June 10, 2026 • 37 mins
Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:
- Platner and Talarico
- Southern Poverty Law Center
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, what we need is more common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
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.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
From Houston Wayting dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by
viewind dot com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
All right, quick, well mention of political happenings. Just start
our Wednesday show today here on AM nine to fifty
kPr C. Did you see on the whole Graham Platner thing.
That's that, you know, the Democrat with the with the
Nazi tattoo in Maine, he got seventy two percent of
the Democrat vote, So the Democrats are all in on
(00:53):
this guy. All the Democrat hierarchy is in on this guy.
So he uh, he will have an opportunity November doing
seat Susan Collins. Susan Collins is not one of my
favorite Republicans, but at least she's not Graham Plattner. Although
you know, I kind of hate to say that too,
because that's been an excuse for way too long. Don't
(01:14):
you think it's the same reason why for so long
that we elected a guy like John cornyn Is because well,
at least he's not James tall Rico or whoever, yo,
whoever he would have been running against in this case,
it would have been James Talerico. Now it's Kim Paxton
against James tall Rico. I happen to think that Kim
Paxson will have no problem with James Tellafrico is. I
(01:36):
like to refer to it because this guy's record is
just crazy. Now, what's really funny to me is the
attempt to try to not just hide his record, And
we're going to get into that in more detail tomorrow
morning on the Morning Show in Katirah. But it's not
just about hiding his record, it's about trying to rehabilitate
(01:58):
his image. They're trying to rebrand him, if you will.
Have you seen all the photos showing up of tall
Rico in like a Texas shirt, you know, like a
Texas flag shirt eating barbecue. This guy has been subjected
to more barbecue in the last couple of weeks that
(02:20):
he's probably eaten in his entire life. They got this
poor guy who normally has a vegan lifestyle and they've
got him eating meat. Now that tells you how badly
he wants to get into the center right that he's
willing to eat meat. For God's sakes, he's willing to
try to pretend he's a manly Texas man. And you know,
(02:42):
as men go, men are a little bit like everything
else in Texas. Everything's bigger in Texas, and that includes
what we expect out of a man. Men in Texas,
for the most part, have a tendency to be a
little bit old fashioned. We like our meat, we like
our guns, we like our law and order. We love America.
We love Texas even more than America sometimes most of
(03:05):
the time. Probably, That's kind of what being a Texas
male is all about. We take care of our families,
we raise our children, we give them discipline. It's what
we do. But that is not the kind of man
that James tall Rico is. That's the kind of man
he is currently trying to pretend to be, and that's
going to be really, really hard. I mean, unless he's
(03:25):
a good actor. There's some people who are really good actors.
We'll see if he's as good an actor as he
is a progressive. They're talking about this on the five yesterday.
This rebranding if he will, of James Telrico having a
little fun with it. And I think Jesse Waters kind
of takes the credit for them trying to make James
tall Rico a more manly man.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
The Atlantic is arguing that the polled porposer doesn't need
to run away from his meetless past. Instead, they're upset
at the Republicans who impune tall Rico's manhood and accusing
the rights and yours truly of having not That's not me,
that's Jesse. I am not yours truly, it's Jesse truly
(04:06):
quote unquote narrow, anxious definition of masculinity.
Speaker 5 (04:13):
Jesse.
Speaker 6 (04:14):
Now the dangerous Jesse has your.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Manhood insulting come back to bite you and the keystar
and hand in tall Rico an early victory here.
Speaker 7 (04:26):
Yes, this is the Water's effect. They're watching what I
say and they react to it. I said he was
going to have the meat sweats by this campaign, and
he's got the meat sweats. He will never be able
to eat a salad for the rest of his life.
Everywhere he goes in public, he's going to be shoving
barbecue down his throat. And that's fine, but that's not
really the position you want to be in. He's also
(04:47):
saying he's a border hawk. He's on tape saying there
should be a welcome.
Speaker 8 (04:50):
Matt at the border.
Speaker 7 (04:52):
And now he's against trans surgeries. He's on tape saying
all he thinks about are trans kids. I love trans kids.
That's the first thing that came to his mind. When
they asked him, what do you care about? He said,
trans kids? So, all right, is it going to work?
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I doubt it is.
