May 27, 2025 • 38 mins
Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:
- Catching up on the news from the weekend
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, what we need is more common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Breaking down the world's nonsense.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
About how American common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We'll see us through with the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston dot Com.
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by
viewind dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
All right, do you all have a great Memorial Day?
I hope you did. A man, we were busy, busy, busy.
We had uh, Paul and Heather in from Richmond, Virginia,
my old stopping grounds, great friends, and she had never
been to Houston before, at least had never been with him,
and and he's only been here once. And we just
(00:53):
we we did uh. You know. We ate out of
some great restaurants, had some great barbecue, had some great steak.
You know, we did the whole Houston Texas thing. We
went to an Astros game. So it was a great time.
And the weather cooperated for once. The storm that we
had earlier today never materialized while they were there, which
is a good thing. So anyway, I hope you had
(01:15):
as much fun on your Memorial Day weekend as I had. Online.
I'm gonna start with this story that we did a
little bit this morning. We did a talkback segment on it,
and I'll share some of those and you can feel free,
by the way, to go ahead and participate at KPRC Radio.
If you do that at the iHeartRadio app and then
you go to KPRC and then what happens is you
(01:36):
got a talkback button there. You get thirty seconds, leave
your first name where you're calling from it. If you
want to weigh in on this topic, you feel free
to do so, or you know or not, whatever you'd
like to do. Just want to make sure that you
know that that's available. We were talking about lawns today
and I'll start by saying, I'm a bona fide lawn freak.
I've always been a lawn freak. I was born a
(01:59):
lawn freak. There seems to be basically two different kinds
of people, the people who are just freaks about their
yard and the people who just don't give a rip.
And there's very very little in between. And by a
freak about their yard, you know, one of the I
I used to mow it myself. I don't do that now.
(02:21):
It's just you know what, it's the heat. They it's
just so hot, especially during the summer months that you know,
my my wife is warming against keeling over while moining
the lawn. So it's not that I'm opposed to doing
the work, it's just that it's so freaking hot in
the summertime to do it here. So we we have
a we have a guy that comes and cuts the
(02:41):
grass every week. But the reason why I hired him
is because of the way he cuts the grass. He
does a great job of making it look like almost
like a ball field. When that that's how much of
a lawn freak I am. I like it like the
cross cut. I like it to look like like you
it's the uh it's the outfield at dyk In Park,
although they don't do any cross cutting. Knows that at
(03:03):
least any crosscutting that shows at Dyking Park anyway, but
nice and green and weed free, and I watered to
keep it green even when we're not getting any rain,
you know, So I end up with these crazy water bills.
But I'm happy to do it because I want my
lawn to look great. And it goes way back to
when I was a kid. When I was kid, do
(03:25):
you remember those little you know, the little toy lawnmowers
they used to have for kids with like the bubble
on the top and used to have the balls that
make that make that noise, you know, kind of like
a fake fake noise of a ninjine running kind of
a thing, and you push the push the lawnmower as
a kid, and it would make that noise like and
you could pretend you were cutting the grass. My dad
(03:46):
said he got one for me when I was about,
you know, two and a half years three years old,
when I you know, right after I started walking, and
I would take that thing when he would cut the grass,
and I'd go up behind him and pretend I was
cutting the grass. And I remember as a kid, I
couldn't wait to take on that chore. And my dad,
(04:06):
who never was very interested in any of those kinds
of little chores, couldn't wait to train me to do it.
So I started cutting the lawn probably when I was
seven or eight years old, I'm guessing right around that age.
And by the time I was like in my young teens,
(04:27):
like between maybe ten and twelve years old, I started
cutting the neighbor's lawn. I loved cutting grass, loved doing it,
love making a lawn look great. So for me, the
story I found this morning about rewilding your yard I
cannot relate to this at all. If you're wondering what
that means rewilding your yard, it's kind of like the
latest eco friendly excuse for having a bad looking lawn.
(04:52):
It's like, well, you know, you should just be growing
native grasses and weeds and flowers in your yard. You
shouldn't be trying to bermuda grass when bermuda grass is
not native to this this area or what's the name
of the Florida grass I keep forgetting. Anyway, that's the
kind of grass I've got, you know, it kind of
(05:13):
kind of looks like the really thick blades of grass
we have. You have to have a lawn here in
Texas that can tolerate the heat and the humidity, at
least where we are you do, so you're you're limited.
You couldn't couldn't have a Kentucky bluegrass lawn because the
heat would kill it. There's just no way you couldn't
pour enough water on that thing to keep it keep
it going. So anyway, I was asking the question today
(05:35):
about do you buy into this idea of rewilding your yard,
you know where you just let it go. You don't
worry about cutting it, you don't worry about watering it,
you don't worry about fertilizing it.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
Just this.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Let it be natural, let it go back to nature.
Here's some of the Here's some of the talkbacks we
got on this topic.
Speaker 6 (05:54):
Good morning, guys, Carlos from Porter Texas.
Speaker 5 (05:58):
That whole re wilding the yard thing just sounds like
people being lazy and not actually wanting a mother yard.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Me.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
I like a well.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Manicured the yard.
Speaker 7 (06:07):
So I'm along with you, guys.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Good morning. This is West I have seven lots of weeds.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
That I have to cut every week with a push. More.
If I had the money, i'd asphalt the whole thing.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
The wife grew up in West Texas.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
All she wants is green, green grass and nice pretty trees,
and she gets green, green grass and nice pretty trees.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Hey, this is billy mom, and I don't grow it.
Speaker 7 (06:34):
I don't cut it, but I smoke it.
Speaker 8 (06:37):
And weeds in my yarn.
Speaker 4 (06:40):
Hey, god, are those native weeds? I don't think those
are native weeds. They're not just growing in the wild,
are they. I mean, you might have a hard time
explaining explaining that one. But here's a couple more. It's
running like fifty to fifty, right, the duck a fifty
to fifty either for or against rewilding your yard.
Speaker 7 (07:03):
These and without wild yards, bees are dying. There's no
food for them. I live on nine acres and it's
rewild and next to me is eight hundred acres with
cows on it. There's almost no food for the bees.
Speaker 9 (07:25):
Marty and Cyprus. I do my own yard, and I
like it to be pristine, beautiful, lush. I fertilize, I water,
I do everything that garden line tells me to do.
Speaker 4 (07:40):
There you go. Now here's the thing. If you had
nine acres, I would not expect you, you know, even
if you'd liked a nice yard. I mean, you're not
going to do that for nine acres, right, You're gonna
let most of it be wild. But when you want
the area up around your house to be nice, have
nice manicured lawn. I think the bees would be okay
(08:00):
if you're having a nice manicured lawing around the house.
On that deal, all right, And one last one for
you to contemplate.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
Hey, Jimmy, and this is Scott from magnolia. I don't
know why, but having less weeds in the yard means
you don't know as much and you have a nice
looking yard.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Have a good one, okay one, I take it back here,
here's the other one I heard that I thought was
kind of interesting.
Speaker 5 (08:24):
Hey, Joe from Crosby. I got tired. I've been mowing
grass for forty five years.
Speaker 7 (08:27):
I'm tired of it. I bought a coat.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Do you think he really did?
