June 4, 2026 • 37 mins
Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:
- Congressional Hearings
- Jimmy's views on masculinity
Listen
Watch
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.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Sense breaking down the world's nonsense about how American common
sense will see 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
(00:27):
dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
We are into June and June is Pride month. How
could we not know that because it's in our face
everwhere we go. If you went to the Astros game,
was it yesterday?
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
I think it was against the Pittsburgh Pirates. You would
know that because they're passing out all kinds of rainbow
stuff at the game, which is fine. I felt the
need to say something on the air yesterday morning on
the Morning Show about that just because I thought, well,
if you're going to the ballpark and you don't want
(01:07):
gay pride to be in your face, then you probably
would want to pick a different game to go to.
That's the only reason why I did it. And it's
not that I don't have a problem with gay people.
I don't have a problem with gay pride. It doesn't
bother me. The only thing that bothers me is when
you know these militant progressives want to tell me how
(01:31):
I need to feel about any particular issue. I don't
have a problem with gay people getting married to each other.
I don't have a problem with gay people cohabitating with
each other. I have no issue with this at all.
I don't. Where I do have an issue is with
my tax dollars being used to do transgender surgeries on prisoners,
(01:56):
where drag a queen's story hour, where young kids are
being indoctrinated. That's those are the things I have problems
with the other. The other stuff has become, at least
in my world, fairly mainstream. If nothing else. I can
take a very libertarian attitude about it, which is very
simply this, you do you, I do me. You do
your life. I do my life. You don't try to,
(02:20):
you know, involve your personal life into my personal life.
And I'll do the same for you, and we'll just
let it. We'll let it be at that, okay. But
that's not good enough. That is not good enough for
the progressive left. And that's why I think this gallipole
is kind of interesting because it basically shows what I
personally have been feeling and what I think a lot
(02:41):
of you have been feeling as well, which is that
you know, I'm willing to take a live and let
live attitude on many and most things. I'm willing to
take a very libertarian approach. You live your life, I
live my life, and if your life doesn't interfere with mine,
and vice versa, we shall all be good with each other. Right,
But that that's not good enough, that's not good enough.
(03:02):
The desire to indoctrinate all, especially young children, is there
with the progressive left, and they do it at the
public school level. They do it at every single level,
which is why I think this Gallup poll is showing
the results it is in a nutshell. Here's what it
says that support for same sex marriage, support for a
(03:24):
gay lifestyle, for lack of a better way to put it,
has remained consistent among Independents and Democrats, but is now
starting to go down with Republicans, with more conservative people
that it's starting to go down. Which is not to
say that some especially conservative Christians, they've always had problems
(03:47):
with every aspect of a gay lifestyle, but amongst more
conservative Republicans than even mainstream Republicans, it's dropped. Like about
the support for things like gay marriage have dropped like somewhere,
but six to eight points over the course over where
they were just a couple of years ago. So it's
ticked down. And again I think it's ticked down because
(04:11):
this has become such a militant issue. But I thought
we'll ask our listeners about this over on ktis, and
that's what we did this morning. And here's a couple
of their responses. Let's see if I'm right about my
theory here.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
This is Edna from Summerwood. I really don't care to
hear about some of these sexual proclivities. The only thing
that bothers me about the whole thing is the trans thing. Look,
if you've got a prostate, you're not now, nor will
you ever be a woman, no matter how much surgery
you get. And speaking of surgery, my tax dollars should
not have to pay for that, because if I want
a boob job or form an replacement therapy, I have
(04:44):
to pay for it myself, So they shouldn't get it
for free.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Okay, So you could kind of hear her voice kind
of winding up when it got to the taxpayer part
of it. She doesn't want her money being spent that way.
You want transgender surgery, that's on you. We should using
tax dollars to give prisoners transgender surgery. Uh, they're in prison,
you're you're in prison to be punished. Your in prison
(05:08):
to be punished for for whatever it is you did
to get into prison. Why why are we providing that
sort of medical care to people. You wait till you
get out of prison, if you ever do get out
of prison, and then you pay for it yourself. That
is how that is supposed to work.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
From Springs, I am sick and damn tired of the
homo thing being thrown in my face.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
And shoved down my throat.
Speaker 7 (05:33):
What you do in the privacy of your own hand
is just that I don't need it forced on me.
Speaker 8 (05:39):
Hey, good morning guys. This is mission I made us
from McKellen, Texas, just saying about the OLGBT trans issue. Yes,
of course, no tax payer funds for that.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
That is a fab that someone has wants to have.
Speaker 8 (05:58):
That doesn't pertain wanted anything to medical issues or anything
just mental health.
Speaker 9 (06:06):
Hey, Jimmy, this is why from porter, I think people
are just tired of having these issues force down their throat.
If a man wants to pretend to be a woman
and you see her pronouns.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
That's his right.
Speaker 9 (06:19):
However, it is not his right to demand that I
recognize him as a woman and use his preferred pronouns,
because at that point he's forcing his will on me.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I think that says it best. I really do. I
think I says it best.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yeah, I'm allowed to believe what I believe. You're allowed
to believe what you believe. And I don't know why
it's so important for people on the progressive left. And
I have noticed this. I didn't really think about it
until I saw Greg Guttfeld do a little segment on it.
But he's absolutely right when he says, why is this
(06:58):
so important for people who are progressives to convince you
that your opinion is wrong, to try to change your opinion?
Why do they care what I think? If you think
I have heard people on the progressive love people I
(07:19):
know within my own family on the progressive I guess
every family has them describe me to my right to
my face as being ignorant. Well, if you think that
I'm ignorant or that my opinion is something that shouldn't count,
(07:41):
why do you care what I think? Why would you
even bother wasting your time. I'm not going to try
to convince you that you can't or shouldn't think the
way you do. Why do you feel the need to
try to convince me? And that is what's so infuriating
(08:01):
about it all, is they spend so much time trying
to change your mind that they will go to virtually
any means possible to do it, including forcing it down
to your throat, which is done another big thing that
people resent. All right, enough of that for now, back
with more in a moment Jimmy Baird Show. Hey, I'm
nine fifty KPRC. All right, I think god it, I
(08:40):
think we're gonna have some fun audio here to share
with you in this segment. I'm going to and I
do this every now and again. I've said that before.
Please allow me to say it again in case you've
ever missed me saying it that one of my favorite
things to listen to coming out of the US Capital
are congressional hearings. Some of the funniest things you'll ever hear,
some of the dumbest things you'll ever hear, some of
(09:02):
the most outrageous and ridiculous things you will ever hear,
will come out of those hearings, and we've got several
prime examples to share with you in this segment. Look,
we're going to start with someone close to home, Al Green,
Representative Al Green, you know, the one that just lost
to Chris Menafie, the one who's serving out his last
(09:23):
days in Congress, the one who seems to use the
race card. Is his only means of gathering attention is
calling as many people as you can racist. Well, he
had Mark Wayne Mullen, the Department Homeland Security Secretary, in
front of the committee he's on testifying yesterday and he
(09:45):
wanted to spend his time talking about you know, pictures
in the past have been posted by Trump talking about
what a racist is and this is a racist and
why you why you promote that in front of Mark Waynemullen.
Do you think he's a racist? Is that what you're
trying to say, that you think that man is a racist?
(10:07):
You're not allowed to call people names where you're not
supposed to call people names during these congressional hearings. And
that never stops. Al Green. That is his one trick, pony,
That is the one thing that he does. So let's
take a little listen to this. This is al Green
doing what Al Green does in front of Mark Wayne Mullen.
