September 8, 2025 • 24 mins
Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:
- The world of video delivers instant justice
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
What we need is more common sense, the youth 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.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by
viewind dot Com.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
You know, I think the thing I like about the
video world, and we're gonna start with this today on
the show. The thing I like about the video world
is it's like instant justice. It makes it very hard
for anybody to operate in the dark. There's a time
where somebody like this would have gotten away with it,
but no longer does because there's a video camera everywhere
(00:52):
checking this out. You heard what happened at the Philadelphia
Phillies Miami Marlins game on Friday, Right Friday night, the
two are playing each other, probably more Philadelphia fans in
the stands and there were Miami fans. I think it
was the same way when we played when Houston played Miami.
Miami doesn't have a very big following. They've not been
(01:13):
particularly good except for the very beginning of the franchise,
and so they'll really draw a lot of people. It's
a great excuse. And you know, Florida, much like Texas,
very much a state in Miami, a city of transplants,
a bunch of people from somewhere else. So you've got
people who live in Florida now who grew up as
(01:33):
Philadelphia Phillies fans. And they're at the game. And dad
goes there and takes his kid, these two kids actually,
and his wife and they're out in the outfield I
think it was left field, out in the outfield, and
Harrison Bader the Phillies comes up and hits a home run. Well,
dad comes goes running after the ball. That's what you do, right,
(01:53):
You run after the baseball. Doesn't have to be hit
right to you, doesn't have to be hit right to
your section. If you see what the ball is, you
go get the ball, which is what he did. And
it was a couple of seats away from this woman
who's being called Philly's Karen, behaving like all Karen's do.
(02:14):
Who went over and talked to the dead and well
didn't talk to him, yelled at the dead, that's our baseball,
and demanded they get the baseball back. Here is dead
telling the story about what happened.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
As soon as it cracked off the bat, it was
starting to head our way a little bit. So I
walked to my right, walked to my right, walked to
my air, and I thought, oh crap, it's coming. And
I walked down a couple of seats and it fell
and kind of bubbled between the two armrests, and I
picked it up, and as I was pulling away got
two other hands came, and I mean, I didn't didn't
(02:48):
really care at that point. I just walked away and
held the ball up high and put it in Lincoln's
glove and was hoping he'd be on the you know,
the Megatron TV or whatever.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
And and then she showed up. So you walked back
over to your seat. You gave the ball to Lincoln.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
She came over a couple of minutes later. What was
she saying to you?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
No, it was like it was like ten seconds or
fifteen seconds later. She was quick, sure, she definitely scurried
on over.
Speaker 5 (03:16):
What did she say?
Speaker 3 (03:19):
I didn't even see her walk up, And as she
reached from my arm, she just yelled in my ear,
that's my ball, like super loud. I jumped out of
my skin and I was like, you know, like, why
are you here, you know, go away? And then she's like,
that's my ball. You stole it out out of those
were from our seats And I said, there was nobody
(03:41):
in that seat, you know, she said, that's from where
we were sitting, and she just went on and on.
I don't even remember what she said. It was, you know,
a lot a lot of eyes on us by that time,
and the ball was already in his glove and she
just wouldn't stop. And I mean I'm literally lean back
as she's in my face yelling and yelling and yelling,
(04:03):
and I pretty much just wanted her to go away.
And because I had a fork in the road, either
you know, do something I was probably going to regret
or be dad and show him how to de escalate
a situation.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
So that's where I went.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Or did he show the kid how to give in
to a Karen? That kind kind of what I was
asking this morning. I mean, you know, it's never a
good visual when you have a man arguing with a
woman and refusing to cooperate with a woman.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
They just it's bad optics.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
So he probably did the right thing, right because at
the end of the day, kid ends up with an
auto baseball bat from the guy who hit the home run.
He ends up with all the positive publicity. She ends
up with all the negative publicity of being a Karen.
But we asked the listeners this morning to weigh in
on what they thought about the situation.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
H this is Melanie. There's no way that Karen would
have gotten that ball from me.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
I give it to my kid.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
It was his too bad, so sad Jimmy.
Speaker 6 (05:04):
John from Brickshire, I would say give the ball to
Karen because in a situation like that, at a ballpark
like that, cancers are because everybody was watching, you're probably
gonna end up like what he ended up with. He
got some prizes for doing the right thing.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Anyway, that's my two cents. I have a great day,
Thanks for the show. By now, Philly, Karen.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Is this symptom of society today.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Adults not wanting to adult? It's a game.
