Exotic Pets

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Exotic pets
• The Texas Congressional map has been blocked

Episode Transcript

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

(00:24):
is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by viewind
dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
All right, So what unusual topic shall we talk about
to open up our program today here on AM nine
fifty kPr c AH. I know, I know, I know
exactly what we should talk about. Exotic pets. And I'll
tell you where the story comes from. Story comes from
a different story about how raccoons are becoming ever so

(00:55):
much closer to becoming family pets. And I'm thinking, and
hang on raccoons, you know, you mean the dumpster divers,
the ones that look like they're wearing a mask and
they're ready to rip you off, the ones that caused
so much damage family pets. Well, here's what. Researchers claim

(01:17):
that they have found that as as pets and humans
interact more and more, they're finding that as these animals
get more and more comfortable with humans, that they are
kind of morphing into cuter creatures. I mean, raccoons are

(01:38):
always a little bit cute. Now they're evidently getting even cuter.
It means they're physically changing. The faces are evolving to
look cuter. Now, it doesn't change the basic behavior of
a raccoon. Foxes are like that too. I have seen
so many videos of people who have taken in a

(01:59):
raccoon or have taken in a fox, and then you know,
treated that fox like the family dog and the fox.
Most of the least, the ones the show up online
all seemed to have adapted. I haven't heard any horror
stories of of a you know, a box that came
into the house as a baby becoming a you know,

(02:20):
a killer you know, you know, killing the family baby
or whatever. I'm sure there are cases where exotic pets
have not worked out very well, but for the most part,
I don't hear a lot of stories about that. And
I'm just kind of wondering, here, is this becoming more
and more normal? Are we getting at a point here

(02:41):
where more and more of us are open to the
idea that we can bring in virtually any kind of
a critter or creature. Now, we've all had pets that
were not a dog or a cat probably at some
point in our lives. Right, everybody's had a goldfish. Everybody's
killed a goldfish in their lifetime. Is the proper burial

(03:01):
for a goldfish still flushing it down the toilet? By
the way, how about hamsters? Yes, When I was a kid,
that was my first pet. My parents were fundamentally opposed
to the idea of me having a dog or a cat,
mainly because I think the great fear, especially with my dad,
was that he would be the one who would end
up taking care of the dog, and he had no

(03:26):
real interest in having a dog. He was not a
big dog lover. I mean, he didn't hate dogs, but
he was not a dog lover. He never, as far
as I know, as a child, he never had a
pet that I'm aware of. As an adult, he never
had a pet. Same thing with my mother. They both
grew up on farms. My mother grew up on a
farm that I don't think she looked at animals as pets.

(03:48):
I think she looked at animals as a resource. In
other words, if you got cows, you got cows for milk.
You got chickens, you eat the chickens. Chicken is what
for dinner? That kind of stuff. I don't think they
looked at the animals the same way the rest of us, do.
You know. I didn't grow up that way. I didn't
grow up looking at animals so much as a food source.

(04:08):
My food source for animals is the grocery store, the supermarket,
or the meat market. It's not It's not something I
raised on my own. So I desperately wanted a dog.
I couldn't have a dog, so they finally let me
have a hamster, which of course was relatively useless. I mean,
if what you're looking for is an animal to kind
of interact with and love on and that kind of stuff,

(04:30):
hamster is not really that good for that, you know.
But the only thing they're good for is, you know,
spinning around on a wheel. If you enjoy watching, you know,
a creature spinning on a wheel, I guess then hamsters
are okay, but they'll never take the place of a
dog or a cat. So anyway, back to the exotic animals.

(04:53):
I asked our listeners this morning the most exotic pet
they ever owned or had a friend who owned, and
how that all worked out for them. And here are
some of the answers that we got.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
Good morning. This is check the Connecticut.

Speaker 3 (05:05):
So the most wildest animal I've ever had in a
pet was AA. I know technically they're not wild animals,
but you've never seen the way this dog acts.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
I've seen no. Hang on, we have a chihuaha that
lives next door. That dog is always barking. That dog
barks at other dogs. That dog barks at in any humans.
If you're out in your backyard and that dog knows
you're out in your backyard, that that dog will bark.

Speaker 4 (05:34):
Now.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
The only thing I can say good about that about
the chihuahua is that their bark is kind of Their
bark is is not very loud. My dog has a
huge bark for a little dog. Chihuahba's you know, they
almost sound like they have a muffler on. So at
least the bark is is not terribly obnoxious. But that's

(05:57):
funny that he would consider chihuahua to be an exotic
pet or an unusual Petal Texas So, I live on
a small farm, sixteen goats.