Speaker 5 (08:32):
Really?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Bye bye go Maybe that'll get your That will get
you right down to the dirt. Though, you're not gonna
have much grass when the goat gets none. All right,
quick love break back with born a moment Jimmy Parrett
Show here on the A nine fifty KPRC. All Right,
(09:07):
So earlier today on our morning show and katrh we
went over what happened at the Commissioner's Court meeting last week. Now,
when we last met on Thursday morning, they had not
yet meant to vote on Lena Hildago's trip to Paris
and on pay raises for Harris County Sheriff's deputies. They
(09:31):
ended up meeting and voting on those two items. In
the case of the pay raises for Harris County Shriff's deputies.
They voted by a vote of three to two to
have wage parody. In other words, those raises will be
commasured with what they gave to the Houston Police officers.
(09:51):
So that means there'll be about one hundred and forty
five million additional dollars to be spent at Harris County
on a yearly basis in order to be able to
make those ras. This has happened. I think that's the
right thing to do. I really do. I mean, as
we discussed on the show last week, it is highly expected.
I think, I want to say, someone we were in
(10:12):
the neighborhood of eighty or ninety thousand dollars to train a
police officer or a sheriff's deputy, and if they just
put in a couple of years and then they move
on for higher paid than what do you end up doing?
You end up constantly retraining people and spending a ton
of money on that. So it made all the sense
in the world, I think, in order for them to
vote in favor of that. So that vote was three
(10:33):
to two, the only two voting against giving the Harris
County deputies the pay raises the parity pay. Raiss Rodney
Ellis and Lena Hildago both voted no, And in the
Lena Hildago's case, I mean she has a whole different
set of priorities. Public safety is not that important to
Lena Hildago near as I can tell, it's not as
(10:55):
important as it is to give a five hundred dollars
a month stipend for doing nothing other than being in
need and living in Harris County. Socialists, I guess don't
care much about public safety now. The other vote was
about her trip to Paris. Yeah, they brought that back
up against She wanted twenty three thousand, five hundred dollars
(11:16):
just pennies, just pennies, so that she and a group
of three others could go to Paris on some sort
of a junket. Well, she said, it's to promote Harris
County is a great destination for doing business when it
comes to artificial intelligence and whatever. As if somehow a
(11:36):
Harris County judge, a county judge from the great State
of Texas, should be going on trade missions to foreign
countries to try to convince them to invest in Harris County.
I had my doubt says whether or not any of
that was on the agenda. I think it was more
about going to Paris than it was about anything else.
You know, it is beautiful at this time of the
(11:58):
year in Paris. So the vote was three to two
against her going. The only two voting in favor of
her going Lena Hidalgo and Rodney Ellis. All everybody else
voted against it. So I will give credit. We may
have all Democrats on the county Commissioner's board, with the
(12:19):
exception of Tom Ramsey, but at least a couple of
the Democrats can be persuaded to do the right thing
at least every now and again. Maybe not all the time,
but every now and again. Thank goodness for that. So
I had Commissioner Tom Ramsey on our morning show today
here on k I Rover on KTRH. I should say,
(12:40):
I think it's worth repeating here on EM nine fifty
KPRC to talk about the votes, to talk about the
two hundred and seventy million dollar deficit and how the
county can go about coming up with the money. And
I think you will soon see that it's not in
Tom Ramsey's mind to have tax increases. It may be
in Lena hild Go's mind, but not in his. So
(13:01):
here's my interview from earlier this morning on news radio
seven forty k h enjoy please joining us Precinct three
Commissioner Tom Ramsey on the right side of that three
to vote against against Lee. And I guess Rodney Ells
was the only one that thought she should go on
the trip. Huh.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Yeah, I didn't have a problem with Paris, Texas, but
she wanted to go to Paris, France, and I had
a real problem with that.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Yeah, unless it's a one way ticket, in which case
maybe that'd be a different story.
Speaker 5 (13:31):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
The other three to two vote that she lost was
on the losing side of his pay raises for Harris
County Deputy's paid parody, And of course everybody's going to
wonder how much is that going to cost the county
and how do you come up with the money.
Speaker 5 (13:47):
Well, you know, we were real pleased to get that through.
This is something that's been way overdue, and we spend
money on nearly everything you can imagine. But last week
on Thursday, we passed the pay parody which we will
now pay our officers the same as Houston Police officers
(14:09):
and Jimmy that's one hundred and forty two million dollars
a year impact. But we're just glad to pay it.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
Okay, So let's talk about where the money's going to
come from, because right now we're looking at the two
hundred and seventy million dollar deficit. Of course, I'm sure
the first thing that Lena is going to suggest, Well,
first of all, she blamed you and Jack Cagele for
us having a two hundred and seventy million dollar deficit
because you wouldn't allow them to vote in favor of
(14:36):
a tax like last time around.
Speaker 5 (14:38):
I think her every time she says that, because she's
telling the taxpayers that we saved the taxpayers forever five
hundred million dollars a year. So I am that's what
y'all put me in there to do, is when we
don't need a tax increase, we shouldn't do it. In
this case, when Kaglin and I did it three years ago.
She keeps saying, well, we would have used that money
(15:00):
for police officers, where our pass actions would not indicate
that that's what she would she would do.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
By the way, the two.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
Hundred and seventy million comes from doing the math. We're
currently one hundred and thirty million over budget through half
the year. With this pay raise that we're going to
give the police officers, that's one hundred and forty two.
So that's the to seventy that she comes up with.
But as I've said before, our discretionary spending is five
(15:33):
hundred million dollars a year. This will not be a
problem Jimmy finding the money and just taking out of
discretionary spending on things like the County Administrator's office twenty
five million, the Department of Economic Equity and Opportunity nine million,
access here is forty seven million. Consultants from PFM, the
(15:56):
Boston consultant groups. These are tens of millions of So
there's not a problem. We've got a spending problem in
Harris County, not a revenue problem.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
Completely understood. So here's the question. I guess the big
question is can you get three to two win on
eliminating some of this waste in Harris County? Can you
get enough commissioners to go along with you on this
so that the idea of a tax hike doesn't see
the light of day?
Speaker 5 (16:25):
I think so. I think that certainly you're either going
to be on the side of Judge Sheldago, who absolutely
does not understand finance. She doesn't understand tax rates. We
have gone up on our tax revenues every year I've
been on court, and she keeps acting like we're cutting taxes.
(16:48):
We're not cutting taxes. Your tax bill goes up every year.
There's money there. I think that that when we go
through the budget in detail with they'll be least three
commissioners that look at that and say, you know what,
we can cut that spending. And if there was ever
a time not to do a tax increase, it would
be this year, particular since last year we did a
(17:11):
fifteen percent tax increase that she doesn't really want to
talk about what you did last year because of the
disaster loophole that the legislatures closed. Now they raised the
taxes next year. So this would be a good year
not to raise taxes.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
Yeah, well, any year would be good year not to
raise taxes out hope. Yeah, I'll be right on. I
hope you're right on that support though, Commissioner, I do
appreciate your time as always, Thank you very much, Harris.
Commissioner Tom Ramsey Precinct three joining US earlier today on
news radio seven forty k TRH. So he's saying, you know,
we've got yeah, Okay, so there's a two hundred and
seventy million dollar deficit. We have five hundred million dollars
(17:52):
a year in discretionary spending in Harris County. That's that's
above and beyond the core responsibilities of the county five
hundred million. So basically, you take half of the five
hundred million and you pretty well wiped out the deficit.
That that shouldn't be a problem, right, It wouldn't be
(18:12):
a problem if it were ed Emmett running Harris County.