Speaker 7 (05:10):
Platner's whatever he's trying to do gonna work in Maine.
Speaker 9 (05:14):
I doubt it.
Speaker 7 (05:14):
But you know what, it's because of us. They're on
the defense, because of the Five. You're welcome, Republican Party.
Speaker 9 (05:21):
Where's my check?
Speaker 3 (05:22):
But it's not just because I mean, go ahead and
take all the great you want there, Jesse Waters. But
it's not just because of the Five or Fox. It's
because of stations like ours. You know, we've spent a
lot of time talking about James Telafrico, you know, in
pointing out his policies from the past. It would be
hard for me to imagine anybody voting for James Tallerco
(05:47):
who actually knows who he is and what he stands for.
Unless you are, you know, a progressive democrat. I don't
think there's gonna be any Texas independence. They get fooled
by this, and don't they kind of have to fool
a lot of Texas independence in order to be able
to be successful in this run for office.
Speaker 9 (06:06):
You know.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
The other thing that they can do is to try to,
you know, paint Ken Paxton is some sort of a
wacko and then compare policies and and and that's where
things fall apart. For Tellafrico, is the policies, his policies
on trans kids is they were just mentioning there his
(06:26):
policies on the border. How do you how do you
take a guy who's on record as saying that there
should be a welcome out of the border and then
turn them into some sort of a border hawk.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
You can't. You can't.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
I mean, are there that many I guess they're counting
on there being that many either misinformed or completely uninformed
voters that they could actually be successful at doing something
like that. And maybe they're right.
Speaker 9 (06:53):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
I hope they're not, but maybe they're right. I mean,
I keep seeing videos all the time, you know, some
of the videos that keep Elizabeth was sharing one with
me yesterday, kind of like a man on the street
thing where they're asking, you know, people roles of the
young people, but they're asking people about basic US history
questions or basic geography questions, like what is the capital
(07:16):
of the United States? Okay, And there were tons of
people who couldn't answer the question. They had no idea. Now,
I'd like to think that those are not people that
are showing up to vote, but there are plenty of
people out there that are just completely ignorant and can
be easily fooled with a few key phrases. I guess
(07:38):
that's what they're coming on when it comes to James Telabrico.
All right, there was a big verdict yesterday in North
Texas and Collin County involving the murder of a high
school student by another high school student. That attract me.
You may recall that story, the Carmelo Anthony story. We'll
have more on that coming up. There was a a
(08:00):
conviction of sentence that came out there say we'll share
all that with you coming up next year on AM
nine fifty KPRC. All right, so yesterday in Collin County
(08:30):
there was a conviction and a thirty five year sentence
for Carmelo Anthony. This is the black kid who knifed
to death a white kid. I only mentioned to me
race is not a part of this story. I only
mention this because they've made race part of this story.
So I just want to make sure everybody understands, you know,
who's killing who. So the black kid kills the white kid.
(08:53):
The white kid was basically telling the black kid he
couldn't sit where he was sitting, and they got into
a little bit of an altercation, and the black kid
pulls out a knife and stabs him to death. And
the charges against Carmelo Anthony were either murder or manslaughter,
(09:15):
or he could have been acquitted of all the charges.
He ended up being found guilty by the jury in
all white jury. Again, to me, it's not about race.
But you know, these are the things that people are
arguing about, so let's put it in there. He was
convicted in three hours. That's that's not a very long
(09:36):
time to convict somebody of murder. That tells me that
they thought that the evidence was pretty pretty overwhelming that
the kid was guilty not of manslaughter but of murdered.
They were talking about it on the Making Kelly podcast yesterday,
and part of what gets your attention to all this
are the people again, the people who want to make
it about race, the race baters, the people who are
(09:58):
out there, you know, trying to stroke trouble in the streets.
So we hear a little example of that and then
get some reaction to it from the Megan Kelly panel.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
I regret to.
Speaker 10 (10:08):
Tell you that Dominique Alexander is speaking outside of the courthouse,
of course, because he's not going to miss his two
minutes of fame, and you'll be shocked, shocked to hear
his messaging.
Speaker 11 (10:19):
Let's play it.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
This process did.
Speaker 12 (10:22):
Its shown that black lives do not matter in Colin County.