Speaker 5 (06:09):
Four donkeys, had a fifty paralleled tortoise.

Speaker 6 (06:13):
Named Michelle, and I've also owned a ferret and ballpipelon.

Speaker 2 (06:19):
I was younger James from Houston. When I was a
young boy, my mother bought me a baby alligator. Luckily
it escaped. The most exotic pet I've ever owned was
a man eating gouch catfish.

Speaker 7 (06:33):
My ex when we first were married, had a bob
white quail in a cage in our apartment. That was
a lovely noise. And then later on our son won
the rat, the class rat, so we got even another
rat to go with the class rat. Well, next thing,

(06:54):
you know, one rat's dead.

Speaker 8 (07:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
Rats are not my Yeah, mice either, I don't think yep,
I just add some people find mice cute. I never
cared much for mice. I remember when when I was
a teenager and we moved into a subdivision where the
houses were just being built. There was empty fields behind us,
and in the wintertime, the mice would try to get
into the house and they got in with some success,

(07:23):
and so we ended up setting up traps around the
house to drop the mice, and you know, finding it,
you know, stepping on a dead mouse in the middle
of the night is you know, not my idea of fun.
I could put rats in the same tot of categorm
So I don't consider rats to be pets. I wouldn't
CONSI there a quail to be a pet, and what
is a good catfish? I don't think I've ever heard

(07:43):
of that one before.

Speaker 5 (07:44):
I had one friend to the west of the baseball
park that had a rattlesnake and another friend to the
east of the baseball park that had a raccoon and
a skunk, and they all worked out fine. They never
had any problems with any of them.

Speaker 1 (07:59):
Skip from abstair.

Speaker 9 (08:00):
I had a pet alligator gar not an alligator alligator
gar fish. Every Friday, I'd go get feeder fish for it,
and we'd sit around, drink beers and watch this thing
devour fifteen old fish.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
It was pretty coold from.

Speaker 5 (08:14):
The east side.

Speaker 10 (08:15):
I don't think I've ever had an exotic pet, but
sometimes I feel like one.

Speaker 5 (08:20):
My wife is always.

Speaker 11 (08:21):
Rolling up a newspaper and hitting me.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
On the nose, and my guess is you probably deserve it,
because generally we usually do. Oh, alligator gar those are
those are not very attractive fish. So the fun thing
was to feed that fish other fish and sit there
and drinking beer while you do it. All right, I
haven't tried it as a recreational sport, but Hey, who

(08:44):
am I to judge? All right, quick little break back
with more in a moment, Jimmy Bart show here an
nine fifty KPRC. Right, so sure you probably right now

(09:07):
if you're following the story, following any politics right now,
you're probably aware that the congressional map passed here in
the great state of Texas, which theoretically would give the
Republicans advantage for five more seats when the mid term
elections come around. A three judge federal panel, including one who,

(09:30):
by the way, is a Trump appointee, have turned it
down and they have basically said that they believe that
the map was drawn on racial grounds. They are are
accusing it of being an overtly political map, but that
the map was incorrectly drawn based on racial grounds, and

(09:51):
that their their claim is is that while forty percent
of the Texas population is white, seventy three percent of
of the representation would be whites. Well, first of all,
the only way that the population of Texas is only
forty percent white is if you separate whites and Hispanics,

(10:15):
which to me is just kind of crazy. His Hispanic
people are just white people who speak Spanish or or
have Hispanic origins. You know, they're not a minority, and
in fact, they are a majority in this state. I
don't I certainly do not lump the Hispanics with other minorities,

(10:37):
which evidently this three judge panel wanted to do. So
that's the first flaw I find in it. But here's
the report, by the way, from our television partner KPRC two,
when this decision came down yesterday.

Speaker 12 (10:48):
Three of the districts impacted are here in the Houston
area House districts eighteen nine and twenty nine, And these
are the maps that you'll remember caused Texas House Democrats
to leave the state earlier this year, delaying of vote
ultimately in the legislature. But this afternoon, a judge appointed
by President Donald Trump wrote in that one hundred and
sixty page ruling blocking these maps that there's substantial evidence

(11:10):
showing Texas racially jerrymandered them. So these redrawn boundaries meant
voters may have to vote in a different district than
the past as soon as the midterm primary election next March.
But in passing those maps, the judges wrote, the Texas
legislature dismantled and left unrecognizable some of the districts. Now,
candidates and voters alike are stuck in a bit of

(11:31):
a holding pattern here while we await further action from
a court.