But it seems to be a problem for Lena Hildago.
She evidently doesn't like the idea of not spending as
much or better yet, not spending more this year than
she spent last year. I think in her mind, every
year they should be adding more programs, more benefits, and
(18:34):
in adding more programs to Harris County. And if they
don't have the money, that they don't have the revenue
to do it, then they need to increase the revenue.
And you may recall when the state legislature came out
and it came up with the idea that you have
to go to the voters if you want to have
a tax increase, unless you have a situation where you
(18:55):
have an emergency like a hurricane, a hurricane damage, those
types of things, then you don't have to run it
past the taxpayers. You can go ahead and do it.
That was the loop, all the loophole they needed to
give us a tax increase here in Aris County. But
now the state legislature has stopped that, so they can't
go back to that. Well they can't. They can't wait
for a storm to hit us and then just automatically
(19:19):
raise taxes to try to raise more money. So they're
going to have to figure something out here as far
as wiping out the deficit without raising our taxes. Let's
hope they figure something out. We're going to take a
quick break. We are back with more than moment Jimmy
Bartt Show here on AM nine fifty KPRC. All right,
(19:51):
turning our attention to some national issues, some things that
we can kind of catch up from from the from
the holiday weekend. It was a holiday weekend, but there
are plenty of things going on, including President Trump. I
think this happened. Actually, I'm Frannie. President Trump basically telling Harvard, yeah, no,
(20:14):
we're going to take away your funding, and Harvard saying, well, no,
we're not going to listen to you and your request
regarding how we treat our Jewish students versus how we
treat our anti Jewish students. We're just gonna we're going
to fight you in court to get our funding back.
That's that's basically what they're saying. And oh, by the way,
Trump also says, oh, by the way, maybe we should
(20:35):
take away your tax exempt status. That to me strikes
me as a bigger threat to Harvard than taking away
federal funding. Now, granted, they give Harvard billions of dollars
to a school that hasn't a Dowmond fund that's worth
hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm not sure why they
need to get help from the federal government at this point.
But here's the deal. I think the President will stick
(20:58):
to his guns. This thing will work it's way through court,
and I would think that it's well within the power
of the president to deny funding, you know, to deny
federal funding to or at least significantly reduce federal funding
to schools that you don't believe are following federal law,
in this case antidiscrimination laws. So here's the president talking
(21:19):
about the Harvard problem with some analysis on the other
side of what perhaps needs to happen next.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Billions of dollars has been paid to Harvard. How ridiculous
is that billions? And they have fifty two billion dollars
as an endowment. They have fifty two billion dollars and
this country's paying billions and billions of dollars and then
give student loans and they have to pay back the loans.
So Harvard's going to have to change its ways.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
So, Juliet, Now the President is talking about diverting three
billion dollars in grant money to trade schools, which is
an interesting idea in and of itself. However, I'm just wondering,
is that under the per view of the Oval Office
or is it something that Congress takes care of.
Speaker 8 (22:05):
Well, I think we'll find that out. I think once again,
this goes to the questions about, you know, the legality
of all of these moves, and we haven't really been
in a situation like this where you have a president
sort of trying to divert these funds. We have to
remember that Harvard is of course a private university. So
that's where I think we have a lot of gray
area here. But politically, I think that move by the President,
(22:27):
or the call for him to at least, you know,
call on diverting those funds is very interesting because we
have seen, you know, the student loan debate really raging
on here in the United States, and those who are
against that mass student loan debt relief argue that, you know,
trade schools are a very good alternative for a lot
of you know, people looking to get a higher education.
(22:49):
And you have President Trump also, I think with this
sending a political message to his own base, you know,
not all of his base, but he has a very
strong blue collar base, and the number of these swing
states and across the country, many of whom have gone
to trade schools and may look at elite institutions like
Harvard as being completely foreign. So I thought that was
(23:11):
an interesting message from the President.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
JULIETT. Manchester, by the way to that is she's a reporter,
politics reporter at the Hill. Oh who else? President Trump
is denying funding to NPR, NPR and NPR member stations.
Three of them are suing President Trump over his executive
order halting all federal funding for NPR and PBS, citing
(23:34):
First Amendment violations. How's that a First Amendment violation? NPR
claiming the order is retaliatory and threatens local journalism and
emergency alerts. Hang on what emergency alerts? As far as
I know, there are no good luck in this. There
(23:56):
are no PBS stations that are authorized by the FC
to be emergency activation system stations. We are here at KTRH.
You know, we're the EAS designant for the Houston marketplace.
If there's a severe weather emergency or some other emergency
(24:17):
where the EAS system has to be activated, we're the
ones that do that. What's that got to do with pds?
What kind of emergency announcements? Are they talking about? Emergency alerts?
So if that's how they're going to try to fight
the battle, good frickin' luck on that. That's not going
to work, not by a long shut. Now. The other
(24:39):
thing I found very interesting in that discussion is that
he wants to take three billion dollars that would have
gone to Harvard and he wants to reallocate it for
use in training people at trade schools. Let's put this
money into trade schools. Let's you know, we have a
(25:01):
shortage share in this country of plumbers and and hvac people.
We have thousands of you know, tens of hundreds of thousands,
probably coast to coast of job openings in these different
categories of skilled tradesmen, and we don't have people to
fill these trades. Not to mention the fact that people
are evidently concerned about, you know, some of the illegals
(25:24):
leaving the country because they're doing a lot to some
of these jobs and they aren't gonna be around to
do it anymore. We need to be able to fill
these jobs, good paying, great paying in many cases jobs.
But here here's the good news about doing it that
that way. Gen Z is catching on. Gen Z seems
to understand that maybe this four years at college to
(25:49):
get a degree that may or may not provide me
with a living is maybe that's not the right way
to go. Maybe I should be looking at blue collar
work versus white collar work. Maybe I can make more
money being a licensed plumber than I can by, you know,
working in an advertising firm pushing papers around. Gen Z
seems to getting getting the message on this and back
(26:14):
I saw another segment about gen Z in fact that
I think they took a pull. Forty two percent of
gen z Ers say they're going to go or thinking
of going to a trade school in order to pick
up a different occupation that can make them a better living.
Here's a little conversation on gen Z from a gen
Zer by the way, who has a degree in journalism.
(26:35):
I guess she's working in journalism, so that worked out,
but her husband, who went to college to get a degree,
ended up going into construction. Hear this.
Speaker 10 (26:44):
I think it's been an actually pretty recent shift because
I think I went to college myself. My husband also
went to college and graduate school, but he actually did
pursue a career in construction afterwards, so he is not
usually using those degrees, but ironically he finds his work
now way more fulfilling than if he would have pursued
a way college job. And I think the recent shift
is because a lot of gen Zers realized that the
(27:05):
narrative that we had been sold as children, that there's
only one path for you, which is that you go
to college, you get a degree, and you go into
a white collar field. It's just not realistic anymore. Number
One a lot of these young adults are having a
very difficult time actually finding jobs in the white collar workforce.