Mark Wayne Mullen calling him on it, and then the
(10:27):
committee chaired calling Al Green to task. It's saying you
can't be doing this.
Speaker 10 (10:33):
And a racist wouldn't apologize after doing this.
Speaker 6 (10:38):
It's a secretary.
Speaker 7 (10:40):
That's what a racist would do.
Speaker 10 (10:43):
A racist is a secretary would take offense at peace
for protest. You said you believe a peace for protest.
This was peaceful protests a secretary. Racists take offense as
peaceful protests.
Speaker 6 (11:02):
A racist as a secretary, we do what happened to
rub Are you calling me a racist?
Speaker 7 (11:11):
Racist?
Speaker 1 (11:12):
I'm asking a question, reclaiming my time, asking to shut up.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
That's a pretty shut up.
Speaker 6 (11:19):
It's my time.
Speaker 10 (11:22):
Call me a racist, gentleman, I've never called him a racist?
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Is my time?
Speaker 11 (11:27):
Gentlemen will suspend?
Speaker 2 (11:28):
You will just tell him to shut up? No, gentlemen suspend, No, the.
Speaker 11 (11:32):
Gentleman will suspend.
Speaker 12 (11:34):
No one will call me a racist.
Speaker 5 (11:36):
I'm charity to my my family has been pretty pretty Uh.
Speaker 10 (11:41):
I asked my time be restored.
Speaker 11 (11:43):
I asked that my time, the clock has been the
clock has been stopped since I suspended the clock.
Speaker 5 (11:47):
I will continue to interrupt as long as someone's.
Speaker 11 (11:50):
As I said before, there will be no uh no
addressing anyone's character in negative way.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Uh.
Speaker 11 (12:00):
By the way, mister Green, I need you when you're speaking,
and he's just speaking to the microphone because I can't
I can't hear you up here, but we.
Speaker 5 (12:08):
Will Evidently his consistent is hard enough nothing.
Speaker 11 (12:12):
It's the secretary. Please again, we're almost done here today.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Mister Green.
Speaker 11 (12:19):
You can continue, but again I will stop if if
this sounds like you are either directing that this secretary
is a racist or as well as the president or
vice president, because we do know under our rules, you
cannot disparage a member of Congress or the president or
(12:39):
the vice president. So be very I understand what what
you're trying to do. Be very careful because it is
a violation of House of our Committee rules to disparage
another member, a witness, or the president or the vice president.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
I don't think Al Green cares cares much about the rules.
He'll he'll disparage, and there's only one way he disparages,
and that's by calling people racist. That's what he has
always done in his career, and that's what he continues
to do.
Speaker 9 (13:07):
Now.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
I don't know if he continued down that tacked again,
but it seems to me the chairman didn't have much
control over the proceedings there. But then again, you know,
it's refereeing some of these committee meetings. It's got to
be difficult, you know, because basically what these congressional hearings
are I think for at least for the Democrats I see,
(13:30):
and for Republicans to a certain extent to it's an
opportunity as a senator or a member of the House
to showcase yourself and to make the attention all about you.
And that's pretty much what happens during these things, is
you know, they find a way to showcase themselves versus
(13:51):
the person they're talking to. They're trying to make a
name for themselves. And I think here's a great example
of that. This is from another congressional hearing from yesterday.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
This hearing.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Who's testifying in this one, Hang on a second. It's
a senator from Oh, I know, Scott Bessett. That Treasury
Secretary Scott Besson is there to talk about the economy,
and he has got Senator Maggie Hassan who is questioning him.
She's from New Hampshire, questioning him about the economy. Let's
(14:25):
take a listen to how that fun thing went.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
The average granite stater is paid.
Speaker 13 (14:30):
Let me be clear, the average granite stater has paid
three thousand dollars more since Donald Trump took office for
basic goods and services. Meanwhile, the country lost one hundred
thousand manufacturing jobs in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
So do you tell the president this information or not?
Speaker 7 (14:47):
Again, Senator, except for inflation, which is I believe going
to be a short term blip, the economic data is
very strong. The job's data has been very strong. The
manufacturing ism has been very strong.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Actually, that's incorrect. So let's move on because what's clear
to me which part was in correct?
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Center?
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Now, what is very clear to me.
Speaker 13 (15:08):
Is that neither you, nor the President nor this administration
are willing to acknowledge how much more people are paying
at the gas pump, at the grocery store, in utilities,
for healthcare, from all aspects of American life. Nor have
you acknowledged the number of manufacturing jobs that were lost
in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
So now let's move on another issue.
Speaker 7 (15:27):
Americans are paying two point five percent worse for groceries
since President Trump took office, which is half the annual amount.
Speaker 13 (15:35):
Under were talking about Biden. We're talking about this administration
and its promised to lower costs and the fact that
this president says he doesn't care.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Now, let's go on to mister secretary. My time is limited.
Speaker 13 (15:50):
I'd like to reclaim a little bit of my time
because I have one more question. The administration has claimed
that its top priority is lower and costs for American families,
but the president instead continues to pursue vanity projects at
a significant cost to taxpayers. He requested a billion dollars
for the White House ballroom, spent forty five million dollars
on military Birthday parade, proposed one hundred million dollar arch
(16:14):
at Memorial Circle, and now Treasury is planning production of
a two hundred and fifty dollars bill with his face
on it. Mister Secretary, how does the President's requested a
billion dollar ballroom or all of these other vanity products
lower costs for American families or help constraint spending.
Speaker 7 (16:31):
Senator first person val, You're incorrect. There is no cost
to the American people. If there is a new bill
for the ballroom. The decorative part of the ballroom is
privately funded.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Yeah, and well, yeah, that part is. But he did
request a billion dollars. That was for the security aspect
of because after all, you're going to have the president
and members of his cabinet and dignitaries from foreign countries there,
so you're going to have to have security, just like
you would have to have security in any sort of
(17:04):
government function. That's that's what that money was for. Now,
the is a billion dollars a fair amount for that,
I don't know, I don't know. I'd have to look
at that a little bit more deeply. But you see
the attack there, you know the the uh. It's interesting
that these Democrats could care less about inflation during the
(17:25):
Biden years and resented the fact that Bessen brought up
the fact that the inflation is half at the rocery store,
half of what it was during the Biden administration. She
didn't want to talk about the Biden administration. She just
wanted to talk about the Trump administration, all right.
Speaker 8 (17:40):
And what more?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
Here, this one's got kind of a bad edit in it,
but you'll get the idea. Just to show you how
crazy things get, These things Marco Rubio, Secretary of State.
Testifying again yesterday, he was asked, this is this is
from a House committee. I think it's the House Foreign
Relations Committee, of which Tim Burshett is a member. You'll
(18:02):
hear him in just a second. But it kind of
begins with the tail end of the previous representative from California.
I forget her name off the top of my head,
but this is a California Democrat who for some reason
wanted to talk about President Trump giving Marco Rubia a
(18:22):
pair of shoes and claiming that the shoes didn't fit him.
And he's like, what the hell are you talking about?
What has that got to do with why I'm here
having a pair of shoes from the president. So it
begins with the ending of that in the and Tim
Burschitt wants to know, by the way, why we're still
a part of NATO and why we're still a part
of the United Nations.
Speaker 5 (18:43):
Thank you, miss chairman, if you'd like to answer any
of that.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Yeah, I don't about the shoe.