Speaker 10 (11:35):
This will be especially chaotic for voters if the Supreme
Court ends up saying we're going to use the new maps,
because they'll received whiplash from the summer learning that the
districts had changed, today, learning that the districts are gone
back to the old boundaries, and then maybe later next
week learning from the Supreme Court has said that no,

(11:56):
we're going to go back to the new maps. So
it's already a confusing process, and this just adds some
confusion to it.

Speaker 12 (12:05):
So you heard the mention there of the Supreme Court.
In a statement this afternoon, Governor Greg Abbott said Texas
would appeal this ruling to the US Supreme Court, calling
the Federal Court's ruling here in Texas erroneous and any
claims about the maps being discriminatory absurd. In the last
thirty minutes, Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on x that
they are looking forward to a Texas victory at the

(12:26):
High Court.

Speaker 2 (12:26):
Okay, so the Supreme Court's going to end up getting
involved in this. This probably won't be the only case
involving redistricting that ends up in front of the Supreme Court.
California could end up there, Missouri, There's numerous other states
that are redistricting or in the process of it. This
is the first court case that will be considered, and

(12:47):
maybe what happens in these other states will be decided
a little bit by what the Supreme Court rules in
this particular case. But what are the people potentially impact
Because you heard the mention of Congressional District nine, well,
Congressional District nine is one of the new congressional districts
as a result of redistricting. Alex Meehler is running in

(13:10):
that district. We had as a guest on our morning
show today and kat rh to talk about how this
impacts her candidacy. What happens to your candidacy, Alex?

Speaker 11 (13:20):
Jimmy, then I go back to the private sector and
keep running a small business trying to create jobs. But
obviously I think it's incredibly important that we keep the
House majority and just to step back. This is a
shockingly bad decision and I do believe it will be
corrected by the Supreme Court and very quickly. I only
there's any doubts of any Texan that this mass, the

(13:42):
big beautiful map was passed to better reflect Texas conservative
voting panels. And that is a legal, valid form of
jerrymandering that this three judge panel agreed to is valid.

Speaker 6 (13:51):
What it was so.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
Shocking is they've.

Speaker 11 (13:54):
Apparently ruled that now any jerrymandering that favored Republican must
be racially motivated and therefore invalid. Well, only jerry mandering
that we've all seen Democrats, even here in Harris County
Commissioner's Court. How they ended up with their four to
one majority, But that's valid on its space, and so.

Speaker 2 (14:13):
The reasoning is the reasoning is kind of interesting. I
don't know how you look at white versus Hispanic voters,
but I kind of lump us all in together. As
far as that goes the fact that they consider only
forty percent of the state to be white, but seventy
three percent of the representation representation would be would be white.
I'm not quite sure how the math works out on that,

(14:34):
because I don't know how they've divided people up based
on race.

Speaker 11 (14:39):
Well, and that's why what was that to I think,
why so many OF's our conservatives. Right, I'm half Hispanic
and I now somehow differently represented it or is that
my identity? No, so it's really outdated and like I said,
it's not even a valid argument. And what it comes

(14:59):
back to do it is, you know, this is a
Republican judge decided to team up with a bunch of
Democrats and you know, overrule the kind of the duly
elected authority that our Texas legerislator had. It is not
for the judges to be drawing these lines. Our constitution

(15:21):
gives that to the Texas legislature and they did it
in a legal, valid way. But this just gets back
to me and when you have these weak Republicans, it's
very similar to what happened with Tim Paxton's impeachment.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
Right, bunch of.

Speaker 11 (15:32):
Republicans or a handful decided to team up with Democrats
to circumvent the will of voters. And you know, my
opponent Versus Cocaine was one of those. And I'm grateful
that we had a strong federalist judge who was the
dissenting opinion. And just for the fact that history does
repeat itself, the current congressional mask that they want us
to go back to this was challenged as well, and

(15:54):
the same good federalist judge that's trying to act as
in his authority, Judge Jerry Smith. He was the assenting
vote in twenty eighteen, the Supreme Court ultimately did side
with him, and in this recent decision he was the
loan dissenting voice as well. So I'm confident that sometimes
history does repeat itself and Scotis will move judiciously here
in six just which is really just an absurd and

(16:16):
patently bad decision.