And also the purpose of education has changed so dramatically
(27:26):
over the past several years that even if you believe
that college is a good in and of itself, that
it's a good thing to be able to go and
study something that gives you meaning and purpose, most colleges
don't offer that anymore. They're far more interested in indoctrinating
students than they are actually teaching them how to think
for themselves. So there's really no deeper meaning to it
anymore either. So young adults are looking elsewhere.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
I'm glad that's good. There are plenty of jobs that
have churned out with college degrees that artificial intelligence will
ultimately replace, making that degree more worthless than what it
might already be. I mean, do you think that universities
are being honest with kids about that, about the future
of technology and how they may impact the field they
(28:10):
want to get into. I don't think so. I think
it's still all about get the unc lets to get
their money. Let's continue to try to convince parents and
students that the only hope for a good paying future
is by getting a college degree. And I think we're
trunning in the opposite direction on that. And I couldn't
be happier. I know it sounds a little bit of revengeful,
(28:33):
but I couldn't be happier that we're looking at the
possibility of really giving colleges in university some real competition.
Speaker 5 (28:42):
Now.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
The good news for community colleges is they already offer
some of these vocational programs, and I think ultimately they
end up expanding those vocational programs to try to train people,
at least at the very beginning, to try to them
with the background to figure out if they really if
a vocational job might be for them, if that's something
(29:05):
they would really like or really enjoy doing, you know,
find out at the community college level, and then get
into a trade program. I can find that that's that
you're calling. I think that's a great thing. That is
a beautiful, beautiful thing. All right, quick will break. We
are back with more in a moment. Jimmy Bart Show.
Here a name nine fifty KPRC. Here's another national story.
(29:43):
If you probably missed for the holiday weekend that I
find extremely interesting, you might want to know about this,
And that is what President Trump and Secretary started Marco
Rubio are doing regarding the National Security Council, which had
hundreds of members and and who evidently the President and
the Secretary of State want to whittle down. They've already
(30:05):
let a bunch of people go from national security believing
and the reason why they're doing it is the belief
that a lot of these people are what we would
call the deep state. The deep state is the shadow government.
These are the bureaucrats behind the scenes who are making
policies and making these departments go. And there has been
(30:31):
a lot of talk about career bureaucrats, many of them
on the left, who are who work behind the scenes,
you know, to push the government in a particular direction,
regardless who the President of the United States is. So
I thought i'd bring on this interview. I thought it
was very interesting with a national security expert's name is
(30:51):
hal Kemphor, he's a national security expert. Here he is
talking about what the deep state is and ways that
you can maybe at the deep state back under control.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
Well, the deep deep state is kind of a political
I don't know if you want to say a philosophy
or whatever. It's this entrenched bureaucracy that is not responsive
to the people, if you will, not responsive to anybody
but themselves. That's what they that's what they mean by
the deep state. And with that, over the last i
(31:22):
want to say, thirty forty years, fifty years, there's always
been this idea that there's this kind of secret agenda
by these permanent public biggures government officials that do things
on behalf of themselves, and they control intelligence, They do
a lot of other things. Of course, a lot of
conspiracy stuff, and you can just pick a conspiracy and
(31:44):
throw it at the deep state that's been going on.
What I will say is that certainly President Trump feels
that he has been the victim of entrenched federal officials
that have said things and done things without any repercussions
to them at the time. And and certainly part of
(32:04):
it is too. And if you look at this, there
was a feeling that this thing got really out of
hand after nine to eleven and with the War on Terror,
not only all the things about you know, illegal spying
and stuff like that, all these various different programs that
were alleged or well in some cases there were actual
programs that were doing some stuff that brought a lot
(32:25):
of questions. But the other thing was that the feeling
was that this this, this this national security construct had
been led astray to the point that, you know, we
justified going into Iraq. And I will tell you there's
a lot of those who are like myself, veterans of Iraq,
a lot of folks in national security that kind of
(32:47):
question the justification for why we had to go in
into Iraq, why we had to take bag Dad. You know,
the term WMD has kind of taken a different political hugh,
if you will, just because of how it was used
to justify Iraq. That's part of it. And part of
it is are looking at the National Security Council and
(33:10):
they're saying, okay, this is kind of a deep state.
And the truth is, national Security Council seems to have
only done one thing since this inception. You know, I
think under the Eisenhower administration, which is grow and grow
and grow. It keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
It was originally a small group in the White House
in the West Wing, and it just seemed to grow
and get bigger, and for the various departments, Department Defense,
(33:32):
Department of State, to some extent CIA some of the others.
The feeling was that you were dealing with a separate
bureaucracy that was blocking or filtering or doing whatever whatever
your feedback or whatever your intelligence or whatever you're saying
to the president. It was going into this national security
construct and going into a different and different route, and
(33:57):
that was very frustrating for those working at Defense Intelligence,
same CCIA. You know, over at State and elsewhere, there
did seem to be something over there that kind of
buffered what you were saying before it gets to the president.
Speaker 4 (34:10):
And that's not a good thing. So, you know, depending
upon who's in power, you can need the deep state
can either put the president in the loop or not
in the loop. Not that Biden was ever in the
loop for four years, you know. By the way, one
of the most depressing conversations I've had in a while
(34:33):
happened earlier today on KTRH when I had Andrew Whittberg
from American Thinker on they have a story about the
biggest threat to democracy. What is the biggest threat to democracy?
And of course the Democrats all say it's Donald Trump, right,
He's the biggest threat to democracy. But the biggest threat
to democracy was the four years of the Biden administration,
when you had a guy who was technically President of
(34:55):
the United States but really wasn't running the show, probably
didn't know a lot of what was going on with
the show, that the office was really being run by
staff members under the guides probably of Joel Biden and
maybe even Hunter Biden. Scary as that is to to
(35:18):
completely non elected bureaucrats who were lying to the American
public about the condition of the President of the United States.
And as we discussed earlier this morning, the chances of
anybody being punished for this is probably very slim, if
any I mean, there'll be a congressional investigation, no doubt,
(35:41):
but it won't go anywhere. Nobody's going to lose their job,
nobody's going to get prosecuted as a result of doing it.
A very treasonous thing of making the lying to the
American people about the condition of the President of the
United States and who's really running the show. That will
(36:01):
go completely unpunished, which means of course that it could
ultimately happen again. And this is Washington, d C. And
she was right to point out that the Republicans will
only pursue it so far because they all protect their
own in Washington, DC. None of them want to have
(36:23):
to face the consequences if they do something similar, so
there will be no punishment melted out. There'll only go
so far. Although I will say this maybe will get
an idea of this if this time is going to
be different or not based on some of the other
things that are going to happen. For example, you may
have heard that the FBI and the Department of Justice
(36:45):
are going to reinvestigate and reopen some of the things
that happened during the Biden administration. One of the things
is who left the crack cocaine at the White House.
They think it should be fairly easy to figure that
one out, and they want to know who left the
crack cocaine at the White House? Did Hunter leave it there,
where did it come from, how did it get there.
(37:09):
Of course, that whole thing was swept under the rug
as quickly as as humanly possible during the Biden administration itself.
But now, of course the Department of Justice is being
run by Pam Bondi and Cash Mattel's running the FBI,
so there's gonna be a reinvestigation into this. If we
get to the bottom of the truth on that one,
(37:30):
and the person responsible is punished, then maybe I'll buy
into the idea that some of the other things that
happened during the Bid administration may actually see it the
light of day and we may actually have a full
investigation of the things. Until then, I remain skeptical. Listen, y'all,
have a great day, Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow
morning Bred nearly at five AM over on news radio
(37:50):
seven forty KTRH. Hope to have you right back here
at for tomorrow afternoon here on AM nine fifty KPRC.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
But found the hardy then by the bl
Well, what we need is more common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Breaking down the world's nonsense.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
About how American common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We'll see us through with the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston dot Com.