Speaker 6 (05:36):
Children always get the ball, children always get preferential treatment.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
It's for the children. And even if you'd had children there.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
And semilegitimately somebody else's kid got something years didn't.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
It's a life lesson this.
Speaker 7 (05:53):
Hey, Philly's Karen. Karen Mom really, she definitely overstepped her
bio brain quite demanding that ball for.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
You, aysk me. Well, you know, she's kind of almost
being hunted down now, nobody knows for sure. They thought
they had identified who the Skaren was. Turns out that
wasn't her, it was somebody else. So they're still trying
to figure out who she is, and she no doubt
is laying low at this point in time, although she
did have the cajones after this event, fans started booing
(06:24):
her right and she's walking back to her seat with
the baseball and she's flipping them all off, giving them
all the finger. Just a real nice lady who's a
Philadelphia fan. Yeah, it's amazing how many fans like there
that there are in Philadelphia of all places, except this
happened in Florida. Anyway, Like I said, kid got an
autograph bat. Everybody at the end of the day is happy,
(06:48):
and she's going to end up like the Coldplay Kiss
Camp if they ever really figure out who she is.
Right back with morn of them on a Jimmy Barrett
Show here on AM nine to fifty KPRC. Why does
(07:17):
it test to become a United States citizen? We had
a big debate going on this morning. Let's continue our
debate here this afternoon on KPRC about the citizenship test.
There are plenty of people who think that the citizenship
test is just it's not hard enough, it's just too
cotton pick and easy that just about anybody can pass it.
(07:40):
In fact, this comes from the director who's in charge
of this. By the way, his name is Joseph Edlow.
He's US Citizenship and Immigration Research Director. Here he is
talking about what is wrong with our current citizenship test.
Speaker 8 (07:59):
We're looking for attachment to the Constitution. We're looking for
an understanding of the civic responsibility of being a US citizen.
We're looking for actual understanding and ability to read and
speak and write the English language. And frankly, this test
is just too easy. I am declaring war on fraud.
(08:21):
I am declaring war on anyone that is coming to
this country and wants to get a benefit but doesn't
want the responsibility of what it means to actually be
a US citizen.
Speaker 9 (08:31):
I think this goes back to the first Trump term
when they put forward some proposals on immigration that made
a lot of sense. And by the way, we're very
popular with Americans to wit, Let's choose who comes into
our country. Let's identify people who can contribute to your point, Jackie,
as Canada does, for example, people who have career skills
(08:53):
that we need, people who yes, speak English and aren't
such a drain in our public schools because they need
dual language education, etc. And all that sort of Unfortunately
it never went anywhere. But I honestly think right now
is the time for an immigration overhaul. I think we
have to approach and talk about what to do with
(09:14):
the people in the country illegally but who have been
here for twenty.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Or thirty years.
Speaker 9 (09:18):
My view is those people get alien resident status. They
are never allowed to become citizens, but they do become
legal so they can work and pay their taxes and
so forth. But also in terms of who we invite
in get rid of the diversity lottery, which is one
of the most horrifying things we have in our immigration program,
really begin to make it clear that we're going to
(09:38):
select people on the basis of their achievement, their talent,
their capacity, and yes, how much they love America and
want to be here.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
All those things. I agree, all those things are super important.
So what are some of the other things that are
wrong with the test right now. The test. First of all,
all the answers are given ahead of time. There's one
one hundred possible questions and answers that appear on the test,
but you only get asked ten. They randomly asked ten questions.
(10:11):
Of the ten questions, you only have to get six right.
That should be a failure test that six out of
ten should fail you. As far as qualifying for US citizenship,
I'm sure there's some people on the other side that
would say, well, yeah, okay, let's go to a civics
(10:33):
class at the high school level and let's see how
many people can can answer those questions, how many born
citizens can answer those questions? And you have a point there,
But we're talking about people who are going to make
into the United States citizens. I think it needs to
be tougher than that. I had Laura Reese on this morning.
Laura's with a Heritage Foundation based out of Washington, d C.
(10:54):
We talked about making the test stuffer. Do you agree, Lord,
do you think the test is too easy?
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Unfortunately it has become very watered down. Good morning, Thanks
for having me on. I've witnessed a US Citizenship and
Immigration Service adjudicator gives the task to an applicant, and
it really seems like a check the box exercise. They
in terms of demonstrating your ability to read, write, and
(11:25):
speak English, for example, they had to read just one sentence,
they had to write just one sentence. And in terms
of the questions, yes, they publish all potential one hundred
questions in advance. You're only asked ten and as soon
as you get six right, you're done. So we need
(11:48):
to have higher standards because we need to put more
meaning back into becoming.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
A US citizen. When did we start dumbing this test down?