Speaker 2 (16:17):
Well, and hopefully they get to it quickly. There are
several other states they are going to be having court
challenges because they have been changing their maps as well.
North Carolina, Missouri they drew new maps, Virginia's trying to
draw a new map. California voted to draw new maps.
So there's gonna be a lot of things for them
to consider. You do you think all of this can
get done in time for the mid term elections.

Speaker 11 (16:39):
I think we have a much better answer on that,
But I do think, you know, the Supreme Court can
role on this before the filing deadline, So December eighth
is when we're supposed to have everyone completed. In my
original loan there's a loving candidate and you start multiplying
this but behind, like you said, there's other states, but

(17:00):
Texas obviously being tip of the spare that this has
very significant implications for you know, who's going to be
controlling the House. And so I do think this will
go to the top of the docket. It's already been sorry,
the state's already moved very fast. So appreciate General Paxton
and the Governor Rabbit's team. So I don't see how

(17:22):
you would delay, just given the huge strategic impact that
really who's going to be in control of DC. And again,
this was a thoughtful process. I mean even going into
making the decision to file, I was very comfortable with
the legal risk, understood the background and the law, and
there was nothing about this was very clear. You know

(17:43):
under President Trump's Texans have shifted more conservative. This is
a new match to refluct those voting preferences. It's that simple.
And so I do believe it can move quickly and
we'll keep righting hard. Let's sit it the shoe latch
on the line. But very good questions, and I would say, yes,
this was a shock and unexpected that a Republican judge

(18:03):
would team up with the Democrats and a very as
a legal analysis.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
And of course their candidacy is on the line Alex
Meeler because she's not running if there's no commercial District
nine for her to run in. And that's the three
districts here in Texas that are hugely impacted by that.
And like I said, this is the first of Benny,
the question becomes, how quickly can they rule on Texas

(18:29):
and then what impact does the Texas ruling have on
other states that are attempting to read district in time
for the midterms. All Right, we're gonna take a quick
little break. We'll be back with more in a moment.
Jimmy Barrett Show here on the AM nine fifty k
PRC Busy Newsday yesterday. It's amazing all the stories that

(19:03):
came out yesday. Another one that came out yesterday that
involves Texas is Governor Greg Abbott. Governor Abbott yesterday banned
the Muslim Brotherhood and care from owning Texas property. Carer
says that they pretty much, you know, I'm paraphrasing here,

(19:23):
but they pretty much have been slandered by the governor.
They're going to fight it. I don't know, you know,
if CARE has any presence in Texas as far as
owning property or not. But Governor Abbot designated them terrorist organizations. Now,
I guess the question would become, is that within the
rights of the governor to designate something, somebody or something

(19:48):
a part of a terrorist organization when they have not
received that same designation from the federal government. Is that
something that Texas can do on its own? And I
would think there would be some legal challenges potentially to that.
But here is a report from Fox four in Dallas
about exactly what the Governor's done. Vith hang on that time,

(20:09):
I didn't have the good touch. Again, the report comes
from Fox four in Dallas, Texas.

Speaker 13 (20:15):
The two groups are the Muslim Brotherhood and CARE the
Council of American Islamic Relations. Now neither are on any
state department or federal terrorist and while only the federal
government has the power to designate a foreign terrorist organization,
the governor does have the authority to issue a proclamation
and apply state penalties if there's a violation.

Speaker 1 (20:35):
In issuing that proclamation.

Speaker 13 (20:36):
Tuesday, Governor Abbott said that the actions taken by the
Muslim Brotherhood and CARE to support terrorism across the globe
and subvert our laws through violence, intimidation, and harassment are unacceptable. Today,
he said, I designated the Muslim Brotherhood in care as
foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations. These radical extremists

(20:58):
are not welcome in our state and are now prohibited
from acquiring any real property interest in Texas.

Speaker 1 (21:04):
In response to that care, the Council of.

Speaker 13 (21:07):
American Islamic Relations had a stinging message quoting by defaming
a prominent American Muslim institution with debunked conspiracy theories and
made up quotes, mister Abbott has once again shown that
his top priority is advancing anti Muslim bigotry, not serving the.

Speaker 1 (21:22):
People of Texas.