It showed us that time and time in American history.
It put emotions over the law after Trayvon Martin in
so many countless names. It has shown us that black
life is not safe in Colin County. It showed us
(10:46):
that they did not listen to the law. It showed
clearly that a judge interfeared.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
In this process.
Speaker 12 (10:54):
It showed very clearly that a black boy was allowed,
not one black.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Soul on a jury.
Speaker 10 (11:06):
Ashley, I mean, OMG.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
It makes me so mad because it's not true. Like,
it's just not true. You know, that's not how jury
selection works. It's just not true.
Speaker 13 (11:16):
And so I mean, yes, it's unfortunate that it was
an all white jury, but his lawyers pitched that jury.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
It's a process of deselection.
Speaker 13 (11:23):
If the lawyers thought that it was unfair and that
it was somehow biased, they could have objected.
Speaker 6 (11:29):
They could have repanned paneled jury, they could have moved
a shuffle. I've done all of that.
Speaker 13 (11:32):
There's so many things you can do if you actually
think there's some systematic exclusion of any race, sex, gender.
Speaker 6 (11:39):
Anything, you can move to reach shuffle. I mean, there's
so many remedies.
Speaker 13 (11:43):
So you know, when I hear him, I'm like, he's
clearly not a lawyer out there talking about something that
he doesn't have any business talking about. And it's very
frustrating because these citizens have given up their lives for
a week and you know, listening to jury, doing jury
duty and actually having to sit through all of this
weighs very heavy on these ters.
Speaker 6 (12:01):
I've talked to a tonagers after the fact, and we were.
Speaker 13 (12:04):
Just at Crime con and they actually had a panel
of exters who were talking about how the profound impact
it had. When he gets up there and he says this,
it just devalues that civic duty that they're doing when
they're doing jury duty, and you know they're paying attention
to this case. You know that they're weighing these lives
very carefully, the lives you know that were lost in
the life that they have in their hands, mister Anthony's life,
(12:25):
and it's just very unfortunate to see their service, their
civic duty discounted like that and just tossed aside and
said that, you know they're racist because because they voted
with the law and with the evidence.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Well, and I think if they were really racists, they
would have they could have convicted him for all the
way up to ninety nine years they could, but basically
put him in prison for the rest of his life.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
That's not what they did.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
We'll get to the sensing party here a few misuses,
but let's get another opinion here on the verdict itself.
Here is Fox Legal expert Jonathan Turley.
Speaker 11 (12:54):
Well, this is an incredible disconnect because this case is
not about race. It's about rage. It's about someone who
went into that tent with a deadly weapon and plunged
it into the chest of an unarmed teenager. Now, these
are both young people. Both of their lives were ruined.
One's life was ended, the other is going to spend
(13:15):
a considerable time in jail. But there are parts of
our society that look through this framing of race because
of you know, the different races of these these two individuals. Otherwise,
this is a fairly conventional case and it's not a
particularly difficult one. The defense's own witness really blew up
(13:37):
on them by saying that, yeah, Anthony was the one
who provoked this moment, this confrontation. That was really a
serious blow for the defense. It's also a surprise. You know,
as a criminal defense attorney, you know there are times
when you have to be honest with your client and say, look,
(13:57):
we could try to see if we can knock this
down to a misdemeanor, but the odds are against it.
Or we can do a hail Mary throw and have
you on the stand, and that is very high risk,
but it may be the only chance you have to
try to persuade a few of these jurors that they
should knock this down to a misdemeanor.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
That obviously didn't happen.
Speaker 11 (14:20):
So when you look at sensing here, there's two dynamics
that are possible as a criminal defense attorney. One is,
this is a jury that rendered the verdict and maybe
some are going to want to show some mercy. But
there's also a counter vailing dynamic that they've crossed that
emotional rubicon. They were given the choice of a misdemeanor
(14:41):
and they rejected it, and rejected it fairly quickly, and
so they could still stay that course and say no,
this is murder and we want a murder heavy sentence.
Speaker 9 (14:54):
There you go.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Okay, Now, we opened up the talkback feature this morning
to kind of get our listener's thoughts on the sentence.
