Pete Hegseth's Speech

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Lower drug costs?
• Pete Hegseth's speech

Episode Transcript

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

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Common breaking down the world's nonsense.

Speaker 3 (00:12):
About how American's common sense.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Will see us through With the common sense of Houston,
I'm just pro common sense for Houston.

Speaker 3 (00:19):
From Houston.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by
viewind dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett. All right, are
you ready to sign up for trump RX? That's what
they're calling it. This deal that was made evidently with
Pfizer that supposedly is going to lead to the ability
to get drugs directly from Pfizer. Also supposed to lead

(00:47):
to lower prices on generic drugs and in overall reduction.
I'm not sure how much the drug prices are going
to go down. I guess the devil's always in the details,
right as far as what's going to go on with
that it's getting I think most Americans are looking at
it in a very positive way. Anything that reduces the
cost of their medications. I think most Americans are in

(01:08):
favor of. But there are some of the free market
people out there, Steve Forbes who's among them, who doesn't
like this deal because it's interferes with the free marketplace.
I saw him on Fox Business. He was with Larry
Cudlow and Liz Peek. Here's their conversation about what it

(01:28):
is about this that Steve Forbes in particular does not like.

Speaker 4 (01:32):
Yeah, well, well, putting price controls on the pharmaceutical industry
just guarantees what's happened in Europe. You get less innovation,
which means we're going to have a less healthy future.

Speaker 5 (01:41):
But if you build here, if you build a price,
if you build a pharmaceutical plan here, like a talent
oil plant. That was a joke, bad joke that if
you build a plan here, he gives me a headache.

Speaker 3 (01:52):
You won't get that to happen. You won't get tariffed.

Speaker 4 (01:55):
Yeah, but that shouldn't be dependent on if you need
a medication. That shouldn't be shouldn't be putting on price control.
There are various ways you get plans to locate here,
which is part of what they've done in terms of
reducing taxes, in terms of reducing regulations. But this force thing,
of trying to force the trade, that's going to be
two way street, and we set a terrible precedent for

(02:17):
when the bad guys eventually get back into power and
national emergency. Oh, climate change. We know that's going to lead.
So let's do it by the rule book. If they
want a tax, pass a tax in Congress. They want
to put on price controls, do it through Congress.

Speaker 5 (02:33):
Aren't our generics much cheaper than anything else on the market.

Speaker 3 (02:38):
I mean, it's only it's a small number that we're talking.

Speaker 4 (02:42):
It's the nose under the tent, animal's nose under the tent.

Speaker 3 (02:45):
We know it can lead.

Speaker 6 (02:46):
Can I disagree with you? For once in my entire life.
During COVID, we discovered that we are incredibly dependent on
China for not only prescription drugs, but a lot of
over the counter medications that people depend on. And it
was a pall to me that, having discovered that the
Biden administration did absolutely nothing to onshore pharmaceutical manufacturing, We've

(03:07):
got the entire apparatus in Puerto Rico available to generate
manufacturing here for pharmaceuticals. So with respect, if it takes
putting on tariffs, so it takes draconian measures to get
pharmaceuticals made in the US, I'm all for it.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
Okay, Well, and you know what, I see both sides
of this, But I think Liz Peak is more right
than Steve Forbes. I think that a lot, especially as
we're dealing with tariffs. So a lot of what we're
dealing with with terror's have nothing to do with making
money for the US Treasury, even though they do make
a lot of money for the US Treasury. It has
more to do with getting these products produced here in

(03:48):
the United States, and that includes drugs. And she's dead
on right when she says that we are way too
dependent on our enemies China, for example, to give us
these prescription medications. They're the ones that are producing a
lot of these prescription medications. We go to war with China,

(04:08):
guess what, We're not going to be getting products from
China now. Not to say we want to go to
war with China or we will go to war with China,
but the point is is that, you know, if you
look back on the history of this nation, the reason
why we won World War Two was our ability to
do what Germany could not. We could manufacture the war supplies,

(04:28):
we had the oil, we had the manufacturing capability to
build up in a hurry. We have to have that
ability to survive as a superpower country, which I believe
I certainly want us to remain a superpower. I know
the rest of the world doesn't want that. There are
people in our own country don't want that, but I do.