Speaker 13 (21:24):
Abbot's actions fall under Senate Bill seventeen that passed last
legislative session restricting foreign ownership of Texas real estate for
individuals and entities from countries or groups deemed national security risk.
But again, these two groups are not on any state
department watch list or a federal terrorist designation.

Speaker 6 (21:45):
The federal concern and what Texas does about some property
sales is not really all that big a deal, but
it's a powerful statement by the governor, and it in
turn can be seized on by law enforcement authorities to
aggressively enforce the laws he cited in his proclamation. And
so that's a political act, and that it signals what

(22:05):
priorities are for this administration. And it's in the State House,
and you know what they think is important and what
is not important.

Speaker 13 (22:12):
Now, David cole fully expects a care to answer in
court if there follows what he calls jealous actions against
them based on the governor's state designation, and multiple parties
have already filed lawsuits to try and bloxton at Bill seventeen,
arguing that it's unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Speaker 2 (22:29):
Okay, uh yeah, I think from a legal standpoint, I
still think it's going to be very difficult for the
governor to, as the governor of state, designate somebody a
terrorist organization that is not recognized by the federal government
as a terrorist organization. But but I do understand the

(22:49):
concern that the governor has about selling property to entities
and organizations that could potentially mean harm to Texas because
another great example of that are the Chinese, and I
think that's what kind of started this whole thing off.
We were kind of late getting to it, and we

(23:10):
were among the first two get to it, but we're
still kind of late getting to figuring out that we
had entities of the Chinese government or sympathizers of the
Chinese government that were buying strategic properties next to military bases,
and it took a long time for us to do
anything about that. In fact, when it comes to China,

(23:32):
nobody knows more about China than Gordon Chang. He's an author.
You can follow him at Gordon g Chang by the way,
But Gordon, who've had another program numerous times, he's been
sounding the alarm bill about China and China preparing for
war for a long long time. And the latest incident,
the latest story that's gotten everybody's attention on a national basis,

(23:55):
is this trailer park in Missouri, which evidently is owned
by a national and it's parked right next to, literally
parked right next to a stealth bombing facility where they
test stealth bombers and put them through the paces. So

(24:15):
it's it's right next door. So anybody think that maybe
the reason why they wanted to buy a trailer park
next to the runway of the where they're taking off
and landing with stealth bombers is to maybe I don't
spy on the technology of the stealth bomber. Of course,
that makes all the sense in the world. Gordon Shang
on my show this morning on Kat h on the

(24:36):
Morning Show, here's our conversation about this trailer park in Missouri,
and we just kind of keep playing into their hands,
don't we, Gordon.

Speaker 8 (24:44):
We certainly do. You know, we're a society that thinks
we're at peace. The Chinese are fast preparing for war,
and that means although we're a far stronger society, Jimmy,
we could very much lose our country because we're not
defending it. And that trailer park, it's next to the
only air force base homes that houses B two bombers.

(25:05):
All of our B two fleet is within easy range
of that trailer park. One more thing, Remember about a
year ago Ukraine destroyed a third of Russia's long range
bomber fleet by sending out thrones which were released near
a Russian Air Force base. The same thing could happen
to us, but it would be more devastating because we

(25:25):
would lose all of our B twos.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
So this trailer park is owned by a Chinese individual.
What is their connection to the Chinese government.

Speaker 8 (25:37):
Yeah, it's a Chinese couple that, through various shell companies,
is controlled some people say by Miles Quo, who appears
to be an agent for Siegen Ping. So clearly there
is a convoluted ownership network. But it goes back to
a couple that has connections themselves with the Communist Party.

Speaker 2 (26:02):
Is anybody monitoring what's going on at this trailer park?

Speaker 8 (26:06):
Well, the Daily Caller did because Philip Planchowski broke the story,
but nobody else was. And by the way, this story
about the trailer park near Whiteman Air Force Base, it's
mirrored in so many other air Force bases across the
country because China has clearly tried to put its people
very close. When my wife and I were at Luke

(26:29):
Air Force Base, which is Phoenix, we were told the story.
In Phoenix. By the way, the air Force runway is
right next to privately occupied warehouses. Well, a Chinese guy
tried to rent one of the warehouses at one end
of the runway. He was denied permission to do that.
Unfortunately the Air Force was paying attention. But six months later,

(26:52):
that same Chinese national tried to rent space at the
other end of the runway at Luke Air Force Base.
So this is not just coincidence. This is happening all
across our country.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
Jimmy, Well, it was happening here in Texas too, which
is why we finally the state legislature finally passed legislation
to prevent Chinese nationals from buying property here in Texas,
and Governor Abae took it a step further yesterday. You
may have heard about this where he's now banned two
Muslim groups, including Care being one of the Muslim groups
and the Muslim Brotherhood being the other one, from buying

(27:26):
Texas property. That's probably going to end up in court.
But these are the kinds of things that should be
happening in most states, all of our states.