Speaker 14 (18:46):
I mean, he gave me some floor stims shoes. They're
actually pretty good, they fit fine. I don't know, I
don't know what she's talking about. It and maybe that's
what she's referring to.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Your shoes look very nice today, mister secretary.
Speaker 14 (18:55):
How can you see hm? Their way down here? We're
talking about shoes. Are you guys kidding me? I mean,
is this the Foreign Affairs Committee? Or is this like
a circus?
Speaker 6 (19:02):
What is this?
Speaker 5 (19:03):
I think it's a circus, But I appreciate you being here,
miss Secretary. The United States is NATO's largest financial contributor.
Why does NATO consistently ignore or call to share more
the defense burden in Europe? And is it our national
interest to continue participating in NATO?
Speaker 14 (19:21):
Well, I can give you the why, okay, And the
why is pretty and is the following. Especially in Western Europe,
for the better part of twenty or thirty years, they
have not had to spend on defense because the US
security shield has allowed them to intent spend their money
on building up a very vast and robust social safety network.
And my time as a senator and before that as
(19:42):
a state representative, you would hear often from constituents about
how come they have this in that in Europe and
we don't have it here. Well, one of the reasons
why is because these very rich countries were spending their
money on social programs instead of defense because we were
covering their defense. That paradigm has to shift. It has
to shift for two reasons. The first is, these are
very wealthy countries that should have the ability to spend
more to build up their defenses and need to. And
(20:04):
this is not unique to President Trump. Multiple American presidents
and both parties have complained about NATO burden sharing. This
is just the first president that actually is doing something
about it. The second point is the United.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
As you know, or the unit, UN's largest financial contributor,
but it consistently pushes liberal policies like abortion and gender
ideology in spite of our opposition. And every time there's
a new counsel or whatever, and it's always our enemies
that seem to be on there. Why is a US
still a member of the United Nations of the United Nations?
Speaker 14 (20:37):
Yes, sir, well twofold, I would say the first is
United Nations, of course, is a very frustrating thing for US,
primarily because it's been unable to intervene or play a
constructive role in most of the major crisises around the world.
It's lost its purpose, it's lost its mission. I think
our UN mission is doing a very good job of
driving substantial reforms at the UN and using our fees
as leverage to achieve those reforms. Last year, actually we
(20:59):
had some pretty substantial successes, some real reductions in the
size and the bloated budget.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Of the UN.
Speaker 14 (21:05):
And by the way, this is not just a US position.
Multiple countries agree with us that the UN had grown
too large and it lost its core emission.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Okay, but that doesn't really answer the question why are
we still a part of the United Nations. I guess
what he's saying is is that we still hope that
we can get it back on the right track. And
maybe he's saying the same thing about NATO, that we
can hopefully get it back on the right track. All right,
back with more in a moment, Jimmy Part show here
on a nine fifty KPRC.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
All right, let's talk about what it means to be a.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Man, okay, and see if we can come to some
sort of consensus on this. Saw an interesting story and
we and you'll hear from doctor Brian June Deep with
the American Thinker about this in just a moment. I
interviewed him this morning over on our Morning Show and
ktr H about you know how the progressive left has
(22:14):
worked very, very hard to take the masculinity out of
being a man, and we have gotten to the point
now I think things are beginning to change because here's
here's what I believe about masculinity. I think that most
of what we would call masculinity or masculine tendencies are
(22:36):
a part of our DNA. It's a part of who
we are, it's a part, it's a part of what
we are supposed to be. And try as hard as
they can on the progressive left to change that. It
just goes against mother nature, just goes against what a
man naturally is. Now, I think they have been effective
(22:56):
to a certain point in making men queues in their masculinity,
in changing behavior, but all it is really led to
more than changing permanently changing male behavior. What this really
has led to is depression and sort of a lack
(23:17):
of understanding of who you are and who you're supposed
to be. It's confused a lot of young men in particular.
So here's my conversation with Brian Jundevout about all this
and about reclaiming our masculinity and what is necessary in
order to try to write the ship with the next
(23:39):
generation of young men. Do you agree that we have
a young male masculinity crisis it an well, I think
we do. But those that are pointing it out are
the ones that created it for decades. For decades, popular
culture has portrayed men this stupid, predatory, emotionally, stunted or unnecessary.
(24:00):
You think a family guy, you think of Homer Simpson,
and then the elite seem surprised when young men stop
listening to them and kind of dropping out.
Speaker 12 (24:10):
Young men are in a predicament. If they display masculine traits,
they're labeled as predators. Young boys that act like boys
are told they have add and are put on medication.
The crisis is real, but it's really not created by
too much masculinity. It's created by the collapse of healthy masculinity.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
Right, It's created by the lack of masculinity in some cases,
are yea, we're teaching young men to be more like
women when it comes to their emotions. Young men are
much more emotional than young men used to be. And
at least I was always thought to believe that there
is a reason why women are more emotional than men,
and men are more logical sometimes than women are.
Speaker 6 (24:53):
Well.
Speaker 12 (24:53):
Men are the hunter gatherers, the protectors, and that takes
a different personality set. I'm about from evolution, and we're
trying to train that and turn boys into girls and
young men into women, and it's not working. I mean,
it's a true crisis, but it's not created by too
(25:14):
much masculinity. It's created by the loss of healthy masculinity.
We don't have others in the home. Lack of discipline, duty, faith, work,
self control, courage, things like that. Those have all gone
out the window. And young men don't need to be
told they are defective women. They need models of good
(25:34):
and honorable manhood and they're not getting it. And when
they display those traits, they're put down, they're castigated and.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Punished for it.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Really, and how much of a problem is positive male
role models for young men at this point? We have
so many young men who grow up in households where
there is not a father who's a part of their lives.
They don't really have a positive male role model in
order to try to emulate. So when you don't have
a there's a male role model to emulate, and all
of your role models are female. That's got to have
an impact too, doesn't it.
Speaker 12 (26:05):
That's a huge problem the percent of fatherless households, particularly
in minority populations. They don't have the role models. And
then you go to school and the teachers are mostly women,
The principals are women, and you're surrounded by women.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Where are the men?
Speaker 12 (26:21):
When I went to school, a lot of the teachers
are men, the gym teachers, the principles, etc. Your role
model at home from dad, and then you went to
school and you had teachers and administrators that were men
behaving like men, and we learned how to behave. That
turned us into young men and functioning in society. And
(26:43):
now that's gone away. Well, hopefully everything swings back. Do
you expected to swing back?
Speaker 8 (26:47):
You know?
Speaker 3 (26:47):
All these things seem to.
Speaker 12 (26:48):
Be cyclical eventually, I mean, the pendulum swings too far.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
And something I'll have to give. A good man isn't
a harmless man.
Speaker 12 (26:58):
He's got to be a strong man with leadership, moral discipline,
and no that can protect his family, that can provide,
that can build, and that can restrain himself.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
And until we have.
Speaker 12 (27:11):
Young men with role models like that, they're going to
behave badly and we're seeing that and the riots and
the poor behavior just this week.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
And around the country. Yeah, we'll get by the way.
Speaking to rights, we'll get the rights, those new Jersey
rights in our next segment.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
But the thing that.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
The thing that concerns me the most, I guess is
I feel like we're dangerously close to the point where
we have very few of any positive, strong masculine male
role models left in order to emulate. You know, if
(27:55):
you end up in a situation where the majority of
young men are being brought up in such a way
as to deny their masculinity and there's nobody there to
teach them from generation to generation, how many generations do
you get to before there's nobody left who is that
strong masculine male role model I mean? And what happens then,
(28:21):
So so those of us who believe that we are
fairly manly men and do try to be leaders and
two do try to give positive examples, I guess we're
going to just have to hang. Maybe we're going to
have to be the ones who try to figure out
other ways that we can get involved in passing that
(28:44):
skill set along so that there at least is the
learning of that skill set, and it is a skill set.