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by
viewind dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
All right, do you all have a great Memorial Day?
I hope you did. A man, we were busy, busy, busy.
We had uh, Paul and Heather in from Richmond, Virginia,
my old stopping grounds, great friends, and she had never
been to Houston before, at least had never been with him,
and and he's only been here once. And we just
(00:53):
we we did uh. You know. We ate out of
some great restaurants, had some great barbecue, had some great steak.
You know, we did the whole Houston Texas thing. We
went to an Astros game. So it was a great time.
And the weather cooperated for once. The storm that we
had earlier today never materialized while they were there, which
is a good thing. So anyway, I hope you had
(01:15):
as much fun on your Memorial Day weekend as I had. Online.
I'm gonna start with this story that we did a
little bit this morning. We did a talkback segment on it,
and I'll share some of those and you can feel free,
by the way, to go ahead and participate at KPRC Radio.
If you do that at the iHeartRadio app and then
you go to KPRC and then what happens is you
(01:36):
got a talkback button there. You get thirty seconds, leave
your first name where you're calling from it. If you
want to weigh in on this topic, you feel free
to do so, or you know or not, whatever you'd
like to do. Just want to make sure that you
know that that's available. We were talking about lawns today
and I'll start by saying, I'm a bona fide lawn freak.
I've always been a lawn freak. I was born a
(01:59):
lawn freak. There seems to be basically two different kinds
of people, the people who are just freaks about their
yard and the people who just don't give a rip.
And there's very very little in between. And by a
freak about their yard, you know, one of the I
I used to mow it myself. I don't do that now.
(02:21):
It's just you know what, it's the heat. They it's
just so hot, especially during the summer months that you know,
my my wife is warming against keeling over while moining
the lawn. So it's not that I'm opposed to doing
the work, it's just that it's so freaking hot in
the summertime to do it here. So we we have
a we have a guy that comes and cuts the
(02:41):
grass every week. But the reason why I hired him
is because of the way he cuts the grass. He
does a great job of making it look like almost
like a ball field. When that that's how much of
a lawn freak I am. I like it like the
cross cut. I like it to look like like you
it's the uh it's the outfield at dyk In Park,
although they don't do any cross cutting. Knows that at
(03:03):
least any crosscutting that shows at Dyking Park anyway, but
nice and green and weed free, and I watered to
keep it green even when we're not getting any rain,
you know, So I end up with these crazy water bills.
But I'm happy to do it because I want my
lawn to look great. And it goes way back to
when I was a kid. When I was kid, do
(03:25):
you remember those little you know, the little toy lawnmowers
they used to have for kids with like the bubble
on the top and used to have the balls that
make that make that noise, you know, kind of like
a fake fake noise of a ninjine running kind of
a thing, and you push the push the lawnmower as
a kid, and it would make that noise like and
you could pretend you were cutting the grass. My dad
(03:46):
said he got one for me when I was about,
you know, two and a half years three years old,
when I you know, right after I started walking, and
I would take that thing when he would cut the grass,
and I'd go up behind him and pretend I was
cutting the grass. And I remember as a kid, I
couldn't wait to take on that chore. And my dad,
(04:06):
who never was very interested in any of those kinds
of little chores, couldn't wait to train me to do it.
So I started cutting the lawn probably when I was
seven or eight years old, I'm guessing right around that age.
And by the time I was like in my young teens,
(04:27):
like between maybe ten and twelve years old, I started
cutting the neighbor's lawn. I loved cutting grass, loved doing it,
love making a lawn look great. So for me, the
story I found this morning about rewilding your yard I
cannot relate to this at all. If you're wondering what
that means rewilding your yard, it's kind of like the
latest eco friendly excuse for having a bad looking lawn.
(04:52):
It's like, well, you know, you should just be growing
native grasses and weeds and flowers in your yard. You
shouldn't be trying to bermuda grass when bermuda grass is
not native to this this area or what's the name
of the Florida grass I keep forgetting. Anyway, that's the
kind of grass I've got, you know, it kind of
(05:13):
kind of looks like the really thick blades of grass
we have. You have to have a lawn here in
Texas that can tolerate the heat and the humidity, at
least where we are you do, so you're you're limited.
You couldn't couldn't have a Kentucky bluegrass lawn because the
heat would kill it. There's just no way you couldn't
pour enough water on that thing to keep it keep
it going. So anyway, I was asking the question today
(05:35):
about do you buy into this idea of rewilding your yard,
you know where you just let it go. You don't
worry about cutting it, you don't worry about watering it,
you don't worry about fertilizing it.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
Just this.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Let it be natural, let it go back to nature.
Here's some of the Here's some of the talkbacks we
got on this topic.
Speaker 6 (05:54):
Good morning, guys, Carlos from Porter Texas.
Speaker 5 (05:58):
That whole re wilding the yard thing just sounds like
people being lazy and not actually wanting a mother yard.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Me.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
I like a well.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Manicured the yard.
Speaker 7 (06:07):
So I'm along with you, guys.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Good morning. This is West I have seven lots of weeds.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
That I have to cut every week with a push. More.
If I had the money, i'd asphalt the whole thing.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
The wife grew up in West Texas.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
All she wants is green, green grass and nice pretty trees,
and she gets green, green grass and nice pretty trees.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Hey, this is billy mom, and I don't grow it.
Speaker 7 (06:34):
I don't cut it, but I smoke it.
Speaker 8 (06:37):
And weeds in my yarn.
Speaker 4 (06:40):
Hey, god, are those native weeds? I don't think those
are native weeds. They're not just growing in the wild,
are they. I mean, you might have a hard time
explaining explaining that one. But here's a couple more. It's
running like fifty to fifty, right, the duck a fifty
to fifty either for or against rewilding your yard.
Speaker 7 (07:03):
These and without wild yards, bees are dying. There's no
food for them. I live on nine acres and it's
rewild and next to me is eight hundred acres with
cows on it. There's almost no food for the bees.
Speaker 9 (07:25):
Marty and Cyprus. I do my own yard, and I
like it to be pristine, beautiful, lush. I fertilize, I water,
I do everything that garden line tells me to do.
Speaker 4 (07:40):
There you go. Now here's the thing. If you had
nine acres, I would not expect you, you know, even
if you'd liked a nice yard. I mean, you're not
going to do that for nine acres, right, You're gonna
let most of it be wild. But when you want
the area up around your house to be nice, have
nice manicured lawn. I think the bees would be okay
(08:00):
if you're having a nice manicured lawing around the house.
On that deal, all right, And one last one for
you to contemplate.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
Hey, Jimmy, and this is Scott from magnolia. I don't
know why, but having less weeds in the yard means
you don't know as much and you have a nice
looking yard.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Have a good one, okay one, I take it back here,
here's the other one I heard that I thought was
kind of interesting.
Speaker 5 (08:24):
Hey, Joe from Crosby. I got tired. I've been mowing
grass for forty five years.
Speaker 7 (08:27):
I'm tired of it. I bought a coat.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Do you think he really did?