And why did we do it?
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Well?
Speaker 4 (12:00):
Well, I recall back during even the Clinton years, the
then I n S was redesigning the test and lowering
the standards, and it's just been a slide ever since
then because they wanted more people to naturalize to become citizens.
(12:24):
Were they doing it back then because they viewed this
as political potential political votes? Perhaps, But you know, regardless,
we really need to re raise the standards and to
get back to assimilation, which has been a dirty word
for the left for decades because all they push is
(12:45):
multiculturalism and we're seeing both here but in other countries
like the UK and France, what that can lead to.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Joseph Edlow is the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director.
He said down only would he like the test to
be a whole lot tougher. He would like it to
be more of an essay test instead of sort of
a multiple guest kind of a test. And in other words,
we would like you to know what the Constitution is
and what the Constitution does, and we'd like you to
(13:15):
be able to thoughtfully write that out an essay form
other than asking some sort of a generic anybody could
guess kind of a question.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Yes, that's good because it gets had a couple of things. One,
it shows much better your English writing abilities rather than
just write one sentence. But also it draws out, you know,
what does the applicant really think about whatever subject they're
being asked about? And so that gets to more of
(13:45):
that matter of assimilation. Are they going to be loyal
to the Constitution? Are they going to be loyal to
America and Americans? And that's very important.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Okay, supposed like anything else, President Trump will probably make
this happen. The question is how much of an outcry
do you think there's going to be if they do
toughen up the citizenship quest test.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Really, if the last will.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
Push back on it, they will perhaps sue as they
sue on every other policy change. But I mean it's
not a strong argument, particularly when we see more and
more even members of Congress express their loyalty for foreign
(14:34):
nations over America, from Guatemala to Somalia, and when we
see communities that refuse to assimilate and now are getting
to the point where they demand that their laws, cultures,
what have you be implemented instead of American law or
(14:55):
American cultures or religions we were formed on. And we
cannot continue down that path and become the bulkanized country
because we will no longer be the United States of America.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Well said Laura Ree's Heritage Foundation. But it's interesting because
you know, I was giving us some samples of the questions.
They really are pretty easy for the most part. What
is an amendment? What do we call the first ten
amendments of the Constitution? You know the answer, right, the
Bill of Rights? Correct, But a lot of them have
(15:35):
multiple answers. Here's one that kind of struck me. They
wanted you to name the original thirteen states, the original
thirteen colonies is what they began as of course, the
original thirteen states. But they didn't ask you on the
test to name all thirteen. They didn't ask you to
name ten out of thirteen. They didn't ask you to
(15:58):
name five out of thirteen. They asked you the name three.
That's it, three out. If you can get three out
of thirteen, you passed the question. But we had a
few listeners who seem to think that that making the
test tougher might actually become a bit of a problem.
(16:18):
I'm not quite sure why would they feel that way,
but let's listen in.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
I am all in favor of a tougher citizenship test.
But the problem with open ended or as the questions
is that it may be open to interpretation. A Republican
official may interpret it differently than a Democrat official, and
that may further determine who enters the states.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
So I gotta watch out for that. All right.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
That's a good point. Actually, that's a very good point.
That's a valid point. Depends on who's in power and
who's asking the question. When you have an essay question
is to what the right answer is? All right, quick
little break back with more. In a moment, we were
talking a little vaccines. I think here in just a
few minutes, you're running in nine to fifty KPRC. In
the Jimmy Barrett Show myself, President Trump made a comment
(17:20):
about sort of a take off on the Apocalypse. Now, y'all
see Apocalypse. Now, let's go back away. You know Vietnam
War movie Robert Duvall was in that. He's the one
that undered the phrase, I love the smell of napalm
in the morning. Well, President Trump did a I love
the on social media, I love the smell of deportations
in the morning, sort of a take off on that
(17:43):
as a way of saying that he's got a crew
that's getting ready to go into Chicago and to round
up illegals. He's getting ready to do that, and of
course Chicago's reacting like the guy just declared war on Chicago.
He declared war an illegal immigration a long time ago.
And Chicago is one of those sanctuary cities that he's
(18:06):
going to go into. They have a problem with illegals,
they have a problem with crime, and they have a
problem with illegals and crime. So why not just let
why not cooperate with Ice, which of course they're not
going to do. But for those who are wondering where
that phrase came from, I love the smell of deportation.