I mean, you think back to your own upbringing, those
of us who are lucky enough to grow up in
a household with a positive male role model. Now you
think of all the things your dad taught you along
the way about what it meant to be a man,
and what it meant to be responsible, and what it
(29:06):
meant to take care of other people along with caring
for yourself. And if you're not learning those things, at
some point in time, you forget how to do them,
or you never learned how to do them. So that's
going to have to change. Before all the positive male
role models are gone, or do you think that's impossible
(29:28):
for all of them to be gone. They will always
have positive male role models. And this is just again
one of those things is going to swing back again.
I hope that is indeed the case. All right, quick
little break. Like I said, we're talking our next segment
here about that writing up at that ice facility in
New Jersey, and the care for the problem is to
dole out real punishment for those who are participating in it,
(29:54):
especially those who are funding it. But that always seems
to be the part that eludes us. We'll see if
we can can't come up with some ideas with Jay Town,
former US attorney and News Mexican tributor, we'll talk to
him next Browning, m nine fifty kPr. Seeing the Jimney
Barrett show, as I'm guessing you are probably aware, there's
(30:25):
been a lot of violence in New Jersey and it
is connected to that ice facility. You know, the template
is there and has been there for a long period
of time. Most of the people who are getting arrested
don't even live in New Jersey. They're not part of
some sort of, for lack of a better term, an
organic protest.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
I'm not saying that it's one hundred percent of the
people are just paid protesters, but the vast majority of
them are, and they're from the usual suspects, and we
know who the usual suspects are. At least we have
a very good idea. What we don't seem to have
a handle on is how to charge them for what
(31:06):
it is that they're doing and to make the charges stick.
Because without some sort of a real punishment, without the
ability to stop funding these types of things, these these
types of things will always continue to exist. And the
problem is never going to go away. So I had
a conversation with Jay Town. Jaytown is a former US attorney,
(31:28):
so he can talk about this from a legal aspect.
He's also a news Mexican tributors. Let's pick his brain
from this morning's program about how we go about identifying
who the real problems are and punishing the real problem
so we can hopefully at some point make the problem
go away. We're not going to get a handle on
these types of protests until we're actually ready, willing and
(31:49):
able to do something about it, something serious.
Speaker 15 (31:53):
Yeah, you know, I think that the as much as
we want to remove all the protesters, especially the viol ones,
the disgusting ones, I don't know when we got to
a point in this country where individuals were comfortable saying
f the USA.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
I really don't like.
Speaker 6 (32:09):
I can't even imagine such.
Speaker 15 (32:11):
A thing coming out of my mouth or entering my head.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
It's it's wild.
Speaker 6 (32:17):
But what we have to do is we have to
target the financiers.
Speaker 15 (32:21):
There are, I mean, there are several crimes, state and federal,
depending on where the money's coming from, depending you know,
on whether it's an NGO, whether there's foreign money involved,
or somebody from a foreign country that's transferring that money
into an account here.
Speaker 6 (32:43):
And those are the people you got to go after.
Speaker 15 (32:45):
These people are well healed, they're well supplied, they're well organized.
Speaker 6 (32:50):
You know, those signs and those bottles of water and
those tents and.
Speaker 15 (32:54):
What they're all very expensive. There's nothing organic about these
protests at all. They're all professional agitators. I think they
arrested six people one of the Knights, and five of
them were not even from New Jersey that probably had
never even heard at Delaney Hall until they got a
signal message saying, hey, we.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Got work for you to do.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yeah, well, here's the here's the problem.
Speaker 8 (33:18):
Though.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
We've known that, that's the main issue.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
We've known that for a long long time.
Speaker 13 (33:22):
Man.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
I think we even know for the most part who's
funding this. So why haven't we gotten tough on these people? Well,
I mean, look, it's it's they. It still has to
be against the law, so you've got to have proof
of it, right, And so if they're just saying.
Speaker 15 (33:37):
Hey, go peacefully protest and I'll give you all the
money to do so, there's nothing unfortunately illegal about that,
even though they know that the you know, the protests
are going to be They're going to end up with
protesters there who are going to do things that are
you know, nefarious or unlawful. What they need are our
(33:58):
text mean, you know, you ask some of those people,
some of those people start to flip and say, yeah,
they told us to you know, you know, light something
on fire or destroy windows or whatever. Now you're into
a conspiracy and you cook them with gas. So that's
that's I mean, they I know that Cash Fittel and
(34:21):
Todd Blanche are.
Speaker 6 (34:24):
You know, doing doing their level best to.
Speaker 15 (34:28):
Gain evidence on this because there's nothing they would like
more than to arrest you know, whoever's responsible financially for this,
and I think you and.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
I both know who they might be, right, how hard
would it be to flip some of these people to
ride out the people who are financing them. The reason
why I asked that is because I'm assuming these people
are pretty well paid. Now they're bailed out, They are
well taken care of. They're making probably a very nice salary.
That may be making a six figure plus salary, which
the otherwise we have an opportunity to make by showing
(35:01):
up and having fun at least what in their mind
a fun thing to do, and who'd want to give
that up?
Speaker 15 (35:09):
Well, I mean when they face a federal charge instead
of a state charge where they're going to get probation
or a fine. But federal charge is prison and there's
no sanctuary of parole. And so the guy that threatened
the life of the ICE agent that's facing twenty years
now at least people like that, those are the ones
(35:30):
that and he's not from New Jersey, right, that guy
traveled so that he could do that.
Speaker 6 (35:36):
That guy is somehow connected to the cabal that is
putting these protests together.
Speaker 15 (35:44):
You know, hey, you want to go for ten or
you want to go for two, right, I mean, either way,
you're not getting paid whatever they were paying, whatever, nice living,
whatever comforts you had, those are going away.
Speaker 6 (35:58):
But they can go away for longer or shorter, it's
up to you.
Speaker 15 (36:02):
And so those are the types of things that I
that have to happen in order for us to really
dig down a little deeper here, because the financiers need
to go to federal prison.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
You know, I think that the bottom line here is
the only cure for most of society's ills right now,
whether you're talking about crime, and I consider this by
the way, that the writing of the ice facility, that's
every bit of crime, as much of crime is anything else,
the murders of a you know of that've been going on,
(36:33):
the assassinations, the assassination attempts. The only cure for a
country that seemingly is in a moral crisis right now,
which I believe we are in many different ways, is punishment.
If you if you don't have a compass as far
as what you believe is right or wrong in what
it is that you're doing, then the only deterrent there
(36:55):
is for you is the knowledge of swift retrib and punishment.
And our court system has taken a lot of that
out with very liberal judges. So the government is about
one of the few things left that can still potentially
do that through the Department of Justice. I mean, you
still have to rely on the courts. You still have
(37:15):
to rely in judges, but you can. You have to
be able to bring charges against these people, charges that
will stick, and you have to be able to punish
these people, or else this will continue savingly forever.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
All right.