Speaker 8 (27:32):
Right absolutely. And there's a bill right now in the
state next to you, in Oklahoma. It's house built HB
fifteen sixty four. I believe that would prevent Chinese and
other nationals from owning land within two hundred miles of
military and other sensitive facilities. And that's a great build
because it takes most of Oklahoma and puts it out

(27:54):
of the reach of hostile elements.

Speaker 2 (27:57):
Has the US Department of War done anything about this?
Have they contacted these states? Have they tried to rectify
the situation. What's happening at the federal level.

Speaker 8 (28:06):
I don't think there's very much. There's no republic reporting
about the Department of War doing that. We know that
Senator Cotton and some others have been on this, but
there's been no legislation passed. So essentially we have a
non response from the Pentagon and from the rest of Washington.

Speaker 2 (28:29):
So why is it the federal government doesn't jump in
on this? Why are they leading this completely up to
the states, Because after all, there's blue states out there
that you know, aren't going to do anything about that
unless there's federal intervention. All right, quick little break back
with more in a moment, Jimmy Barrett Show here on
the AM nine fifty KPRC. All Right, so before we

(29:04):
wrap it up for today for our Wednesday show, let's, uh,
let's get a couple of different takes on another big
story that we started talking about yesterday.

Speaker 1 (29:12):
Which is.

Speaker 2 (29:15):
The the information that's finally coming out about the would
be Trump assassin in Butler, Pennsylvania, that the guy is
a well, we don't know if he's a furry or
if he just hangs out with furries or just likes furries.
But we found out that, you know, he was he
was far right and then he became far left. No words,

(29:37):
he did a complete one ad before he tried to
assassinate President Trump, and uh, we found out a lot
of things that Nicky go, huh, really, how come we
how come we are just now finding out about this?
Why is this information been so secret? Megan Kelly on
her podcast is having a hard time. She had she

(29:58):
had a guest Emily Jazenness. They were talking about that.
It's not really believable, not very believable anyway, that the
FBI didn't know any of this information because this information
did not come directly from them. The things that we're
finally learning, So the FBI is still very very quiet
as relates to who this individual was and how he

(30:21):
may become radicalized. Why is that? Is there information that
potentially is embarrassing to the FBI that they don't want
to get released? Is that what the problem is? Here's
Megan Kelly with Emily Jiazinsky onder podcast.

Speaker 14 (30:35):
This is unfathomable. I mean the fact that none of
this information has been made public that the FBI has
not once come out and said there's also evidence, substantial evidence,
by the way, from Kriks's posting history of him flipping
to the left and then posting openly pretty violent musings.

Speaker 1 (30:58):
That is the.

Speaker 14 (30:59):
Fact that we have had nothing on that until a
source went to Tucker Carlson, and then to Miranda and
then to Brianna with this information according to Tucker, which
was used with which was gleaned by using private detective tools,
so at the minimum of what the FBI would have
access to. There are two possible explanations. Neither of them
is good. One is that the FBI didn't know any

(31:22):
of this, which I don't buy. In fact, I think
it's likely they probably had some of these posts come
on their radar before the shooting itself. The second explanation
is just that they've been keeping it from the public
for some reason. They claim active investigation that makes pretty
much no sense whatsoever, But they have been very quiet

(31:43):
about what appears to have obviously been known behind the scenes.
I mean, I don't buy the first explanation, the first
possible explanation that this was not on their radar, and
I don't particularly understand why they would have any good
reason for the second explanation, which is that they've just
been sitting on this information about potential datam pronoun use.
Not potential, I mean pretty obvious, linked to the phone number,

(32:06):
linked to the email. It's outrageous, outrage.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
For free cultures.

Speaker 14 (32:10):
And if I'm the family of Corey comparator, and I
see the back and forth with the quote Willie teppis
figure that you talked with Glenn about yesterday, someone who
is linked to what has been designated as a foreign
terrorist organization, a European ANTIFA group. I'm absolutely furious because
it seems insane that the FBI either missed this or
has been keeping it quiet. That is just either way,

(32:33):
it is unfathomable and infuriating.