As I said, they could have given him up to
ninety nine years, they opted for thirty five years. So
Carmelo Anthony will be eligible for parole. He's nineteen years
(15:17):
old now. He'll be eligible for parole in about sixteen
seventeen years, which would make him, you know, still a
very young man when he has a chance to get out.
That's assuming he gets paroled before his complete sentence is
over and done with, and that remains to be seen
if that happens but that's the parameter under which we're
(15:39):
working that he may only serve sixteen seventeen years of
his thirty five year sentence or thirty two year sentence.
Here are some reaction from some of our listeners on
the conviction and on the sentence.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Josh from Leake City.
Speaker 7 (15:54):
Yeah, I'm a fan of bringing back.
Speaker 14 (15:56):
Public execution, death by firing squads, maybe even the electricture.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Austin Metcalf is ineligible for anything because he's gone, his
life has been taken.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
But yet this guy can do it, and.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Then people want to riot because of a verdict that
they don't agree with.
Speaker 15 (16:14):
How the hell does that make sense?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Good morning on a dream day.
Speaker 9 (16:17):
Wis Cossle. I feel Carmelo Anthony deserved life.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
He took somebody else's life.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
This is Henry from Spring and Carmelo Anthony should have
gotten life without the possibility of parole. He committed murder period.
That sentence was too light.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Wow, sentence was too light. I'm noticing a trend here.
By the way, was that one caller from Green Bay, Wisconsin?
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Really?
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Okay, man, that's getting up north right there. Okay, let's
grab a few more posts.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Upset about this kid being convicted of murder because he
was black.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
No, ma'am, he was because he killed another human being.
Speaker 9 (17:02):
Period.
Speaker 16 (17:04):
Jimmy, this is a Lena in sugar Land. Why did
that kid at the track mate have a knife in
his backpack? Why do all little thugs black, white, purple
have guns in their backpacks?
Speaker 17 (17:18):
Guilty is charged not near enough time.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
I hope the Metcalf family attends every parole hearing.
Speaker 17 (17:27):
This is Lori from Winning and I think one thing
people don't understand is the sentence is not about rehabilitation.
It's not whether this guy can be changed or come
out a different person. The sentence is of punishment for
the crime committed. That being said, I don't believe thirty
(17:48):
five years was long enough.
Speaker 14 (17:50):
This is Zibbie for Baytown. I think the sentencing of
Cornella was too short. I think that all prison systems,
under taxpayers' money, be all psychiatric boards to at least
possibly ensure that when these people come out, they may
turn out to be better people instead of being able
(18:10):
to educate themselves to do wrong.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Well, yeah, but that's kind of making the assumption that
they're not better people because they have a mental health issue.
I think there're just some people are evil and evil people.
There's no rehabilitating evil people no matter what you do.
And I think the caller was right too about the
whole rehabilitation idea. I mean, we've always been taught right
(18:33):
that the idea behind prison is that it's not just punishment,
is to rehabilitate that person so they can come out
a better person and become a positive member of society
or something along those lines. Now, I think we really
kind of have to give up on that, at least
based on the way the prison system is. I don't
think there's anything about prison that makes somebody a better person.
(18:54):
I think the only thing you can hope for right
now out of prison is that it's such a miserable
experience that you never want to go back. And clearly
it's not that, because there's so many people that feel
so comfortable there that when they do go out of prison,
they try to get back into prison as soon as
they can. We see that all the time too. All right,
quick Lowe break back with more in a moment, Jimmy
Vert show a nine fifty KPRC. All right, this next
(19:31):
segment is dedicated to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which
first of all, never have had much respect for it
to begin with. All you have to do is take
a look at their list of hate groups and you
can see really what they're all about. There are many
different Christian organizations that are part of that. I'm saying,
(19:53):
I'm sorry about that. There are plenty of Christian organizations
that are on that list because they don't support LGBTQ issues.
