6 (32:05):
Maybe?

Speaker 4 (32:06):
All right, the other report I want to share with
you this is something I've been through in my own life,
so I don't mind sharing this. And we have a
lot of listeners, as everybody does these days, who are
divorced at least once, who have children with a mom
or dad. That's different than the husband or wife they're

(32:27):
married to now and child support can be involved. Unfortunately,
attorneys are also involved, and when that happens, then you
end up with these kinds of situations. The State of Texas, evidently,
through the Attorney General's Office, is responsible for facilitating child support.

(32:50):
What happens in many cases, generally because of the attorneys,
is that whoever's paying the child support, usually the man
has his wages garnering in the amount of the child
support automatically taken out of their check and sent to
the state who's going to send it to the parent
who is getting the child support, usually the woman. Evidently,

(33:13):
they put some sort of a new system in here
in Texas, and the new system isn't working so well.
There's some glitches and some of the money is not
ending up where it needs to end up. Here's the
report on this from our television partner KPRC two.

Speaker 15 (33:29):
The Texas Attorney General's Office says, since they've rolled out
this new system, they've distributed one point five million child
support payments, which told us to more than two hundred
and eighty eight million dollars statewide. But some parents tell
us they are not included in that number.

Speaker 10 (33:47):
Now, I'm not here to pick a fight with the state,
but I feel like the state should.

Speaker 3 (33:50):
Do what's right.

Speaker 15 (33:51):
Noah ve Alaskaz said he didn't expect to be on
the news at all, better yet speaking outs against the States.
But he said as prices appear to be up on
so many items, every dollar counts, which is why he's
worried about his child's support payments being delayed.

Speaker 10 (34:08):
I would have to pay to the mother of my
son the money through my job. My employer takes that
money out and sends it to child support. When child
Support receiving it receives it, they don't distribute it.

Speaker 15 (34:20):
The child support system housing the Texas Attorney General's Office.

Speaker 3 (34:23):
Here's how it works.

Speaker 15 (34:24):
One parent sends payments to the Attorney General's office, which
then distributes it to the other parents. However, those payments
are coming in and some are not going out. And
it's not just Velasquez. One parents hold us. They have
thirty seven thousand dollars now processed. Another message from a
grandmother who said her daughter has been waiting over two

(34:45):
months to receive her child supports for her four kids,
and there are more stories like this.

Speaker 3 (34:51):
Sets to our team.

Speaker 15 (34:53):
We shared some of those stories directly with the Attorney
General's office. I send them a message asking if they
could explain what's happening and what are the plans of
resolving is.

Speaker 3 (35:03):
So at the end of the day, it's like, it's
just it's a state issue. I need to get on
the ball.

Speaker 4 (35:08):
Yeah, and they need to not duck duck the coverage
on this because that that that's not good publicity for
for state government. See, regardless of who's in charge, having
an extra middleman in the process of caring for your
children generally doesn't go real well, it's a problem.

Speaker 3 (35:25):
Now.

Speaker 4 (35:25):
In my case, I was paying my son's mom directly
until her attorney got involved and demanded that the wages
be garnished. So the first the first weech is she
was due child support once. Once the state got involved,
the day came that you know, she was used to
getting the check for me, and she didn't have a

(35:45):
check for the state. And two more days went by
she still didn't have a check. So she calls me
wanting to know where her money is and I said,
pardon me, ask your attorney. He's the one you're You
guys are the ones that wanted have the wages garnished.
If I was still paying you, you would have been
paid by Now take it up of the state. It's

(36:05):
not my fault, you know. If you want to add
a middleman, if you've got somebody who's who's going to
do the right thing and is sending you the money
on time, don't get the state involved in the middle.
It'll only muck it up. All right, Listen, you all
have a great day. I'll see you tomorrow morning bright
nearly five am over on news Radio seven forty k TRH.
We're back here at four on AM nine fifty KTRC.