Speaker 3 (37:29):
I have to leave it at that for today. Thanks
for listening, appreciate it. I'll see tomorrow morning. Bright nearly
five am over on KTRH. Hope you're back here at
four on a nine fifty KPRC
Well, what we need is more common.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Sense breaking down the world's nonsense about how American common
sense will see 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
(00:27):
dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
We are into June and June is Pride month. How
could we not know that because it's in our face
everwhere we go. If you went to the Astros game,
was it yesterday?
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
I think it was against the Pittsburgh Pirates. You would
know that because they're passing out all kinds of rainbow
stuff at the game, which is fine. I felt the
need to say something on the air yesterday morning on
the Morning Show about that just because I thought, well,
if you're going to the ballpark and you don't want
(01:07):
gay pride to be in your face, then you probably
would want to pick a different game to go to.
That's the only reason why I did it. And it's
not that I don't have a problem with gay people.
I don't have a problem with gay pride. It doesn't
bother me. The only thing that bothers me is when
you know these militant progressives want to tell me how
(01:31):
I need to feel about any particular issue. I don't
have a problem with gay people getting married to each other.
I don't have a problem with gay people cohabitating with
each other. I have no issue with this at all.
I don't. Where I do have an issue is with
my tax dollars being used to do transgender surgeries on prisoners,
(01:56):
where drag a queen's story hour, where young kids are
being indoctrinated. That's those are the things I have problems
with the other. The other stuff has become, at least
in my world, fairly mainstream. If nothing else. I can
take a very libertarian attitude about it, which is very
simply this, you do you, I do me. You do
your life. I do my life. You don't try to,
(02:20):
you know, involve your personal life into my personal life.
And I'll do the same for you, and we'll just
let it. We'll let it be at that, okay. But
that's not good enough. That is not good enough for
the progressive left. And that's why I think this gallipole
is kind of interesting because it basically shows what I
personally have been feeling and what I think a lot
(02:41):
of you have been feeling as well, which is that
you know, I'm willing to take a live and let
live attitude on many and most things. I'm willing to
take a very libertarian approach. You live your life, I
live my life, and if your life doesn't interfere with mine,
and vice versa, we shall all be good with each other. Right,
But that that's not good enough, that's not good enough.
(03:02):
The desire to indoctrinate all, especially young children, is there
with the progressive left, and they do it at the
public school level. They do it at every single level,
which is why I think this Gallup poll is showing
the results it is in a nutshell. Here's what it
says that support for same sex marriage, support for a
(03:24):
gay lifestyle, for lack of a better way to put it,
has remained consistent among Independents and Democrats, but is now
starting to go down with Republicans, with more conservative people
that it's starting to go down. Which is not to
say that some especially conservative Christians, they've always had problems
(03:47):
with every aspect of a gay lifestyle, but amongst more
conservative Republicans than even mainstream Republicans, it's dropped. Like about
the support for things like gay marriage have dropped like somewhere,
but six to eight points over the course over where
they were just a couple of years ago. So it's
ticked down. And again I think it's ticked down because
(04:11):
this has become such a militant issue. But I thought
we'll ask our listeners about this over on ktis, and
that's what we did this morning. And here's a couple
of their responses. Let's see if I'm right about my
theory here.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
This is Edna from Summerwood. I really don't care to
hear about some of these sexual proclivities. The only thing
that bothers me about the whole thing is the trans thing. Look,
if you've got a prostate, you're not now, nor will
you ever be a woman, no matter how much surgery
you get. And speaking of surgery, my tax dollars should
not have to pay for that, because if I want
a boob job or form an replacement therapy, I have
(04:44):
to pay for it myself, So they shouldn't get it
for free.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Okay, So you could kind of hear her voice kind
of winding up when it got to the taxpayer part
of it. She doesn't want her money being spent that way.
You want transgender surgery, that's on you. We should using
tax dollars to give prisoners transgender surgery. Uh, they're in prison,
you're you're in prison to be punished. Your in prison
(05:08):
to be punished for for whatever it is you did
to get into prison. Why why are we providing that
sort of medical care to people. You wait till you
get out of prison, if you ever do get out
of prison, and then you pay for it yourself. That
is how that is supposed to work.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
From Springs, I am sick and damn tired of the
homo thing being thrown in my face.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
And shoved down my throat.
Speaker 7 (05:33):
What you do in the privacy of your own hand
is just that I don't need it forced on me.
Speaker 8 (05:39):
Hey, good morning guys. This is mission I made us
from McKellen, Texas, just saying about the OLGBT trans issue. Yes,
of course, no tax payer funds for that.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
That is a fab that someone has wants to have.
Speaker 8 (05:58):
That doesn't pertain wanted anything to medical issues or anything
just mental health.
Speaker 9 (06:06):
Hey, Jimmy, this is why from porter, I think people
are just tired of having these issues force down their throat.
If a man wants to pretend to be a woman
and you see her pronouns.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
That's his right.
Speaker 9 (06:19):
However, it is not his right to demand that I
recognize him as a woman and use his preferred pronouns,
because at that point he's forcing his will on me.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I think that says it best. I really do. I
think I says it best.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yeah, I'm allowed to believe what I believe. You're allowed
to believe what you believe. And I don't know why
it's so important for people on the progressive left. And
I have noticed this. I didn't really think about it
until I saw Greg Guttfeld do a little segment on it.
But he's absolutely right when he says, why is this
(06:58):
so important for people who are progressives to convince you
that your opinion is wrong, to try to change your opinion?
Why do they care what I think? If you think
I have heard people on the progressive love people I
(07:19):
know within my own family on the progressive I guess
every family has them describe me to my right to
my face as being ignorant. Well, if you think that
I'm ignorant or that my opinion is something that shouldn't count,
(07:41):
why do you care what I think? Why would you
even bother wasting your time. I'm not going to try
to convince you that you can't or shouldn't think the
way you do. Why do you feel the need to
try to convince me? And that is what's so infuriating
(08:01):
about it all, is they spend so much time trying
to change your mind that they will go to virtually
any means possible to do it, including forcing it down
to your throat, which is done another big thing that
people resent. All right, enough of that for now, back
with more in a moment Jimmy Baird Show. Hey, I'm
nine fifty KPRC. All right, I think god it, I
(08:40):
think we're gonna have some fun audio here to share
with you in this segment. I'm going to and I
do this every now and again. I've said that before.
Please allow me to say it again in case you've
ever missed me saying it that one of my favorite
things to listen to coming out of the US Capital
are congressional hearings. Some of the funniest things you'll ever hear,
some of the dumbest things you'll ever hear, some of
(09:02):
the most outrageous and ridiculous things you will ever hear,
will come out of those hearings, and we've got several
prime examples to share with you in this segment. Look,
we're going to start with someone close to home, Al Green,
Representative Al Green, you know, the one that just lost
to Chris Menafie, the one who's serving out his last
(09:23):
days in Congress, the one who seems to use the
race card. Is his only means of gathering attention is
calling as many people as you can racist. Well, he
had Mark Wayne Mullen, the Department Homeland Security Secretary, in
front of the committee he's on testifying yesterday and he
(09:45):
wanted to spend his time talking about you know, pictures
in the past have been posted by Trump talking about
what a racist is and this is a racist and
why you why you promote that in front of Mark Waynemullen.
Do you think he's a racist? Is that what you're
trying to say, that you think that man is a racist?
(10:07):
You're not allowed to call people names where you're not
supposed to call people names during these congressional hearings. And
that never stops. Al Green. That is his one trick, pony,
That is the one thing that he does. So let's
take a little listen to this. This is al Green
doing what Al Green does in front of Mark Wayne Mullen.