In this case, I love the spell of navalm in
the morning. It's from Apocalypse Now And I thought, well,
(18:28):
you know a lot of people haven't seen the movie.
You know, if you're a little bit younger, you haven't
seen the movie. So if you haven't seen the movie,
here is the scene from which the quote comes from.
Speaker 10 (18:45):
I thought, sun, how the has little lot of spells
like that. I love the smell of black come in
the morning. Do you know what time we had a
hilp them follows on all of my look up, we
didn't find one of them.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
That one's thinking.
Speaker 10 (19:06):
Think, body, you know that gasoline smell, oh hell.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
Smells like.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Victory.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Yes, And I think that's why he used the phrase
it smells like victory. Love the smell of deportations in
the morning. It smells like victory, which is what the
president's going for. Victory on illegal immigration, victory on victory
on crime. But as you know, there are plenty of
(19:43):
people who are going to turn that around and say
he's declaring war in the city of Chicago. He's doing
something he can't do. Well, that's not really true. He
can invoke the National Guard. I'm sure this will end
up getting I've fought out in court if he ends
up going into Chicago with the National Guard. But here's
(20:06):
a legal expert, Laurel Lee, on the legality of what
the President is talking about doing.
Speaker 11 (20:12):
Well, what they're saying has really no basis in law,
nor is it the thing that their citizens need for
them to be doing. Most Trey, as you know as
a former prosecutor, there's dual sovereignty. So the federal government
has absolute authority all the time to be prosecuting federal
offenses in these jurisdictions, and they don't need an invitation.
(20:34):
President Trump does not need an invitation from a mayor
or a governor to be there. So we have federal
agents US attorneys all across the country making sure that
federal crimes are being investigated and prosecuted. But what's even
more important is that it defies logic that these folks
don't want the help. We can see in d see
(20:55):
what an incredible success the President's efforts have been.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
It is safer, crime is down, It.
Speaker 11 (21:01):
Has absolutely helped the DC Metro Police to have that
added federal presence, and this is something that should be
welcomed as a resource anywhere in the country that violent
crime is a problem. It absolutely defies logic and you
are raising such an important point. So our criminal justice
system needs to work to keep criminals off the streets
if their crimes warrant that, but it also needs to
(21:24):
work for the victims of crime. These aren't just numbers.
These crime statistics are real people whose lives are forever
tragically impacted, and the types of policies that some of
these democrats are fighting for just don't have any bearing
in the data or in reality. As you well know,
when I was a judge and I was looking at
(21:44):
a decision about bond and letting an accused person out
on bond, we have to consider the safety of the
community and the flight risk and safety of the community
is not being adequately considered in jurisdictions like DC that
have decided to implement these no cash bail policies to
let people out like a revolving door, and we have
(22:04):
seen the tragic consequences of that all too often. We
need a criminal justice system that absolutely considers. Are we
charging the right crimes? Are we allowing law enforcement to
do their jobs? Are we allowing prosecutors to actually bring
the right cases get them to trial quickly and efficiently.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
That's what we need to be doing.
Speaker 11 (22:25):
And that's how we'll get a justice system that is
working for all of the people who intersect with it.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
I guess you know, you know is I take a
look at this from well, what if Chicago got to
win or lose by participating in this program, Because the
only protests I've seen are the usual, the usual crowds,
right the professional protesters in Chicago, regular citizens, many of
them living on the South Side of Chicago where crime
(22:51):
is so bad, desperately want some help when it comes
to fighting crime. So the only rational because I always
look for a rational explanation of why somebody is refusing
to cooperate with something like this, and there's only two
things you can think of. Number one is they are
that married to their political philosophy of being quote unquote
(23:12):
welcoming to the illegals that they don't want to be
seen as cooperating with any sort of deportations on that
end of it, But on the crime end of it,
The only thing I can think of that they're worried
about is that President Trump will be a success, that
crime will go down like it did in Washington, d C.
And that the standard run of the mill politicians in
(23:35):
Chicago will be proven for what they are, completely ineffective
or even worse, uncaring about protecting their citizens. So that's
the only thing I can think of is to why
they are refusing to cooperate because they're afraid that how
they look, it looks better for them to fight the
(23:55):
good fight, so to speak, than it does for them
to allow the federal government to come in and help them,
because then they look bad, and that's all they really
care about. They care about themselves looking bad. They don't
care about the city or protecting the residents. All right,
listen all I have for today, Thank you for listening.
Appreciate it. See you tomorrow morning, bright and early, starting
at five am over on News Radio seven forty ktr H.