Speaker 5 (08:32):
Really?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Bye bye go Maybe that'll get your That will get
you right down to the dirt. Though, you're not gonna
have much grass when the goat gets none. All right,
quick love break back with born a moment Jimmy Parrett
Show here on the A nine fifty KPRC. All Right,
(09:07):
So earlier today on our morning show and katrh we
went over what happened at the Commissioner's Court meeting last week. Now,
when we last met on Thursday morning, they had not
yet meant to vote on Lena Hildago's trip to Paris
and on pay raises for Harris County Sheriff's deputies. They
(09:31):
ended up meeting and voting on those two items. In
the case of the pay raises for Harris County Shriff's deputies.
They voted by a vote of three to two to
have wage parody. In other words, those raises will be
commasured with what they gave to the Houston Police officers.
(09:51):
So that means there'll be about one hundred and forty
five million additional dollars to be spent at Harris County
on a yearly basis in order to be able to
make those ras. This has happened. I think that's the
right thing to do. I really do. I mean, as
we discussed on the show last week, it is highly expected.
I think, I want to say, someone we were in
(10:12):
the neighborhood of eighty or ninety thousand dollars to train a
police officer or a sheriff's deputy, and if they just
put in a couple of years and then they move
on for higher paid than what do you end up doing?
You end up constantly retraining people and spending a ton
of money on that. So it made all the sense
in the world, I think, in order for them to
vote in favor of that. So that vote was three
(10:33):
to two, the only two voting against giving the Harris
County deputies the pay raises the parity pay. Raiss Rodney
Ellis and Lena Hildago both voted no, And in the
Lena Hildago's case, I mean she has a whole different
set of priorities. Public safety is not that important to
Lena Hildago near as I can tell, it's not as
(10:55):
important as it is to give a five hundred dollars
a month stipend for doing nothing other than being in
need and living in Harris County. Socialists, I guess don't
care much about public safety now. The other vote was
about her trip to Paris. Yeah, they brought that back
up against She wanted twenty three thousand, five hundred dollars
(11:16):
just pennies, just pennies, so that she and a group
of three others could go to Paris on some sort
of a junket. Well, she said, it's to promote Harris
County is a great destination for doing business when it
comes to artificial intelligence and whatever. As if somehow a
(11:36):
Harris County judge, a county judge from the great State
of Texas, should be going on trade missions to foreign
countries to try to convince them to invest in Harris County.
I had my doubt says whether or not any of
that was on the agenda. I think it was more
about going to Paris than it was about anything else.
You know, it is beautiful at this time of the
(11:58):
year in Paris. So the vote was three to two
against her going. The only two voting in favor of
her going Lena Hidalgo and Rodney Ellis. All everybody else
voted against it. So I will give credit. We may
have all Democrats on the county Commissioner's board, with the
(12:19):
exception of Tom Ramsey, but at least a couple of
the Democrats can be persuaded to do the right thing
at least every now and again. Maybe not all the time,
but every now and again. Thank goodness for that. So
I had Commissioner Tom Ramsey on our morning show today
here on k I Rover on KTRH. I should say,
(12:40):
I think it's worth repeating here on EM nine fifty
KPRC to talk about the votes, to talk about the
two hundred and seventy million dollar deficit and how the
county can go about coming up with the money. And
I think you will soon see that it's not in
Tom Ramsey's mind to have tax increases. It may be
in Lena hild Go's mind, but not in his. So
(13:01):
here's my interview from earlier this morning on news radio
seven forty k h enjoy please joining us Precinct three
Commissioner Tom Ramsey on the right side of that three
to vote against against Lee. And I guess Rodney Ells
was the only one that thought she should go on
the trip. Huh.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Yeah, I didn't have a problem with Paris, Texas, but
she wanted to go to Paris, France, and I had
a real problem with that.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Yeah, unless it's a one way ticket, in which case
maybe that'd be a different story.
Speaker 5 (13:31):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
The other three to two vote that she lost was
on the losing side of his pay raises for Harris
County Deputy's paid parody, And of course everybody's going to
wonder how much is that going to cost the county
and how do you come up with the money.
Speaker 5 (13:47):
Well, you know, we were real pleased to get that through.
This is something that's been way overdue, and we spend
money on nearly everything you can imagine. But last week
on Thursday, we passed the pay parody which we will
now pay our officers the same as Houston Police officers
(14:09):
and Jimmy that's one hundred and forty two million dollars
a year impact. But we're just glad to pay it.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
Okay, So let's talk about where the money's going to
come from, because right now we're looking at the two
hundred and seventy million dollar deficit. Of course, I'm sure
the first thing that Lena is going to suggest, Well,
first of all, she blamed you and Jack Cagele for
us having a two hundred and seventy million dollar deficit
because you wouldn't allow them to vote in favor of
(14:36):
a tax like last time around.
Speaker 5 (14:38):
I think her every time she says that, because she's
telling the taxpayers that we saved the taxpayers forever five
hundred million dollars a year. So I am that's what
y'all put me in there to do, is when we
don't need a tax increase, we shouldn't do it. In
this case, when Kaglin and I did it three years ago.
She keeps saying, well, we would have used that money
(15:00):
for police officers, where our pass actions would not indicate
that that's what she would she would do.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
By the way, the two.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
Hundred and seventy million comes from doing the math. We're
currently one hundred and thirty million over budget through half
the year. With this pay raise that we're going to
give the police officers, that's one hundred and forty two.
So that's the to seventy that she comes up with.
But as I've said before, our discretionary spending is five
(15:33):
hundred million dollars a year. This will not be a
problem Jimmy finding the money and just taking out of
discretionary spending on things like the County Administrator's office twenty
five million, the Department of Economic Equity and Opportunity nine million,
access here is forty seven million. Consultants from PFM, the
(15:56):
Boston consultant groups. These are tens of millions of So
there's not a problem. We've got a spending problem in
Harris County, not a revenue problem.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
Completely understood. So here's the question. I guess the big
question is can you get three to two win on
eliminating some of this waste in Harris County? Can you
get enough commissioners to go along with you on this
so that the idea of a tax hike doesn't see
the light of day?
Speaker 5 (16:25):
I think so. I think that certainly you're either going
to be on the side of Judge Sheldago, who absolutely
does not understand finance. She doesn't understand tax rates. We
have gone up on our tax revenues every year I've
been on court, and she keeps acting like we're cutting taxes.
(16:48):
We're not cutting taxes. Your tax bill goes up every year.
There's money there. I think that that when we go
through the budget in detail with they'll be least three
commissioners that look at that and say, you know what,
we can cut that spending. And if there was ever
a time not to do a tax increase, it would
be this year, particular since last year we did a
(17:11):
fifteen percent tax increase that she doesn't really want to
talk about what you did last year because of the
disaster loophole that the legislatures closed. Now they raised the
taxes next year. So this would be a good year
not to raise taxes.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
Yeah, well, any year would be good year not to
raise taxes out hope. Yeah, I'll be right on. I
hope you're right on that support though, Commissioner, I do
appreciate your time as always, Thank you very much, Harris.
Commissioner Tom Ramsey Precinct three joining US earlier today on
news radio seven forty k TRH. So he's saying, you know,
we've got yeah, Okay, so there's a two hundred and
seventy million dollar deficit. We have five hundred million dollars
(17:52):
a year in discretionary spending in Harris County. That's that's
above and beyond the core responsibilities of the county five
hundred million. So basically, you take half of the five
hundred million and you pretty well wiped out the deficit.
That that shouldn't be a problem, right, It wouldn't be
(18:12):
a problem if it were ed Emmett running Harris County.