(04:50):
And in order to be able to do that, in
order to be able to take care of our citizens,
we have to be able to produce those things here
in the United States. You know, rare earth minerals, the
things we need to make certain drugs and prescriptions. And
as list said that we have we have the manufacturing
capability in Puerto Rico if we just use it. So

(05:10):
you know what what the President's doing, at least in
part as much as trying to drive down the cost
getting companies like Pfizer to to stop making the majority
of their profits just here in the United States. In
other words, we shouldn't be paying any more than any
other country does just because they've decided we can afford
to pay more. After all, I mean, these companies, Pfiser

(05:33):
among them, how many how many billions of dollars are
they spending every year advertising drugs to us to try
to get us to use them. And but by the way,
the ads are highly effective. I mean the glp ads
right now, for for for people wanting to lose weight
the easy way by taking a drug versus getting more
physical activity and watching what they eat. I mean, I

(05:56):
will say for some people they need that extra help,
they have slow metabolisms or whatever the case may be.
But for the majority of us, if we just went
on a high protein, low carb diet and got some
physical exercise, we could lose the extra weight. We don't need,
you know, a three hundred dollars a month or more. Heck,
some of that stuff's one thousand dollars a month that's

(06:17):
not covered by insurance to lose weight. But these these
drug companies, they sell us everything under the sun. Their
commercials are on constantly. If they weren't pimping all this
stuff to us twenty four to seven, how much more
money would they haven't profited. They clearly there's a lot
of money to be made by these drugs and what
they're charging us for these drugs, or they wouldn't be

(06:37):
running all the commercials that they're running. So I think
this is a good step. I think it's a good
first step. Anyway, We'll we'll see how goes with this.
Let's see, let's see the other drug companies come forward.
I think Pfizer wanted to be first. I think they
certainly felt the pressure, and they I think they in
particular felt the pressure because, after all, who was the

(06:58):
major manufacturer of COVID nine vaccine. Who do they want
to make sure doesn't, you know, punish them for either
the COVID nineteen vaccine or any other drugs that may
turn out to be harmful to us in the long run. Yeah,
they don't want the government doing that. So what better
way to try to prevent that from happening than to

(07:21):
be cooperative when it comes to reducing these prices. All right,
we have a lot of things to talk about on
the show today, a lot of audio to share with
you too. Pete hegseth Man, he set the world on fire,
especially the military world on fire yesterday. Plenty of audio
to share on that. And of course, we are officially
under the Schumer shutdown. Day one is today of the
Schumer shutdown. We'll talk about that too. Stick around Jimmy

(07:42):
Barrett Show here on AM nine fifty KPRC. We are

(08:08):
officially under the Schumer shutdown and reaction to it so far.
So A New York Times poll has some more information.
By the way, probably for the segments over on that
showing about sixty five percent of those respondents to the
New York Times poll seemed to understand that it was
the Democrats that were causing the shutdown, and they did
much care for that. So I think it's wishful thinking

(08:31):
for Chuck Schumer or anybody else in the Democrat Party
to think that somehow the majority of Americans are going
to blame Republicans. Republicans proposed a clean continuing resolution, passed
it out of the House, tried to take it up
in the Senate, and that's where it failed thanks to Democrats.
And I think most people at least have figured that
much out. Here's the question, though, what are some of

(08:53):
the long term ramifications of this government shutdown? What will
this ultimately lead two. I think that part of what
this leads to is a continuing reduction in the federal workforce.
Larry Kudlow on his Fox Business show yesterday talking about
how this is a perfect reason to enter into DOGE

(09:14):
two point zero.

Speaker 5 (09:15):
DOSEE two point zero, brought to you by Chuck Schumer.
That's the subject of the riff. So is this going
to be Doze two point zero? Sure looks like Senator
Schumer and the Democrats are walking right into a Doze
sized trap. The Office of Personnel Management reports the DOGE
one point zero enacted firings or buyout incentives that are

(09:39):
expected to result in three hundred thousand fewer federal workers
by year end. But the Doge sized trap could very
well mean that federal employees who administer unfunded programs during
the shutdown, or people who work in projects that the
President does not favor well, instead of being furloughed, they

(10:01):
will be fired. There could be fifty such programs. There
could be more than fifty. Republicans couldn't get these people
and programs terminated in their one big, beautiful bill legislation,
but in a shutdown, Santa Schumer is going to hand
it over to him on a silver platter now down
through the years, Republicans have frequently lost these shutdown battles,

(10:24):
so it looks like bad politics for the GOP. However, However,
because Speaker Mike Johnson got a clean continuing resolution through
the House, meaning no spending cuts or increases, that gives
Republicans the high ground.