(24:19):
We are back here at four on AM nine fifty KPRC.
What we need is more common sense, the youth 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.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by
viewind dot Com.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
You know, I think the thing I like about the
video world, and we're gonna start with this today on
the show. The thing I like about the video world
is it's like instant justice. It makes it very hard
for anybody to operate in the dark. There's a time
where somebody like this would have gotten away with it,
but no longer does because there's a video camera everywhere
(00:52):
checking this out. You heard what happened at the Philadelphia
Phillies Miami Marlins game on Friday, Right Friday night, the
two are playing each other, probably more Philadelphia fans in
the stands and there were Miami fans. I think it
was the same way when we played when Houston played Miami.
Miami doesn't have a very big following. They've not been
(01:13):
particularly good except for the very beginning of the franchise,
and so they'll really draw a lot of people. It's
a great excuse. And you know, Florida, much like Texas,
very much a state in Miami, a city of transplants,
a bunch of people from somewhere else. So you've got
people who live in Florida now who grew up as
(01:33):
Philadelphia Phillies fans. And they're at the game. And dad
goes there and takes his kid, these two kids actually,
and his wife and they're out in the outfield I
think it was left field, out in the outfield, and
Harrison Bader the Phillies comes up and hits a home run. Well,
dad comes goes running after the ball. That's what you do, right,
(01:53):
You run after the baseball. Doesn't have to be hit
right to you, doesn't have to be hit right to
your section. If you see what the ball is, you
go get the ball, which is what he did. And
it was a couple of seats away from this woman
who's being called Philly's Karen, behaving like all Karen's do.
(02:14):
Who went over and talked to the dead and well
didn't talk to him, yelled at the dead, that's our baseball,
and demanded they get the baseball back. Here is dead
telling the story about what happened.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
As soon as it cracked off the bat, it was
starting to head our way a little bit. So I
walked to my right, walked to my right, walked to
my air, and I thought, oh crap, it's coming. And
I walked down a couple of seats and it fell
and kind of bubbled between the two armrests, and I
picked it up, and as I was pulling away got
two other hands came, and I mean, I didn't didn't
(02:48):
really care at that point. I just walked away and
held the ball up high and put it in Lincoln's
glove and was hoping he'd be on the you know,
the Megatron TV or whatever.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
And and then she showed up. So you walked back
over to your seat. You gave the ball to Lincoln.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
She came over a couple of minutes later. What was
she saying to you?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
No, it was like it was like ten seconds or
fifteen seconds later. She was quick, sure, she definitely scurried
on over.
Speaker 5 (03:16):
What did she say?
Speaker 3 (03:19):
I didn't even see her walk up, And as she
reached from my arm, she just yelled in my ear,
that's my ball, like super loud. I jumped out of
my skin and I was like, you know, like, why
are you here, you know, go away? And then she's like,
that's my ball. You stole it out out of those
were from our seats And I said, there was nobody
(03:41):
in that seat, you know, she said, that's from where
we were sitting, and she just went on and on.
I don't even remember what she said. It was, you know,
a lot a lot of eyes on us by that time,
and the ball was already in his glove and she
just wouldn't stop. And I mean I'm literally lean back
as she's in my face yelling and yelling and yelling,
(04:03):
and I pretty much just wanted her to go away.
And because I had a fork in the road, either
you know, do something I was probably going to regret
or be dad and show him how to de escalate
a situation.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
So that's where I went.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Or did he show the kid how to give in
to a Karen? That kind kind of what I was
asking this morning. I mean, you know, it's never a
good visual when you have a man arguing with a
woman and refusing to cooperate with a woman.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
They just it's bad optics.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
So he probably did the right thing, right because at
the end of the day, kid ends up with an
auto baseball bat from the guy who hit the home run.
He ends up with all the positive publicity. She ends
up with all the negative publicity of being a Karen.
But we asked the listeners this morning to weigh in
on what they thought about the situation.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
H this is Melanie. There's no way that Karen would
have gotten that ball from me.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
I give it to my kid.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
It was his too bad, so sad Jimmy.
Speaker 6 (05:04):
John from Brickshire, I would say give the ball to
Karen because in a situation like that, at a ballpark
like that, cancers are because everybody was watching, you're probably
gonna end up like what he ended up with. He
got some prizes for doing the right thing.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Anyway, that's my two cents. I have a great day,
Thanks for the show. By now, Philly, Karen.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Is this symptom of society today.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Adults not wanting to adult? It's a game.