But it seems to be a problem for Lena Hildago.
She evidently doesn't like the idea of not spending as
much or better yet, not spending more this year than
she spent last year. I think in her mind, every
year they should be adding more programs, more benefits, and
(18:34):
in adding more programs to Harris County. And if they
don't have the money, that they don't have the revenue
to do it, then they need to increase the revenue.
And you may recall when the state legislature came out
and it came up with the idea that you have
to go to the voters if you want to have
a tax increase, unless you have a situation where you
(18:55):
have an emergency like a hurricane, a hurricane damage, those
types of things, then you don't have to run it
past the taxpayers. You can go ahead and do it.
That was the loop, all the loophole they needed to
give us a tax increase here in Aris County. But
now the state legislature has stopped that, so they can't
go back to that. Well they can't. They can't wait
for a storm to hit us and then just automatically
(19:19):
raise taxes to try to raise more money. So they're
going to have to figure something out here as far
as wiping out the deficit without raising our taxes. Let's
hope they figure something out. We're going to take a
quick break. We are back with more than moment Jimmy
Bartt Show here on AM nine fifty KPRC. All right,
(19:51):
turning our attention to some national issues, some things that
we can kind of catch up from from the from
the holiday weekend. It was a holiday weekend, but there
are plenty of things going on, including President Trump. I
think this happened. Actually, I'm Frannie. President Trump basically telling Harvard, yeah, no,
(20:14):
we're going to take away your funding, and Harvard saying, well, no,
we're not going to listen to you and your request
regarding how we treat our Jewish students versus how we
treat our anti Jewish students. We're just gonna we're going
to fight you in court to get our funding back.
That's that's basically what they're saying. And oh, by the way,
Trump also says, oh, by the way, maybe we should
(20:35):
take away your tax exempt status. That to me strikes
me as a bigger threat to Harvard than taking away
federal funding. Now, granted, they give Harvard billions of dollars
to a school that hasn't a Dowmond fund that's worth
hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm not sure why they
need to get help from the federal government at this point.
But here's the deal. I think the President will stick
(20:58):
to his guns. This thing will work it's way through court,
and I would think that it's well within the power
of the president to deny funding, you know, to deny
federal funding to or at least significantly reduce federal funding
to schools that you don't believe are following federal law,
in this case antidiscrimination laws. So here's the president talking
(21:19):
about the Harvard problem with some analysis on the other
side of what perhaps needs to happen next.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Billions of dollars has been paid to Harvard. How ridiculous
is that billions? And they have fifty two billion dollars
as an endowment. They have fifty two billion dollars and
this country's paying billions and billions of dollars and then
give student loans and they have to pay back the loans.
So Harvard's going to have to change its ways.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
So, Juliet, Now the President is talking about diverting three
billion dollars in grant money to trade schools, which is
an interesting idea in and of itself. However, I'm just wondering,
is that under the per view of the Oval Office
or is it something that Congress takes care of.
Speaker 8 (22:05):
Well, I think we'll find that out. I think once again,
this goes to the questions about, you know, the legality
of all of these moves, and we haven't really been
in a situation like this where you have a president
sort of trying to divert these funds. We have to
remember that Harvard is of course a private university. So
that's where I think we have a lot of gray
area here. But politically, I think that move by the President,
(22:27):
or the call for him to at least, you know,
call on diverting those funds is very interesting because we
have seen, you know, the student loan debate really raging
on here in the United States, and those who are
against that mass student loan debt relief argue that, you know,
trade schools are a very good alternative for a lot
of you know, people looking to get a higher education.
(22:49):
And you have President Trump also, I think with this
sending a political message to his own base, you know,
not all of his base, but he has a very
strong blue collar base, and the number of these swing
states and across the country, many of whom have gone
to trade schools and may look at elite institutions like
Harvard as being completely foreign. So I thought that was
(23:11):
an interesting message from the President.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
JULIETT. Manchester, by the way to that is she's a reporter,
politics reporter at the Hill. Oh who else? President Trump
is denying funding to NPR, NPR and NPR member stations.
Three of them are suing President Trump over his executive
order halting all federal funding for NPR and PBS, citing
(23:34):
First Amendment violations. How's that a First Amendment violation? NPR
claiming the order is retaliatory and threatens local journalism and
emergency alerts. Hang on what emergency alerts? As far as
I know, there are no good luck in this. There
(23:56):
are no PBS stations that are authorized by the FC
to be emergency activation system stations. We are here at KTRH.
You know, we're the EAS designant for the Houston marketplace.
If there's a severe weather emergency or some other emergency
(24:17):
where the EAS system has to be activated, we're the
ones that do that. What's that got to do with pds?
What kind of emergency announcements? Are they talking about? Emergency alerts?
So if that's how they're going to try to fight
the battle, good frickin' luck on that. That's not going
to work, not by a long shut. Now. The other
(24:39):
thing I found very interesting in that discussion is that
he wants to take three billion dollars that would have
gone to Harvard and he wants to reallocate it for
use in training people at trade schools. Let's put this
money into trade schools. Let's you know, we have a
(25:01):
shortage share in this country of plumbers and and hvac people.
We have thousands of you know, tens of hundreds of thousands,
probably coast to coast of job openings in these different
categories of skilled tradesmen, and we don't have people to
fill these trades. Not to mention the fact that people
are evidently concerned about, you know, some of the illegals
(25:24):
leaving the country because they're doing a lot to some
of these jobs and they aren't gonna be around to
do it anymore. We need to be able to fill
these jobs, good paying, great paying in many cases jobs.
But here here's the good news about doing it that
that way. Gen Z is catching on. Gen Z seems
to understand that maybe this four years at college to
(25:49):
get a degree that may or may not provide me
with a living is maybe that's not the right way
to go. Maybe I should be looking at blue collar
work versus white collar work. Maybe I can make more
money being a licensed plumber than I can by, you know,
working in an advertising firm pushing papers around. Gen Z
seems to getting getting the message on this and back
(26:14):
I saw another segment about gen Z in fact that
I think they took a pull. Forty two percent of
gen z Ers say they're going to go or thinking
of going to a trade school in order to pick
up a different occupation that can make them a better living.
Here's a little conversation on gen Z from a gen
Zer by the way, who has a degree in journalism.
(26:35):
I guess she's working in journalism, so that worked out,
but her husband, who went to college to get a degree,
ended up going into construction. Hear this.
Speaker 10 (26:44):
I think it's been an actually pretty recent shift because
I think I went to college myself. My husband also
went to college and graduate school, but he actually did
pursue a career in construction afterwards, so he is not
usually using those degrees, but ironically he finds his work
now way more fulfilling than if he would have pursued
a way college job. And I think the recent shift
is because a lot of gen Zers realized that the
(27:05):
narrative that we had been sold as children, that there's
only one path for you, which is that you go
to college, you get a degree, and you go into
a white collar field. It's just not realistic anymore. Number
One a lot of these young adults are having a
very difficult time actually finding jobs in the white collar workforce.