Speaker 2 (32:35):
It's impossible for me to to buy into the idea
that they are unaware, at least at this point that
they still wouldn't know this information. They would have to
be a really, really bad organization. And not to say
that the FBI doesn't have problems, but I'm assuming for
the moment that they're sitting on some of this. The

(32:56):
question becomes okay during the Biden administry, I get it.
Why they're sitting on it. They don't want they don't
want to embarrass themselves. Nobody's going to hold them accountable.
But now that cash Betel's in charge as the Trump administration,
I would think there's plenty of people to hold them accountable.
Didn't cash Betel promise transparency? Well, where's the transparency on this?

(33:20):
The problem is is that way too many people are
just willing to let this go and and and and
that's not right. You can't just let it go. You
have to You have to hold no matter who's in
charge of the government, you have to hold the government
accountable for reporting to us you know how this individual

(33:40):
managed to operate or become radicalized without us realizing what
was going on. And then there's a slightly more humorous
take on it from Greg Guttfeld in his panel.

Speaker 15 (33:50):
The New York Post is reporting that Thomas Crook, a
gunman he tried to kill Trump, used they then pronoun pronouns.
There's that again on a secret Deviant art account shop,
violent artwork of executions using trans Pride flag colors, and
there's all this other stuff that's coming out.

Speaker 1 (34:07):
Do you believe this? Does it seem too on the nose.

Speaker 4 (34:10):
No, I'm glad someone did some digging to figure out,
like who who this kid was? I don't want to
even say his name. I don't want to give him,
you know, the credit for that he murdered a person,
he critically wounded two people, and shot a president in
the ear.

Speaker 1 (34:27):
But it is interesting.

Speaker 4 (34:28):
I was thinking backstage, so I asked Jamie, like, I
don't know how this is funny, Like this is really disturbing.
It's a sick individual.

Speaker 15 (34:36):
Like you said, how would you find it funny though,
that he was into muscular women.

Speaker 4 (34:40):
Well you called it something muscle mommy or mommy.

Speaker 15 (34:44):
Muscle, like little skinny guys who like to get picked up.

Speaker 4 (34:48):
But did you guys know that, like before he told.

Speaker 15 (34:51):
You that, I've done some cursory research on it when
I took that leave of absence for paternity leave. But anyway,
I know you're right, No, it's a very serious topic.

Speaker 4 (35:04):
Well, yes, but I'm glad that someone googled or got
his search history to figure out. You know, we already
knew he was a stir But just how sick this
individual is?

Speaker 1 (35:15):
Jamie?

Speaker 15 (35:16):
Why did this come out now and not by the
FBI under Biden it's they said they didn't have anything.

Speaker 1 (35:21):
It is a very serious topic.

Speaker 16 (35:23):
It's terrible, but I will say, to be honest, to
be fair, I've also googled pictures of Michelle Obama.

Speaker 1 (35:28):
So yeah, she's a muscular thing.

Speaker 16 (35:33):
My search history says big Michael muscle mommas.

Speaker 1 (35:36):
Listen, this is too far not far now. I don't know.

Speaker 16 (35:42):
I mean like, it's the woman was incredible?

Speaker 1 (35:45):
Who did this reporting? So yeah, Miranda, Miranda Devine.

Speaker 4 (35:48):
Here's the FBI and Secret Service couldn't figure out is
Google search history.

Speaker 16 (35:53):
Here's what I want to say though. Okay, they said
the pronouns are they them? Okay, the right was always inclusive.
We were like, they did it right, and the left wasn't.
They were like he was on the roof he shot Trump.
And then we said, no, they did it right, and
it made them mad.

Speaker 1 (36:15):
Yeah I did.

Speaker 2 (36:16):
Oh man, crazy world, isn't it crazy? But we'll keep
an eye on this story, see what else might develop
on this one. You know, the other would be assassin
that that whole case has been put to bed at
this point, so nothing more than usual has come out
about that. Okay, we'll leave it at that for today.

(36:36):
Thank you, for listening. I do appreciate it. Hope to
see you tomorrow morning. Burdon earlier at five am over
on news radio seven forty KTRH. We are back here
at four am nine fifty kprc

Speaker 11 (37:02):
Of A