Speaker 3 (10:40):
In this particular episode.

Speaker 5 (10:42):
And essential programs like Social Security or Medicare veterans benefits
and others.

Speaker 3 (10:47):
All those will remain intact.

Speaker 5 (10:50):
But here's mister Schumer with AOC and Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren be breathing down his neck. Wants to increase
spending as much as the trillion dollars he wants COVID
style expanded Obamacare and health benefits for legals, and other
parts of the perpetual Democratic wish list. Now look at

(11:14):
I don't really want to shut down myself, but she whiz,
if we're going to have one, we may as well
go right to dose two point zero?

Speaker 2 (11:23):
Might as well? Why not?

Speaker 3 (11:25):
Why?

Speaker 2 (11:26):
Why is? The Democrats always would say, why waste a
perfectly good situation? You know why? Why waste it? You
might as well just go ahead and go all in
on it. Senator John Kennedy was on the floor of
the Senate and not only testising Democrat senators for not
going along with passing the continuing Resolution, but also trying

(11:47):
to explain to the American public how we got to
where we are.

Speaker 3 (11:52):
I mean, you need you need, you need an.

Speaker 1 (11:54):
Excel spreadsheet to be able to follow their demands to
keep government open. You stack them here, you could stand
on them and paint the ceiling. And that's not much
of an exaggeration. And when Senator Schumer announced these demands,
that's when I knew. I knew it in a nano second,

(12:17):
we're going to have a shut down. Because my colleagues,
my Democratic colleagues, are very smart people, and Senator Schumer
is a smart person, and he knew when he announced
these demands that they I could tell he wasn't serious.
He knew they were unserious, and he knew that neither
the President nor the other members of Congress were going

(12:38):
to accept them. And you know what, many Democrats know
they're unreasonable as well. So that's why I say the
policy part of this makes absolutely no sense. And that's
because I saidn't about policy. This shutdown is about politics.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
Now.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
Parties change, just like the human experience changes over time.
Political parties change, My party's change. So is the Democratic Party.
And there is a wing of the Democratic Party. I
call it the socialist wing. Some less charitable people call

(13:27):
it the loon wing of the Democratic Party. And they
are in charge right now, and the non loon, non
socialist Democrats are scared.

Speaker 3 (13:39):
To death of them.

Speaker 2 (13:42):
I agree with the loon part I think the whole
thing is just looning, just completely louning. All right, guess
formorrow morning showing, katrh I think it's worthwhile throwing in
right here because at the end of the day, it
is what it is. We have a government shutdown. Is
day one and you're not going to know anything for
the next few days. But as time goes on, there
will be economic repercussions if this thing lasts long enough.

(14:05):
I had economists Christian Briggs on my morning show today.
Here's what he had to say about the economic impact
of all this. Oh, Christian, don't disappear on me now,
Christian breaks, come on, come on back and fill me in.
What is the most immediate impact if any Christian on
the economy based on a government shutdown?

Speaker 3 (14:26):
Well, first, thanks for having me.

Speaker 7 (14:27):
On the show. That's a great question because a lot
of people have been answering that, especially in the past shutdowns.
It's always been pretty much the same thing consistently, and
that is you're having so many billions of dollars a
day that's pulled from the economy. So for example, if
you furlow five hundred thousand, let's even say two million

(14:49):
people now after the shutdown is completed or at least
some time charts to move on. And the amount of
GDP impact on this one is, this is one of
the largest little governments we've ever had in terms of
how many people are going to be furloughed, is going
to be pretty it's pretty pretty significant. And if it continues,
if the shutdown continues longer than about three to four weeks,

(15:12):
which would be hard to believe, but let's say it does,
the impact could be at least a half a point
to a point off the GDP because it's not just
during the shutdown that the economic loss is seen and felt,
but it takes a while to ramp it back up.
I always use the method of analogy on this. It's
like turning off a nuclear power plant and then all

(15:32):
of a sudden you want to turn it back on.
It takes longer to turn it back on and get
back to where it was than the duration of time
that was shut down. So the impact could be significant
as we continue this, if it goes longer than two
to four weeks, all.