Speaker 6 (05:36):
Children always get the ball, children always get preferential treatment.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
It's for the children. And even if you'd had children there.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
And semilegitimately somebody else's kid got something years didn't.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
It's a life lesson this.
Speaker 7 (05:53):
Hey, Philly's Karen. Karen Mom really, she definitely overstepped her
bio brain quite demanding that ball for.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
You, aysk me. Well, you know, she's kind of almost
being hunted down now, nobody knows for sure. They thought
they had identified who the Skaren was. Turns out that
wasn't her, it was somebody else. So they're still trying
to figure out who she is, and she no doubt
is laying low at this point in time, although she
did have the cajones after this event, fans started booing
(06:24):
her right and she's walking back to her seat with
the baseball and she's flipping them all off, giving them
all the finger. Just a real nice lady who's a
Philadelphia fan. Yeah, it's amazing how many fans like there
that there are in Philadelphia of all places, except this
happened in Florida. Anyway, Like I said, kid got an
autograph bat. Everybody at the end of the day is happy,
(06:48):
and she's going to end up like the Coldplay Kiss
Camp if they ever really figure out who she is.
Right back with morn of them on a Jimmy Barrett
Show here on AM nine to fifty KPRC. Why does
(07:17):
it test to become a United States citizen? We had
a big debate going on this morning. Let's continue our
debate here this afternoon on KPRC about the citizenship test.
There are plenty of people who think that the citizenship
test is just it's not hard enough, it's just too
cotton pick and easy that just about anybody can pass it.
(07:40):
In fact, this comes from the director who's in charge
of this. By the way, his name is Joseph Edlow.
He's US Citizenship and Immigration Research Director. Here he is
talking about what is wrong with our current citizenship test.
Speaker 8 (07:59):
We're looking for attachment to the Constitution. We're looking for
an understanding of the civic responsibility of being a US citizen.
We're looking for actual understanding and ability to read and
speak and write the English language. And frankly, this test
is just too easy. I am declaring war on fraud.
(08:21):
I am declaring war on anyone that is coming to
this country and wants to get a benefit but doesn't
want the responsibility of what it means to actually be
a US citizen.
Speaker 9 (08:31):
I think this goes back to the first Trump term
when they put forward some proposals on immigration that made
a lot of sense. And by the way, we're very
popular with Americans to wit, Let's choose who comes into
our country. Let's identify people who can contribute to your point, Jackie,
as Canada does, for example, people who have career skills
(08:53):
that we need, people who yes, speak English and aren't
such a drain in our public schools because they need
dual language education, etc. And all that sort of Unfortunately
it never went anywhere. But I honestly think right now
is the time for an immigration overhaul. I think we
have to approach and talk about what to do with
(09:14):
the people in the country illegally but who have been
here for twenty.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Or thirty years.
Speaker 9 (09:18):
My view is those people get alien resident status. They
are never allowed to become citizens, but they do become
legal so they can work and pay their taxes and
so forth. But also in terms of who we invite
in get rid of the diversity lottery, which is one
of the most horrifying things we have in our immigration program,
really begin to make it clear that we're going to
(09:38):
select people on the basis of their achievement, their talent,
their capacity, and yes, how much they love America and
want to be here.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
All those things. I agree, all those things are super important.
So what are some of the other things that are
wrong with the test right now. The test. First of all,
all the answers are given ahead of time. There's one
one hundred possible questions and answers that appear on the test,
but you only get asked ten. They randomly asked ten questions.
(10:11):
Of the ten questions, you only have to get six right.
That should be a failure test that six out of
ten should fail you. As far as qualifying for US citizenship,
I'm sure there's some people on the other side that
would say, well, yeah, okay, let's go to a civics
(10:33):
class at the high school level and let's see how
many people can can answer those questions, how many born
citizens can answer those questions? And you have a point there,
But we're talking about people who are going to make
into the United States citizens. I think it needs to
be tougher than that. I had Laura Reese on this morning.
Laura's with a Heritage Foundation based out of Washington, d C.
(10:54):
We talked about making the test stuffer. Do you agree, Lord,
do you think the test is too easy?
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Unfortunately it has become very watered down. Good morning, Thanks
for having me on. I've witnessed a US Citizenship and
Immigration Service adjudicator gives the task to an applicant, and
it really seems like a check the box exercise. They
in terms of demonstrating your ability to read, write, and
(11:25):
speak English, for example, they had to read just one sentence,
they had to write just one sentence. And in terms
of the questions, yes, they publish all potential one hundred
questions in advance. You're only asked ten and as soon
as you get six right, you're done. So we need
(11:48):
to have higher standards because we need to put more
meaning back into becoming.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
A US citizen. When did we start dumbing this test down?