So they're considered a hate group at least by the
Southern Poverty Law Center for their religious beliefs. Even though
it was the testimony of Brian Fair. Brian Fair is
(20:14):
the CEO, if you will, the interim president of the
Southern Poverty Law Center, and he made it very clear,
or he tried to make it very clear that no, no, well,
we don't put you on the list just because you're
a religious group. We put you on the list because
of what you do. So okay, So how do we
(20:36):
explain why there's no Islamic groups who hate Jewish people
and support terrorism. How is it they're not on some
sort of a hate list with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Anyway,
let's start with this. This is the questioning, and it's
always fun to listen to these committee meetings. Here's the
questioning from Texas Representative Brandon Gill questioning the Southern Poverty
(21:01):
Law Centers Brian Fair.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
Mister, mister Fair, do you recognize the tattoo on this
man's chest? This is Secretary heg Seth. No, it's it's
a tattoo of the Jerusalem Cross. Your organization has referred
to it as essentially a hate image. Do you do
(21:24):
you agree with that assessment.
Speaker 18 (21:28):
I would have to see the assessment in our material
to determine. Referred to are not familiar with the symbol?
Speaker 5 (21:34):
You're not familiar. Do you have any thoughts on that
symbol on that tattoo? No, I don't know none at all.
You don't have any opinion on it?
Speaker 9 (21:43):
No, I don't. Okay.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
What about this tattoo? Do you have an opinion on
this tattoo? I'm not an expert on tattoos.
Speaker 9 (21:52):
No, I don't. Okay. I can give you a little
bit of background.
Speaker 5 (21:55):
This is a tattoo on Maine Democrat Senate candidate Grander's chest.
That's the Nazi SS death had death head tattoo. Do
you have any opinions on that?
Speaker 9 (22:11):
If it's what you say, if it's a Nazis, we
oppose Nazis, we.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
Opposed, and I agree, we do oppose Nazis. Do you
think if somebody got a Nazi tattoo on their chest
that's indicative that they might be a Nazi?
Speaker 18 (22:30):
You'd have to ask, uh, mister Plattner, why he has
that symbol. I've likely said that if it is a
symbol of Nazism, we oppose Nazis.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
You don't think that that's indicative that perhaps he holds
Nazi sentiments.
Speaker 9 (22:44):
It may well be. It may well be.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
I think do people who aren't Nazis normally get Nazi
tattoos on their chest?
Speaker 9 (22:52):
Again, I assume they don't. You assume they don't. I
would assume so too. I don't know anybody who's not
a Nazi.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
I don't know anybody who has a Nazi tattoo on
their chest but is not a Nazi.
Speaker 9 (23:07):
Do you, I know?
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Do you think that somebody who has a Nazi tattoo
on their chest should serve in the United States Senate?
Speaker 9 (23:21):
I wouldn't vote through that person. I certainly wouldn't either.
Speaker 5 (23:27):
Do you think that this should disqualify him politically from
serving in the Senate.
Speaker 18 (23:34):
Again, I'm not sure what the line of questions. What's
going the SPLC. If you're asking me, I'm sorry, go ahead.
If you're asking me if the SPLC opposes Nazis and
Nazis symbols, the answer is yes.
Speaker 9 (23:48):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
That probably was the best that this guy, Brian Fair
did all day. He actually almost held his own there.
He didn't fare quest as well with Representative Chip Roy.
Speaker 9 (24:02):
But we have the constitutional right to express.
Speaker 15 (24:05):
How many leftists? How many leftists anti Jewish groups do
you have listed on your website?
Speaker 2 (24:10):
We name them.
Speaker 18 (24:13):
Anyone listening to this can go to our website and
see our again. Our year and Hate and Extremism report
was released this month.
Speaker 15 (24:22):
How many extremists Islamic groups do you have of the
fifteen hundred or so organizations you have in your hate map?
Speaker 9 (24:28):
Again, anyone can go to our website.
Speaker 15 (24:30):
My officely have been looking over it and can't really
find one.
Speaker 9 (24:35):
Again, it is the SPLCS.
Speaker 15 (24:38):
The SBLC can provide us a list of the it
is the Islamic oriented groups do you have in your
hate map?
Speaker 9 (24:44):
Mister Roy.
Speaker 18 (24:45):
We don't target any group because of its religion. Really,
I want to be clear about that really, Yes, that's
exactly right. We target no group because of its religion.
We target groups because they express statements and engage activities
that demean and villain.
Speaker 15 (25:03):
You brought up LGBTQ groups a second So you brought
up lgbt groups a minute ago. So you think there's
a bunch of Islamic groups that are pro LGBTQ. Is
that the position of the SPLC. I just want to
make sure the record is reflecting.