Mark Wayne Mullen calling him on it, and then the
(10:27):
committee chaired calling Al Green to task. It's saying you
can't be doing this.
Speaker 10 (10:33):
And a racist wouldn't apologize after doing this.
Speaker 6 (10:38):
It's a secretary.
Speaker 7 (10:40):
That's what a racist would do.
Speaker 10 (10:43):
A racist is a secretary would take offense at peace
for protest. You said you believe a peace for protest.
This was peaceful protests a secretary. Racists take offense as
peaceful protests.
Speaker 6 (11:02):
A racist as a secretary, we do what happened to
rub Are you calling me a racist?
Speaker 7 (11:11):
Racist?
Speaker 1 (11:12):
I'm asking a question, reclaiming my time, asking to shut up.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
That's a pretty shut up.
Speaker 6 (11:19):
It's my time.
Speaker 10 (11:22):
Call me a racist, gentleman, I've never called him a racist?
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Is my time?
Speaker 11 (11:27):
Gentlemen will suspend?
Speaker 2 (11:28):
You will just tell him to shut up? No, gentlemen suspend, No, the.
Speaker 11 (11:32):
Gentleman will suspend.
Speaker 12 (11:34):
No one will call me a racist.
Speaker 5 (11:36):
I'm charity to my my family has been pretty pretty Uh.
Speaker 10 (11:41):
I asked my time be restored.
Speaker 11 (11:43):
I asked that my time, the clock has been the
clock has been stopped since I suspended the clock.
Speaker 5 (11:47):
I will continue to interrupt as long as someone's.
Speaker 11 (11:50):
As I said before, there will be no uh no
addressing anyone's character in negative way.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Uh.
Speaker 11 (12:00):
By the way, mister Green, I need you when you're speaking,
and he's just speaking to the microphone because I can't
I can't hear you up here, but we.
Speaker 5 (12:08):
Will Evidently his consistent is hard enough nothing.
Speaker 11 (12:12):
It's the secretary. Please again, we're almost done here today.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Mister Green.
Speaker 11 (12:19):
You can continue, but again I will stop if if
this sounds like you are either directing that this secretary
is a racist or as well as the president or
vice president, because we do know under our rules, you
cannot disparage a member of Congress or the president or
(12:39):
the vice president. So be very I understand what what
you're trying to do. Be very careful because it is
a violation of House of our Committee rules to disparage
another member, a witness, or the president or the vice president.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
I don't think Al Green cares cares much about the rules.
He'll he'll disparage, and there's only one way he disparages,
and that's by calling people racist. That's what he has
always done in his career, and that's what he continues
to do.
Speaker 9 (13:07):
Now.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
I don't know if he continued down that tacked again,
but it seems to me the chairman didn't have much
control over the proceedings there. But then again, you know,
it's refereeing some of these committee meetings. It's got to
be difficult, you know, because basically what these congressional hearings
are I think for at least for the Democrats I see,
(13:30):
and for Republicans to a certain extent to it's an
opportunity as a senator or a member of the House
to showcase yourself and to make the attention all about you.
And that's pretty much what happens during these things, is
you know, they find a way to showcase themselves versus
(13:51):
the person they're talking to. They're trying to make a
name for themselves. And I think here's a great example
of that. This is from another congressional hearing from yesterday.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
This hearing.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Who's testifying in this one, Hang on a second. It's
a senator from Oh, I know, Scott Bessett. That Treasury
Secretary Scott Besson is there to talk about the economy,
and he has got Senator Maggie Hassan who is questioning him.
She's from New Hampshire, questioning him about the economy. Let's
(14:25):
take a listen to how that fun thing went.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
The average granite stater is paid.
Speaker 13 (14:30):
Let me be clear, the average granite stater has paid
three thousand dollars more since Donald Trump took office for
basic goods and services. Meanwhile, the country lost one hundred
thousand manufacturing jobs in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
So do you tell the president this information or not?
Speaker 7 (14:47):
Again, Senator, except for inflation, which is I believe going
to be a short term blip, the economic data is
very strong. The job's data has been very strong. The
manufacturing ism has been very strong.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Actually, that's incorrect. So let's move on because what's clear
to me which part was in correct?
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Center?
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Now, what is very clear to me.
Speaker 13 (15:08):
Is that neither you, nor the President nor this administration
are willing to acknowledge how much more people are paying
at the gas pump, at the grocery store, in utilities,
for healthcare, from all aspects of American life. Nor have
you acknowledged the number of manufacturing jobs that were lost
in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
So now let's move on another issue.
Speaker 7 (15:27):
Americans are paying two point five percent worse for groceries
since President Trump took office, which is half the annual amount.
Speaker 13 (15:35):
Under were talking about Biden. We're talking about this administration
and its promised to lower costs and the fact that
this president says he doesn't care.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Now, let's go on to mister secretary. My time is limited.
Speaker 13 (15:50):
I'd like to reclaim a little bit of my time
because I have one more question. The administration has claimed
that its top priority is lower and costs for American families,
but the president instead continues to pursue vanity projects at
a significant cost to taxpayers. He requested a billion dollars
for the White House ballroom, spent forty five million dollars
on military Birthday parade, proposed one hundred million dollar arch
(16:14):
at Memorial Circle, and now Treasury is planning production of
a two hundred and fifty dollars bill with his face
on it. Mister Secretary, how does the President's requested a
billion dollar ballroom or all of these other vanity products
lower costs for American families or help constraint spending.
Speaker 7 (16:31):
Senator first person val, You're incorrect. There is no cost
to the American people. If there is a new bill
for the ballroom. The decorative part of the ballroom is
privately funded.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Yeah, and well, yeah, that part is. But he did
request a billion dollars. That was for the security aspect
of because after all, you're going to have the president
and members of his cabinet and dignitaries from foreign countries there,
so you're going to have to have security, just like
you would have to have security in any sort of
(17:04):
government function. That's that's what that money was for. Now,
the is a billion dollars a fair amount for that,
I don't know, I don't know. I'd have to look
at that a little bit more deeply. But you see
the attack there, you know the the uh. It's interesting
that these Democrats could care less about inflation during the
(17:25):
Biden years and resented the fact that Bessen brought up
the fact that the inflation is half at the rocery store,
half of what it was during the Biden administration. She
didn't want to talk about the Biden administration. She just
wanted to talk about the Trump administration, all right.
Speaker 8 (17:40):
And what more?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
Here, this one's got kind of a bad edit in it,
but you'll get the idea. Just to show you how
crazy things get, These things Marco Rubio, Secretary of State.
Testifying again yesterday, he was asked, this is this is
from a House committee. I think it's the House Foreign
Relations Committee, of which Tim Burshett is a member. You'll
(18:02):
hear him in just a second. But it kind of
begins with the tail end of the previous representative from California.
I forget her name off the top of my head,
but this is a California Democrat who for some reason
wanted to talk about President Trump giving Marco Rubia a
(18:22):
pair of shoes and claiming that the shoes didn't fit him.
And he's like, what the hell are you talking about?
What has that got to do with why I'm here
having a pair of shoes from the president. So it
begins with the ending of that in the and Tim
Burschitt wants to know, by the way, why we're still
a part of NATO and why we're still a part
of the United Nations.
Speaker 5 (18:43):
Thank you, miss chairman, if you'd like to answer any
of that.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Yeah, I don't about the shoe.