Speaker 2 (15:45):
Right, I'm guessing it also has an impact on unemployment
claims because a lot of these people are technically out
of work and therefore able to collect unemployment. So that's
going to tax that system to a certain extent. Absolutely.

Speaker 7 (15:58):
In fact, when you look get pass shutdowns or things
of this nature, when the duration is for six, eight,
twelve weeks, what happens is a lot of the individuals,
the workers, whether they're directly at federal government or consulting,
because it can affect not only direct but indirect employees
consultants inside the federal government's own agencies. Some of these

(16:20):
people don't have the cash in the bin to withstand
the time that this could this could take. For example,
when you look at America right now as a whole,
about sixty five percent, maybe it's high as seventy by
some measures of people in America are living paycheck to paycheck. Now,
if you're pulling that paycheck for any length of time

(16:40):
and they have little limited or little resources or no
resources whatsoever in the bank to be able to maintain
the bill pay.

Speaker 3 (16:49):
It's not just the GDP.

Speaker 7 (16:51):
It's not just the time off because sometimes it doesn't
work havoc on your mind, but it's the financial devastation
that this could this could happen, and it's happened in
the past, it will happen in the future. If this
thing goes longer than two to four weeks, and I'll
say it again, then you're going to have a significant
impact on the entire economy. And then, of course, like
you said, which is a really good point on the unemployment,

(17:12):
that will skyrocket like that will skyrocket, and some of
these people may never come back to their jobs economus.

Speaker 2 (17:18):
Christian Briggs is with us here in news radio seven
forty k TRH. I also kind of have to wonder,
Christian about whether or not this leads to a doze
two points. Oh, is this a what Democrats are risking
with the shutdown is that the Trump administration will go
through and say, you know what, we don't need that
thousand people we let go from that department, or we

(17:39):
don't even need that department. Here's a good reason to
shut it down.

Speaker 7 (17:44):
You know what. Okay, so that was brought up, that
question of yours is a really again a good and
good one.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
It was brought up once not long ago.

Speaker 7 (17:52):
That says, Okay, what happens if Doge does make those
cuts where those people go, well, they'll find something in
the private sector. In this case, Trump has the hatchets
like he has the ability to be able to take
some of these things that we consider to be waste
or inefficiency within government and have the opportunity to minimize that.

(18:12):
Or in other words, he can lay people off, he
can fire them, he can definitely thurrow them. So there
is value what you're saying. But think about it like this. Also,
this isn't politics at its finest moment. Let's just be
realistic what the Democrats are doing. It's not about them
caring for illegal immigrants and their healthcare. This is a

(18:34):
pivoting point for them to try to talk to their
base because the Democrats have lost so many of their
I'll call it their fans if you will. Certainly some
of their polls have shown that they're really hurting, especially
in some state of local markets and communities. So this
is a ploy to be able to talk to the
illegal community factor of a better definition, that's just what

(18:56):
you going to call it, the illegal community of people
that have come in here illegal, and to be able
to show them that they're still trying to fight for
them in their rights. It's not this is a Chuck
Schumer led by the Senate Democrats trying to make very
clear that they still think that they hold power. The
problem is is that in the crosshairs of all of
this problems that they would go back and forth and
complain about these Democrats, is that these good people, there's

(19:19):
great people that work in the Settle government, and they're
going to get They're gonna get hurt.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
And they may very well be out of work.

Speaker 3 (19:27):
And you know.

Speaker 2 (19:30):
Who ends up with the blame for that. I don't
think it's Trump more the Republicans overall than end up
with the blame for that. It'd be just a horrible
miscalculation on the half on behalf of the Democrats. All right,
quick love break. We are back with more more than
the Pete Hegg says story that his I called it
a pep talk this morning. It was much more than
a pep talk. It was a reset for the US military.