And why did we do it?
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Well?
Speaker 4 (12:00):
Well, I recall back during even the Clinton years, the
then I n S was redesigning the test and lowering
the standards, and it's just been a slide ever since
then because they wanted more people to naturalize to become citizens.
(12:24):
Were they doing it back then because they viewed this
as political potential political votes? Perhaps, But you know, regardless,
we really need to re raise the standards and to
get back to assimilation, which has been a dirty word
for the left for decades because all they push is
(12:45):
multiculturalism and we're seeing both here but in other countries
like the UK and France, what that can lead to.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Joseph Edlow is the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director.
He said down only would he like the test to
be a whole lot tougher. He would like it to
be more of an essay test instead of sort of
a multiple guest kind of a test. And in other words,
we would like you to know what the Constitution is
and what the Constitution does, and we'd like you to
(13:15):
be able to thoughtfully write that out an essay form
other than asking some sort of a generic anybody could
guess kind of a question.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Yes, that's good because it gets had a couple of things. One,
it shows much better your English writing abilities rather than
just write one sentence. But also it draws out, you know,
what does the applicant really think about whatever subject they're
being asked about? And so that gets to more of
(13:45):
that matter of assimilation. Are they going to be loyal
to the Constitution? Are they going to be loyal to
America and Americans? And that's very important.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Okay, supposed like anything else, President Trump will probably make
this happen. The question is how much of an outcry
do you think there's going to be if they do
toughen up the citizenship quest test.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Really, if the last will.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
Push back on it, they will perhaps sue as they
sue on every other policy change. But I mean it's
not a strong argument, particularly when we see more and
more even members of Congress express their loyalty for foreign
(14:34):
nations over America, from Guatemala to Somalia, and when we
see communities that refuse to assimilate and now are getting
to the point where they demand that their laws, cultures,
what have you be implemented instead of American law or
(14:55):
American cultures or religions we were formed on. And we
cannot continue down that path and become the bulkanized country
because we will no longer be the United States of America.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Well said Laura Ree's Heritage Foundation. But it's interesting because
you know, I was giving us some samples of the questions.
They really are pretty easy for the most part. What
is an amendment? What do we call the first ten
amendments of the Constitution? You know the answer, right, the
Bill of Rights? Correct, But a lot of them have
(15:35):
multiple answers. Here's one that kind of struck me. They
wanted you to name the original thirteen states, the original
thirteen colonies is what they began as of course, the
original thirteen states. But they didn't ask you on the
test to name all thirteen. They didn't ask you to
name ten out of thirteen. They didn't ask you to
(15:58):
name five out of thirteen. They asked you the name three.
That's it, three out. If you can get three out
of thirteen, you passed the question. But we had a
few listeners who seem to think that that making the
test tougher might actually become a bit of a problem.
(16:18):
I'm not quite sure why would they feel that way,
but let's listen in.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
I am all in favor of a tougher citizenship test.
But the problem with open ended or as the questions
is that it may be open to interpretation. A Republican
official may interpret it differently than a Democrat official, and
that may further determine who enters the states.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
So I gotta watch out for that. All right.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
That's a good point. Actually, that's a very good point.
That's a valid point. Depends on who's in power and
who's asking the question. When you have an essay question
is to what the right answer is? All right, quick
little break back with more. In a moment, we were
talking a little vaccines. I think here in just a
few minutes, you're running in nine to fifty KPRC. In
the Jimmy Barrett Show myself, President Trump made a comment
(17:20):
about sort of a take off on the Apocalypse. Now, y'all
see Apocalypse. Now, let's go back away. You know Vietnam
War movie Robert Duvall was in that. He's the one
that undered the phrase, I love the smell of napalm
in the morning. Well, President Trump did a I love
the on social media, I love the smell of deportations
in the morning, sort of a take off on that
(17:43):
as a way of saying that he's got a crew
that's getting ready to go into Chicago and to round
up illegals. He's getting ready to do that, and of
course Chicago's reacting like the guy just declared war on Chicago.
He declared war an illegal immigration a long time ago.
And Chicago is one of those sanctuary cities that he's
(18:06):
going to go into. They have a problem with illegals,
they have a problem with crime, and they have a
problem with illegals and crime. So why not just let
why not cooperate with Ice, which of course they're not
going to do. But for those who are wondering where
that phrase came from, I love the smell of deportation.
In this case, I love the spell of navalm in
the morning. It's from Apocalypse Now And I thought, well,
(18:28):
you know a lot of people haven't seen the movie.