Speaker 14 (18:46):
I mean, he gave me some floor stims shoes. They're
actually pretty good, they fit fine. I don't know, I
don't know what she's talking about. It and maybe that's
what she's referring to.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Your shoes look very nice today, mister secretary.
Speaker 14 (18:55):
How can you see hm? Their way down here? We're
talking about shoes. Are you guys kidding me? I mean,
is this the Foreign Affairs Committee? Or is this like
a circus?
Speaker 6 (19:02):
What is this?
Speaker 5 (19:03):
I think it's a circus, But I appreciate you being here,
miss Secretary. The United States is NATO's largest financial contributor.
Why does NATO consistently ignore or call to share more
the defense burden in Europe? And is it our national
interest to continue participating in NATO?
Speaker 14 (19:21):
Well, I can give you the why, okay, And the
why is pretty and is the following. Especially in Western Europe,
for the better part of twenty or thirty years, they
have not had to spend on defense because the US
security shield has allowed them to intent spend their money
on building up a very vast and robust social safety network.
And my time as a senator and before that as
(19:42):
a state representative, you would hear often from constituents about
how come they have this in that in Europe and
we don't have it here. Well, one of the reasons
why is because these very rich countries were spending their
money on social programs instead of defense because we were
covering their defense. That paradigm has to shift. It has
to shift for two reasons. The first is, these are
very wealthy countries that should have the ability to spend
more to build up their defenses and need to. And
(20:04):
this is not unique to President Trump. Multiple American presidents
and both parties have complained about NATO burden sharing. This
is just the first president that actually is doing something
about it. The second point is the United.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
As you know, or the unit, UN's largest financial contributor,
but it consistently pushes liberal policies like abortion and gender
ideology in spite of our opposition. And every time there's
a new counsel or whatever, and it's always our enemies
that seem to be on there. Why is a US
still a member of the United Nations of the United Nations?
Speaker 14 (20:37):
Yes, sir, well twofold, I would say the first is
United Nations, of course, is a very frustrating thing for US,
primarily because it's been unable to intervene or play a
constructive role in most of the major crisises around the world.
It's lost its purpose, it's lost its mission. I think
our UN mission is doing a very good job of
driving substantial reforms at the UN and using our fees
as leverage to achieve those reforms. Last year, actually we
(20:59):
had some pretty substantial successes, some real reductions in the
size and the bloated budget.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Of the UN.
Speaker 14 (21:05):
And by the way, this is not just a US position.
Multiple countries agree with us that the UN had grown
too large and it lost its core emission.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Okay, but that doesn't really answer the question why are
we still a part of the United Nations. I guess
what he's saying is is that we still hope that
we can get it back on the right track. And
maybe he's saying the same thing about NATO, that we
can hopefully get it back on the right track. All right,
back with more in a moment, Jimmy Part show here
on a nine fifty KPRC.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
All right, let's talk about what it means to be a.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Man, okay, and see if we can come to some
sort of consensus on this. Saw an interesting story and
we and you'll hear from doctor Brian June Deep with
the American Thinker about this in just a moment. I
interviewed him this morning over on our Morning Show and
ktr H about you know how the progressive left has
(22:14):
worked very, very hard to take the masculinity out of
being a man, and we have gotten to the point
now I think things are beginning to change because here's
here's what I believe about masculinity. I think that most
of what we would call masculinity or masculine tendencies are
(22:36):
a part of our DNA. It's a part of who
we are, it's a part, it's a part of what
we are supposed to be. And try as hard as
they can on the progressive left to change that. It
just goes against mother nature, just goes against what a
man naturally is. Now, I think they have been effective
(22:56):
to a certain point in making men queues in their masculinity,
in changing behavior, but all it is really led to
more than changing permanently changing male behavior. What this really
has led to is depression and sort of a lack
(23:17):
of understanding of who you are and who you're supposed
to be. It's confused a lot of young men in particular.
So here's my conversation with Brian Jundevout about all this
and about reclaiming our masculinity and what is necessary in
order to try to write the ship with the next
(23:39):
generation of young men. Do you agree that we have
a young male masculinity crisis it an well, I think
we do. But those that are pointing it out are
the ones that created it for decades. For decades, popular
culture has portrayed men this stupid, predatory, emotionally, stunted or unnecessary.
(24:00):
You think a family guy, you think of Homer Simpson,
and then the elite seem surprised when young men stop
listening to them and kind of dropping out.
Speaker 12 (24:10):
Young men are in a predicament. If they display masculine traits,
they're labeled as predators. Young boys that act like boys
are told they have add and are put on medication.
The crisis is real, but it's really not created by
too much masculinity. It's created by the collapse of healthy masculinity.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
Right, It's created by the lack of masculinity in some cases,
are yea, we're teaching young men to be more like
women when it comes to their emotions. Young men are
much more emotional than young men used to be. And
at least I was always thought to believe that there
is a reason why women are more emotional than men,
and men are more logical sometimes than women are.
Speaker 6 (24:53):
Well.
Speaker 12 (24:53):
Men are the hunter gatherers, the protectors, and that takes
a different personality set. I'm about from evolution, and we're
trying to train that and turn boys into girls and
young men into women, and it's not working. I mean,
it's a true crisis, but it's not created by too
(25:14):
much masculinity. It's created by the loss of healthy masculinity.
We don't have others in the home. Lack of discipline, duty, faith, work,
self control, courage, things like that. Those have all gone
out the window. And young men don't need to be
told they are defective women. They need models of good
(25:34):
and honorable manhood and they're not getting it. And when
they display those traits, they're put down, they're castigated and.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Punished for it.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Really, and how much of a problem is positive male
role models for young men at this point? We have
so many young men who grow up in households where
there is not a father who's a part of their lives.
They don't really have a positive male role model in
order to try to emulate. So when you don't have
a there's a male role model to emulate, and all
of your role models are female. That's got to have
an impact too, doesn't it.
Speaker 12 (26:05):
That's a huge problem the percent of fatherless households, particularly
in minority populations. They don't have the role models. And
then you go to school and the teachers are mostly women,
The principals are women, and you're surrounded by women.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Where are the men?
Speaker 12 (26:21):
When I went to school, a lot of the teachers
are men, the gym teachers, the principles, etc. Your role
model at home from dad, and then you went to
school and you had teachers and administrators that were men
behaving like men, and we learned how to behave. That
turned us into young men and functioning in society. And
(26:43):
now that's gone away. Well, hopefully everything swings back. Do
you expected to swing back?
Speaker 8 (26:47):
You know?
Speaker 3 (26:47):
All these things seem to.
Speaker 12 (26:48):
Be cyclical eventually, I mean, the pendulum swings too far.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
And something I'll have to give. A good man isn't
a harmless man.
Speaker 12 (26:58):
He's got to be a strong man with leadership, moral discipline,
and no that can protect his family, that can provide,
that can build, and that can restrain himself.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
And until we have.
Speaker 12 (27:11):
Young men with role models like that, they're going to
behave badly and we're seeing that and the riots and
the poor behavior just this week.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
And around the country. Yeah, we'll get by the way.
Speaking to rights, we'll get the rights, those new Jersey
rights in our next segment.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
But the thing that.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
The thing that concerns me the most, I guess is
I feel like we're dangerously close to the point where
we have very few of any positive, strong masculine male
role models left in order to emulate. You know, if
(27:55):
you end up in a situation where the majority of
young men are being brought up in such a way
as to deny their masculinity and there's nobody there to
teach them from generation to generation, how many generations do
you get to before there's nobody left who is that
strong masculine male role model I mean? And what happens then,
(28:21):
So so those of us who believe that we are
fairly manly men and do try to be leaders and
two do try to give positive examples, I guess we're
going to just have to hang. Maybe we're going to
have to be the ones who try to figure out
other ways that we can get involved in passing that
(28:44):
skill set along so that there at least is the
learning of that skill set, and it is a skill set.