(19:51):
I'll share some audio when you coming up next. Jimmy
Verrett Schaw, you're an am nine to fifty kh PRC.
The entire Hageset speech that he gave in from the

(20:14):
general's other members of the military to the media. Uh,
the entire thing was just an amazing thing to watch.
I don't know how rehearsed it was, how scripted, it was,
but it was. It was an amazing speech. In fact,
I had a national security analyst on on our morning
show today and kater rig Ed Tarzansky who was just

(20:35):
amazed by the speech. One of the best speeches, he
says he's ever heard. So what was it that Pete
Hegseth was doing. Pete Hegseth, you know the War Department. Yeah,
we're back to the War Department. And there's there's a
specific reason for it being the War Department. That's what
they do, that's what they're there to do. They're not

(20:55):
there for defense, they're there to conduct war. And that
is maybe a subtle, but a very important distinction, because
since World War Two, we have not done a very
good job of fighting and winning wars. We have fought stalemates,
we have fought wars with one arm behind our back.
Vietnam a great example of thousands upon thousands of soldiers lost,

(21:22):
and for what all we were trying to do was
to help South Vietnam maintain South Vietnam. We weren't trying
to defeat North Vietnam. And in the end we really
were defeated ourselves through withdrawal, but we were still defeated.
It was for nothing when it got right down to it.
So let's get a little sample here what Pete Haigseith
is talking about. Here's part of what Pete Haig Sith

(21:43):
had to say yesterday about how things are changing, changing back,
if you will. In the US military, this.

Speaker 8 (21:50):
Means at the War Department, first and foremost, we must
restore a ruthless, dispassionate, and common sense application of standards.
I don't want my son serving alongside troops who are
out of shape, or in combat unit with females who
can't meet the same combat arms physical standards as men,

(22:12):
or troops who are not fully proficient on their assigned weapons,
platform or task, or under a leader who was the
first but not the best. Standards must be uniform, gender neutral.

Speaker 3 (22:27):
And high.

Speaker 8 (22:29):
If not, they're not standards, they're just suggestions, suggestions that
get our sons and daughters killed when it comes to
combat arms units, and there are many different stripes across
our joint force. The era of politically correct overly sensitive

(22:51):
don't hurt anyone's feelings.

Speaker 3 (22:53):
Leadership ends right now at every level.

Speaker 8 (22:58):
Either you can meet the standard, either you can do
the job. Either you are disciplined, fit and trained, or
you are out. And that's why today, at my direction,
and this is the first of ten Department of War
directives that are arriving at your commands as we speak
and in your inbox today, at my direction, each service

(23:21):
will ensure that every requirement for every combat mos, for
every designated combat arms position returns to the highest mail standard.
Only because this job is life or death, standards must
be met and not just met.

Speaker 3 (23:39):
At every level.

Speaker 8 (23:39):
We should seek to exceed the standard, to push the envelope,
to compete its common sense and.

Speaker 3 (23:46):
Core to who we are and what we do. It
should be in.

Speaker 8 (23:48):
Our DNA today at my direction, we are also adding
a combat field test for combat arms units that must
be executable in any environment, at any time and with
combat equipment. These tests they'll look familiar. They'll resemble the
Army Expert Physical Fitness Assessment or the Marine Corps Combat

(24:10):
Fitness Test. I'm also directing that warfighters in combat jobs
execute their service Fitness test at a gender neutral age
normed male standard scored above seventy percent. It all starts
with physical fitness and appearance. If the Secretary of War
can do regular hard PT so can every member of

(24:33):
our joint force.

Speaker 2 (24:34):
Okay, that's called leading by example. That's what that is.
Now what he's saying is no more woke, no more dei,
no more politically correct, no more dubbing down standards. Now
it's just excellence. We are striving for excellence. These are

(24:55):
the minimum standards that you have to achieve. Doesn't matter black, white, male, female.
This is what you have to be able to do
or you're not going to be able to continue to serve.
No more admirals wearing dresses, none of that stuff. We're
going back to what the military is supposed to be

(25:17):
there for, to defend the country, to defend the country
in an aggressive, effective way. Now here's some more of
what Pete Hegseith had to say. But let's get some
reaction to it this time. Some reaction to the late
from the ladies on the view Joy Behar had a
hard problem with getting rid of fat people for some reason,

(25:39):
and some reaction on the five as well. But it
starts with more of the wisdom of the Secretary of War.