You know, if you're a little bit younger, you haven't
seen the movie. So if you haven't seen the movie,
here is the scene from which the quote comes from.
Speaker 10 (18:45):
I thought, sun, how the has little lot of spells
like that. I love the smell of black come in
the morning. Do you know what time we had a
hilp them follows on all of my look up, we
didn't find one of them.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
That one's thinking.
Speaker 10 (19:06):
Think, body, you know that gasoline smell, oh hell.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
Smells like.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Victory.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Yes, And I think that's why he used the phrase
it smells like victory. Love the smell of deportations in
the morning. It smells like victory, which is what the
president's going for. Victory on illegal immigration, victory on victory
on crime. But as you know, there are plenty of
(19:43):
people who are going to turn that around and say
he's declaring war in the city of Chicago. He's doing
something he can't do. Well, that's not really true. He
can invoke the National Guard. I'm sure this will end
up getting I've fought out in court if he ends
up going into Chicago with the National Guard. But here's
(20:06):
a legal expert, Laurel Lee, on the legality of what
the President is talking about doing.
Speaker 11 (20:12):
Well, what they're saying has really no basis in law,
nor is it the thing that their citizens need for
them to be doing. Most Trey, as you know as
a former prosecutor, there's dual sovereignty. So the federal government
has absolute authority all the time to be prosecuting federal
offenses in these jurisdictions, and they don't need an invitation.
(20:34):
President Trump does not need an invitation from a mayor
or a governor to be there. So we have federal
agents US attorneys all across the country making sure that
federal crimes are being investigated and prosecuted. But what's even
more important is that it defies logic that these folks
don't want the help. We can see in d see
(20:55):
what an incredible success the President's efforts have been.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
It is safer, crime is down, It.
Speaker 11 (21:01):
Has absolutely helped the DC Metro Police to have that
added federal presence, and this is something that should be
welcomed as a resource anywhere in the country that violent
crime is a problem. It absolutely defies logic and you
are raising such an important point. So our criminal justice
system needs to work to keep criminals off the streets
if their crimes warrant that, but it also needs to
(21:24):
work for the victims of crime. These aren't just numbers.
These crime statistics are real people whose lives are forever
tragically impacted, and the types of policies that some of
these democrats are fighting for just don't have any bearing
in the data or in reality. As you well know,
when I was a judge and I was looking at
(21:44):
a decision about bond and letting an accused person out
on bond, we have to consider the safety of the
community and the flight risk and safety of the community
is not being adequately considered in jurisdictions like DC that
have decided to implement these no cash bail policies to
let people out like a revolving door, and we have
(22:04):
seen the tragic consequences of that all too often. We
need a criminal justice system that absolutely considers. Are we
charging the right crimes? Are we allowing law enforcement to
do their jobs? Are we allowing prosecutors to actually bring
the right cases get them to trial quickly and efficiently.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
That's what we need to be doing.
Speaker 11 (22:25):
And that's how we'll get a justice system that is
working for all of the people who intersect with it.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
I guess you know, you know is I take a
look at this from well, what if Chicago got to
win or lose by participating in this program, Because the
only protests I've seen are the usual, the usual crowds,
right the professional protesters in Chicago, regular citizens, many of
them living on the South Side of Chicago where crime
(22:51):
is so bad, desperately want some help when it comes
to fighting crime. So the only rational because I always
look for a rational explanation of why somebody is refusing
to cooperate with something like this, and there's only two
things you can think of. Number one is they are
that married to their political philosophy of being quote unquote
(23:12):
welcoming to the illegals that they don't want to be
seen as cooperating with any sort of deportations on that
end of it, But on the crime end of it,
The only thing I can think of that they're worried
about is that President Trump will be a success, that
crime will go down like it did in Washington, d C.
And that the standard run of the mill politicians in
(23:35):
Chicago will be proven for what they are, completely ineffective
or even worse, uncaring about protecting their citizens. So that's
the only thing I can think of is to why
they are refusing to cooperate because they're afraid that how
they look, it looks better for them to fight the
(23:55):
good fight, so to speak, than it does for them
to allow the federal government to come in and help them,
because then they look bad, and that's all they really
care about. They care about themselves looking bad. They don't
care about the city or protecting the residents. All right,
listen all I have for today, Thank you for listening.
Appreciate it. See you tomorrow morning, bright and early, starting
at five am over on News Radio seven forty ktr H.
(24:19):
We are back here at four on AM nine fifty KPRC.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.