I mean, you think back to your own upbringing, those
of us who are lucky enough to grow up in
a household with a positive male role model. Now you
think of all the things your dad taught you along
the way about what it meant to be a man,
and what it meant to be responsible, and what it
(29:06):
meant to take care of other people along with caring
for yourself. And if you're not learning those things, at
some point in time, you forget how to do them,
or you never learned how to do them. So that's
going to have to change. Before all the positive male
role models are gone, or do you think that's impossible
(29:28):
for all of them to be gone. They will always
have positive male role models. And this is just again
one of those things is going to swing back again.
I hope that is indeed the case. All right, quick
little break. Like I said, we're talking our next segment
here about that writing up at that ice facility in
New Jersey, and the care for the problem is to
dole out real punishment for those who are participating in it,
(29:54):
especially those who are funding it. But that always seems
to be the part that eludes us. We'll see if
we can can't come up with some ideas with Jay Town,
former US attorney and News Mexican tributor, we'll talk to
him next Browning, m nine fifty kPr. Seeing the Jimney
Barrett show, as I'm guessing you are probably aware, there's
(30:25):
been a lot of violence in New Jersey and it
is connected to that ice facility. You know, the template
is there and has been there for a long period
of time. Most of the people who are getting arrested
don't even live in New Jersey. They're not part of
some sort of, for lack of a better term, an
organic protest.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
I'm not saying that it's one hundred percent of the
people are just paid protesters, but the vast majority of
them are, and they're from the usual suspects, and we
know who the usual suspects are. At least we have
a very good idea. What we don't seem to have
a handle on is how to charge them for what
(31:06):
it is that they're doing and to make the charges stick.
Because without some sort of a real punishment, without the
ability to stop funding these types of things, these these
types of things will always continue to exist. And the
problem is never going to go away. So I had
a conversation with Jay Town. Jaytown is a former US attorney,
(31:28):
so he can talk about this from a legal aspect.
He's also a news Mexican tributors. Let's pick his brain
from this morning's program about how we go about identifying
who the real problems are and punishing the real problem
so we can hopefully at some point make the problem
go away. We're not going to get a handle on
these types of protests until we're actually ready, willing and
(31:49):
able to do something about it, something serious.
Speaker 15 (31:53):
Yeah, you know, I think that the as much as
we want to remove all the protesters, especially the viol ones,
the disgusting ones, I don't know when we got to
a point in this country where individuals were comfortable saying
f the USA.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
I really don't like.
Speaker 6 (32:09):
I can't even imagine such.
Speaker 15 (32:11):
A thing coming out of my mouth or entering my head.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
It's it's wild.
Speaker 6 (32:17):
But what we have to do is we have to
target the financiers.
Speaker 15 (32:21):
There are, I mean, there are several crimes, state and federal,
depending on where the money's coming from, depending you know,
on whether it's an NGO, whether there's foreign money involved,
or somebody from a foreign country that's transferring that money
into an account here.
Speaker 6 (32:43):
And those are the people you got to go after.
Speaker 15 (32:45):
These people are well healed, they're well supplied, they're well organized.
Speaker 6 (32:50):
You know, those signs and those bottles of water and
those tents and.
Speaker 15 (32:54):
What they're all very expensive. There's nothing organic about these
protests at all. They're all professional agitators. I think they
arrested six people one of the Knights, and five of
them were not even from New Jersey that probably had
never even heard at Delaney Hall until they got a
signal message saying, hey, we.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Got work for you to do.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yeah, well, here's the here's the problem.
Speaker 8 (33:18):
Though.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
We've known that, that's the main issue.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
We've known that for a long long time.
Speaker 13 (33:22):
Man.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
I think we even know for the most part who's
funding this. So why haven't we gotten tough on these people? Well,
I mean, look, it's it's they. It still has to
be against the law, so you've got to have proof
of it, right, And so if they're just saying.
Speaker 15 (33:37):
Hey, go peacefully protest and I'll give you all the
money to do so, there's nothing unfortunately illegal about that,
even though they know that the you know, the protests
are going to be They're going to end up with
protesters there who are going to do things that are
you know, nefarious or unlawful. What they need are our
(33:58):
text mean, you know, you ask some of those people,
some of those people start to flip and say, yeah,
they told us to you know, you know, light something
on fire or destroy windows or whatever. Now you're into
a conspiracy and you cook them with gas. So that's
that's I mean, they I know that Cash Fittel and
(34:21):
Todd Blanche are.
Speaker 6 (34:24):
You know, doing doing their level best to.
Speaker 15 (34:28):
Gain evidence on this because there's nothing they would like
more than to arrest you know, whoever's responsible financially for this,
and I think you and.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
I both know who they might be, right, how hard
would it be to flip some of these people to
ride out the people who are financing them. The reason
why I asked that is because I'm assuming these people
are pretty well paid. Now they're bailed out, They are
well taken care of. They're making probably a very nice salary.
That may be making a six figure plus salary, which
the otherwise we have an opportunity to make by showing
(35:01):
up and having fun at least what in their mind
a fun thing to do, and who'd want to give
that up?
Speaker 15 (35:09):
Well, I mean when they face a federal charge instead
of a state charge where they're going to get probation
or a fine. But federal charge is prison and there's
no sanctuary of parole. And so the guy that threatened
the life of the ICE agent that's facing twenty years
now at least people like that, those are the ones
(35:30):
that and he's not from New Jersey, right, that guy
traveled so that he could do that.
Speaker 6 (35:36):
That guy is somehow connected to the cabal that is
putting these protests together.
Speaker 15 (35:44):
You know, hey, you want to go for ten or
you want to go for two, right, I mean, either way,
you're not getting paid whatever they were paying, whatever, nice living,
whatever comforts you had, those are going away.
Speaker 6 (35:58):
But they can go away for longer or shorter, it's
up to you.
Speaker 15 (36:02):
And so those are the types of things that I
that have to happen in order for us to really
dig down a little deeper here, because the financiers need
to go to federal prison.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
You know, I think that the bottom line here is
the only cure for most of society's ills right now,
whether you're talking about crime, and I consider this by
the way, that the writing of the ice facility, that's
every bit of crime, as much of crime is anything else,
the murders of a you know of that've been going on,
(36:33):
the assassinations, the assassination attempts. The only cure for a
country that seemingly is in a moral crisis right now,
which I believe we are in many different ways, is punishment.
If you if you don't have a compass as far
as what you believe is right or wrong in what
it is that you're doing, then the only deterrent there
(36:55):
is for you is the knowledge of swift retrib and punishment.
And our court system has taken a lot of that
out with very liberal judges. So the government is about
one of the few things left that can still potentially
do that through the Department of Justice. I mean, you
still have to rely on the courts. You still have
(37:15):
to rely in judges, but you can. You have to
be able to bring charges against these people, charges that
will stick, and you have to be able to punish
these people, or else this will continue savingly forever.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
All right.
Speaker 3 (37:29):
I have to leave it at that for today. Thanks
for listening, appreciate it. I'll see tomorrow morning. Bright nearly
five am over on KTRH. Hope you're back here at
four on a nine fifty KPRC
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.