Speaker 3 (25:45):
Should our enemies choose foolishly to.

Speaker 8 (25:48):
Challenge us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision,
and ferocity of the War Department. In other words, to
our enemies, fa f oh, no more identity months, dei offices,

(26:09):
dudes in dresses, no more climate change worship, no more
division distraction or gender delusions. We are done with that.
The era of unprofessional appearance is over. No more Beardoz.
It's tiring to look out at combat formations or really
any formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it's completely unacceptable

(26:32):
to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of
the Pentagon and leading commands around the country in the world.

Speaker 3 (26:37):
It's a bad look.

Speaker 8 (26:38):
Why is he.

Speaker 3 (26:39):
Obsessed with fat?

Speaker 9 (26:40):
I don't understand how that was supposed to be an
uplifting message for our military.

Speaker 6 (26:44):
Is referring to Colonel Sanders, it was, it was just
it was.

Speaker 9 (26:48):
It was really a bizarre thing. I don't understand the
sort of hypocrisy of firing these people, having all these
people meet together, and then denigrating that.

Speaker 10 (26:59):
I don't And it's not surprising that the view does
not understand how important fitness is, especially to self defense.
You know, they're only threats are flatulence and heartburn. Their
only enemy is carbs, and they're getting their butts kicked.

Speaker 3 (27:14):
I was sitting, you know what, listening to this, and I.

Speaker 10 (27:16):
Kept thinking about how I used to see our nation's
enemies when I grew up. I grew up during the
Cold War, so it was Russia. I was here at
nine to eleven, so it was Islamism. Those were the two.
But today, like I don't like feel like there's an
evil access.

Speaker 3 (27:32):
I get that we can't trust Russia, we can't trust China,
we can't trust Iran.

Speaker 10 (27:37):
But they don't fill me with apocalyptic fear. And I
think it's because I feel like it's from within. And
I think they understood that that there was a pernicious,
determined ideology that saw virtue in our weakness and viewed
strength as oppressive. That was the wocism. And people think

(27:59):
that against woke assistant minder, No, it was a big deal.

Speaker 3 (28:02):
I always felt that what was destroying our country was within.

Speaker 10 (28:06):
They understand that if you look at the last I
don't know, five years or whatever, you know, Appointing a
cross dressing luggage thief to oversee nuclear waste and a
delusional admiral man as an assistant Secretary of Human Health
and Services, is that right?

Speaker 3 (28:22):
Who fashions himself a female.

Speaker 10 (28:24):
These revealed priorities that were beneficial to our enemies.

Speaker 2 (28:30):
Well, yeah, I mean hard to fear the military that
we had become, and fear of retribution by the US
military is what keeps most countries in line when you
get right down to it. So that was a message
well delivered at that time. Yeah, I could probably think
maybe one more in here, no better or not. I'll

(28:52):
keep us on time back with one in the moment.
Jimmy Barrett Show here on AM nine fifty k PRC.

(29:14):
All right, I'm gonna cover this for a couple of
minutes here. Immigration. Listen, we're all in selvatory form, most
of us anyway, with what's been going on in immigration.
The flow across the border for the most part is stopped,
at least as far as illegal immigrants go. I'm you know,
the cartaeil is still operating. I'm sure drugs are still
getting into the country. I'm sure there's a certain level

(29:36):
of human trafficking, although I'm sure it's much lower than
it was before. Yeah, yeah, I get all that. I'd
like to concentrate in this segment with what we've been
left with about what's going on. But what we've been
left with from the Biden administration, which is an immigration
and naturalization program that basically was not running and and

(30:00):
not checking up on the people who are in this
country on visa's, people who are in this country who
supposedly got married so they could stay in the country.
That's illegal to do. It's illegal to marry somebody with
the it's not illegal to marry somebody from this country,
but it's illegal to marry somebody from this country but

(30:21):
the sole purpose of trying to get citizenship or to
maintain your status in this country. It's also illegal to
falsify death records in order to be able to get
married to an American, and all these things have been
happening in Minneapolis is probably a great example. The huge

(30:45):
African population, and there's not a lot of checks going
on in Africa on the backgrounds of these individuals are
court coming here for one thing, there's bad government records.
So it's very easy, very hard, I guess, in order
to be able to make an ascertain meant about the
people who have come to this country and what their
backgrounds are. But evidently now the Trump administration is taking

(31:08):
a long hard look at these things. Immigration has been
able to determine, in particular in Minneapolis, we have a
major problem. They had a press conference. Immigration had a
press conference in Minneapolis yesterday where they talked about all
the things that they have discovered.