And also the purpose of education has changed so dramatically
(27:26):
over the past several years that even if you believe
that college is a good in and of itself, that
it's a good thing to be able to go and
study something that gives you meaning and purpose, most colleges
don't offer that anymore. They're far more interested in indoctrinating
students than they are actually teaching them how to think
for themselves. So there's really no deeper meaning to it
anymore either. So young adults are looking elsewhere.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
I'm glad that's good. There are plenty of jobs that
have churned out with college degrees that artificial intelligence will
ultimately replace, making that degree more worthless than what it
might already be. I mean, do you think that universities
are being honest with kids about that, about the future
of technology and how they may impact the field they
(28:10):
want to get into. I don't think so. I think
it's still all about get the unc lets to get
their money. Let's continue to try to convince parents and
students that the only hope for a good paying future
is by getting a college degree. And I think we're
trunning in the opposite direction on that. And I couldn't
be happier. I know it sounds a little bit of revengeful,
(28:33):
but I couldn't be happier that we're looking at the
possibility of really giving colleges in university some real competition.
Speaker 5 (28:42):
Now.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
The good news for community colleges is they already offer
some of these vocational programs, and I think ultimately they
end up expanding those vocational programs to try to train people,
at least at the very beginning, to try to them
with the background to figure out if they really if
a vocational job might be for them, if that's something
(29:05):
they would really like or really enjoy doing, you know,
find out at the community college level, and then get
into a trade program. I can find that that's that
you're calling. I think that's a great thing. That is
a beautiful, beautiful thing. All right, quick will break. We
are back with more in a moment. Jimmy Bart Show.
Here a name nine fifty KPRC. Here's another national story.
(29:43):
If you probably missed for the holiday weekend that I
find extremely interesting, you might want to know about this,
And that is what President Trump and Secretary started Marco
Rubio are doing regarding the National Security Council, which had
hundreds of members and and who evidently the President and
the Secretary of State want to whittle down. They've already
(30:05):
let a bunch of people go from national security believing
and the reason why they're doing it is the belief
that a lot of these people are what we would
call the deep state. The deep state is the shadow government.
These are the bureaucrats behind the scenes who are making
policies and making these departments go. And there has been
(30:31):
a lot of talk about career bureaucrats, many of them
on the left, who are who work behind the scenes,
you know, to push the government in a particular direction,
regardless who the President of the United States is. So
I thought i'd bring on this interview. I thought it
was very interesting with a national security expert's name is
(30:51):
hal Kemphor, he's a national security expert. Here he is
talking about what the deep state is and ways that
you can maybe at the deep state back under control.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
Well, the deep deep state is kind of a political
I don't know if you want to say a philosophy
or whatever. It's this entrenched bureaucracy that is not responsive
to the people, if you will, not responsive to anybody
but themselves. That's what they that's what they mean by
the deep state. And with that, over the last i
(31:22):
want to say, thirty forty years, fifty years, there's always
been this idea that there's this kind of secret agenda
by these permanent public biggures government officials that do things
on behalf of themselves, and they control intelligence, They do
a lot of other things. Of course, a lot of
conspiracy stuff, and you can just pick a conspiracy and
(31:44):
throw it at the deep state that's been going on.
What I will say is that certainly President Trump feels
that he has been the victim of entrenched federal officials
that have said things and done things without any repercussions
to them at the time. And and certainly part of
(32:04):
it is too. And if you look at this, there
was a feeling that this thing got really out of
hand after nine to eleven and with the War on Terror,
not only all the things about you know, illegal spying
and stuff like that, all these various different programs that
were alleged or well in some cases there were actual
programs that were doing some stuff that brought a lot
(32:25):
of questions. But the other thing was that the feeling
was that this this, this this national security construct had
been led astray to the point that, you know, we
justified going into Iraq. And I will tell you there's
a lot of those who are like myself, veterans of Iraq,
a lot of folks in national security that kind of
(32:47):
question the justification for why we had to go in
into Iraq, why we had to take bag Dad. You know,
the term WMD has kind of taken a different political hugh,
if you will, just because of how it was used
to justify Iraq. That's part of it. And part of
it is are looking at the National Security Council and
(33:10):
they're saying, okay, this is kind of a deep state.
And the truth is, national Security Council seems to have
only done one thing since this inception. You know, I
think under the Eisenhower administration, which is grow and grow
and grow. It keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
It was originally a small group in the White House
in the West Wing, and it just seemed to grow
and get bigger, and for the various departments, Department Defense,
(33:32):
Department of State, to some extent CIA some of the others.
The feeling was that you were dealing with a separate
bureaucracy that was blocking or filtering or doing whatever whatever
your feedback or whatever your intelligence or whatever you're saying
to the president. It was going into this national security
construct and going into a different and different route, and
(33:57):
that was very frustrating for those working at Defense Intelligence,
same CCIA. You know, over at State and elsewhere, there
did seem to be something over there that kind of
buffered what you were saying before it gets to the president.
Speaker 4 (34:10):
And that's not a good thing. So, you know, depending
upon who's in power, you can need the deep state
can either put the president in the loop or not
in the loop. Not that Biden was ever in the
loop for four years, you know. By the way, one
of the most depressing conversations I've had in a while
(34:33):
happened earlier today on KTRH when I had Andrew Whittberg
from American Thinker on they have a story about the
biggest threat to democracy. What is the biggest threat to democracy?
And of course the Democrats all say it's Donald Trump, right,
He's the biggest threat to democracy. But the biggest threat
to democracy was the four years of the Biden administration,
when you had a guy who was technically President of
(34:55):
the United States but really wasn't running the show, probably
didn't know a lot of what was going on with
the show, that the office was really being run by
staff members under the guides probably of Joel Biden and
maybe even Hunter Biden. Scary as that is to to
(35:18):
completely non elected bureaucrats who were lying to the American
public about the condition of the President of the United States.
And as we discussed earlier this morning, the chances of
anybody being punished for this is probably very slim, if
any I mean, there'll be a congressional investigation, no doubt,
(35:41):
but it won't go anywhere. Nobody's going to lose their job,
nobody's going to get prosecuted as a result of doing it.
A very treasonous thing of making the lying to the
American people about the condition of the President of the
United States and who's really running the show. That will
(36:01):
go completely unpunished, which means of course that it could
ultimately happen again. And this is Washington, d C. And
she was right to point out that the Republicans will
only pursue it so far because they all protect their
own in Washington, DC. None of them want to have
(36:23):
to face the consequences if they do something similar, so
there will be no punishment melted out. There'll only go
so far. Although I will say this maybe will get
an idea of this if this time is going to
be different or not based on some of the other
things that are going to happen. For example, you may
have heard that the FBI and the Department of Justice
(36:45):
are going to reinvestigate and reopen some of the things
that happened during the Biden administration. One of the things
is who left the crack cocaine at the White House.
They think it should be fairly easy to figure that
one out, and they want to know who left the
crack cocaine at the White House? Did Hunter leave it there,
where did it come from, how did it get there.
(37:09):
Of course, that whole thing was swept under the rug
as quickly as as humanly possible during the Biden administration itself.
But now, of course the Department of Justice is being
run by Pam Bondi and Cash Mattel's running the FBI,
so there's gonna be a reinvestigation into this. If we
get to the bottom of the truth on that one,
(37:30):
and the person responsible is punished, then maybe I'll buy
into the idea that some of the other things that
happened during the Bid administration may actually see it the
light of day and we may actually have a full
investigation of the things. Until then, I remain skeptical. Listen, y'all,
have a great day, Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow
morning Bred nearly at five AM over on news radio
(37:50):
seven forty KTRH. Hope to have you right back here
at for tomorrow afternoon here on AM nine fifty KPRC.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
But found the hardy then by the bl
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.