Speaker 11 (31:24):
Since September nineteenth, officers from our Fraud Detection and National
Security Directorate, working in teams, have conducted over one thousand
site visits across the Minneapolis Saint Paul area as part
of this operation. What they found should shock all of America.
Focusing on a list of over one thousand target cases

(31:44):
involving more than nine hundred individuals, our officers encountered blatant
marriage fraud, visa over states, people claiming to work at
businesses that can't be found, forged documents, abuse of the
H one B visa system, abuse of f I visus,
and many other discrepancies. Over the course of the operation,

(32:06):
our officers found indication of fraud, non compliance, or public
safety and national security concerns in nearly a little less
than fifty percent of the cases interviewed. We found troubling
patterns with the Uniting for Ukraine program that should have
raised serious concerns under other administrations, such as an individual
filing to sponsor more than one hundred aliens an organization

(32:29):
sponsoring hundreds. We are continuing to investigate these cases. Some
of the other troubling cases that our officers found. In
one case, officers identified an alien who had overstate his
visa waiver who was the son of a known or
suspected terrorist on the no fly list. He had previously
been found to have engaged in marriage fraud, which resulted
in the denial of several immigration benefit requests. He was

(32:52):
arrested and is now presently being returned to his country
of origin.

Speaker 3 (32:57):
In another an.

Speaker 11 (32:57):
Individual admitted to obtaining a fake death certificate in Kenya
for just one hundred dollars to prove he was no
longer married. In reality, his wife is alive, living here
in Minneapolis and is the mother of five of his children.
And incidentally, he has another wife living in Sweden, with
whom he has an additional three children. In another case,

(33:18):
an alien entered the United States without inspection in twenty
twenty three, was released by Border Patrol. The alien married
a US citizen while and removal proceedings.

Speaker 2 (33:28):
And on and on and on we go a mad
imagine that's Minneapolis, you know, which is a medium sized
city it's a major city, but it's a medium sized city.
Imagine if it's like that in Minneapolis. Imagine how many
cases are like that in New York City or Chicago,
or Los Angeles or any of these other blue cities

(33:50):
where ICE has a difficult time operating because they're getting
any cooperation. If the same kind of attention to details
made in these others cities, imagine how many thousands upon
thousands of people who are supposedly here legally really aren't
here legally. They're here illegally, and they need to be
removed from the country. Let's hope that you know these

(34:14):
efforts continue and they continue in other major cities. Right,
here's a little story we'll wrap it up for today,
having to do with you your cost of living. Why
car repair costs they're surging in twenty twenty five. By
the way, they're up on average fifteen percent compared to
last year. Wow, fifteen percent in one year. To get
your car fixed. Terrorsts are not the real reason that

(34:38):
repairs are becoming more expensive. There are a lot of
other reasons that they're becoming more expensive. Perfect storm is
jacking up car repair costs. One factor is the drivers
are keeping the cars longer, and they have to because
it's taking them longer to pay them off. The average
car age of cars on the road is increasing. Other

(34:58):
factors include more complicated vehicle systems. Everything's computerized now. It
costs a lot more to fix a computer than it
does the way cars used to be built back in
the day, with carburetors and not a whole heck of
a lot of any gas tank and carburetors and not
a whole lot in between, you know, pistons, that kind
of stuff. I mean, the cars still have a lot

(35:19):
of those things, but most of them are computer operated.
And when you have a computer problem, you know you're talking,
you know, five hundred thousand dollars in order to fix
the computer problem versus something it used to be a
whole lot cheaper back in the day. Oh well, there
you go. Yeah, you got to keep your car longer
in order to be able to afford it. And the
longer you keep it, the more expensive it is to

(35:40):
maintain it. All right, listen, you all have a great day.
We'll see you tomorrow morning, bright and early, starting in
five am. Well Brown News Radio seven forty KTRH. We
are back here at four on a nine to fifty
KPRC

Speaker 7 (36:00):
And get BA