Speaker 18 (25:15):
That, mister roy As I said, we target no group
or label no group because of its religion. We target
groups and label groups because of what they say about others.
And we have a constitutional right to do that, and
we will continue.
Speaker 19 (25:33):
To do that.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
Okay, just so you know they will continue to do that.
They have a constitutional right to do that. Do they
have a constitutional right to fund hate groups? Is there
a constitutional right to do that, because that's one of
the accusations against them is that they have funded hate
groups like the Klan, hate groups that pretty much had
(25:57):
already gone to almost nothing, almost zero, in an attempt
to try to make sure they continue to exist. And
the accusation is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has
funded some of these groups and organizations has paid them
to demonstrate and do things, if for no other reason,
(26:18):
then to show the potential donors out there to their
organization why they're still needed, even if they're maybe not
needed so much. All right, so let's grab one more
line of questioning here, curious Representative Jim Jordan.
Speaker 20 (26:33):
Mister Fair, did the Southern Probably Law Center use donor
money to have field sources attend extremist rallies across the country?
Mister Sherman, it's a simple question. Did you use your
donor money for that purpose?
Speaker 9 (26:48):
We used donor money.
Speaker 18 (26:52):
So yesterday there a confidential informance to infiltrade extremist organizations.
Speaker 20 (26:58):
Did the Southern Property Law Center use donor dollars have
field sources host extremist rallies throughout the country?
Speaker 9 (27:05):
Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 8 (27:06):
So what the indictment says, did.
Speaker 20 (27:07):
The Southern Private Law Center use donor dollars to have
field sources growisting chapters.
Speaker 8 (27:11):
Of extremist groups?
Speaker 9 (27:13):
Mister Chairman, as I said, question.
Speaker 8 (27:16):
Mister Fair, did you use donor money for the purpose?
Speaker 2 (27:19):
I just read this.
Speaker 8 (27:20):
I'm reading straight from the superseding indictment, and.
Speaker 18 (27:22):
Mister Chairman, the indictment will be managed and responded to
by counsel in the criminal.
Speaker 20 (27:28):
Case the way, Well, you just answered the question from
mister rasking concerning the indictment. He asked, did field sources
and information to the FBI that.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Help with things?
Speaker 8 (27:34):
You answered that question.
Speaker 9 (27:35):
I know that's a matter of public knowledge in our
public filing.
Speaker 20 (27:38):
Did the Southern Private Law Center use donor money to
have field sources create new chapters of extremist groups? Again,
mister chairman, did the Southern Private Loss Center use donor
money to recruit new individuals into those extremist groups?
Speaker 9 (27:54):
All right? Assuming you don't want me to answer, since
you're not giving any time.
Speaker 20 (27:57):
To answer, I'm giving you time to answer because I
said yes or did you you is your donor's money
for that purpose?
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Yes?
Speaker 19 (28:02):
Or no?
Speaker 18 (28:03):
Again, those issues will be resolved in the pending allegations
against the SPOC.
Speaker 8 (28:09):
Seems to me if the answer is no, you could
say no.
Speaker 9 (28:13):
We have asserted that the allegations are false.
Speaker 20 (28:15):
Did the Southern Probably Center use donor money to have
Field sources make it donations to extremist group leaders and
purchase materials for crossburnings?
Speaker 2 (28:24):
It's a legend indictment that happened.
Speaker 9 (28:26):
We've alleged that those allegations are false.
Speaker 20 (28:29):
Did Southern Probably Center used donor dollars to have field
sources create racist parapernality that that extremist group sold at rallies.
Speaker 9 (28:37):
We've alleged that those allegations are false.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
Ah, that's the attorney speaking right there. Right, we've alleged
that those allegations are false. Okay, what does that mean?
We have alleged that those allegations are false. It doesn't
mean no, it doesn't mean yes. It means that we're
(29:00):
saying that that's not a true statement. That's basically that's
all that says. Well, we're saying that, you know, that's
the allegation. We're saying that that's the allegation's not true.
That's what we're saying. You know, that's that's the answer
(29:20):
we're giving. Doesn't mean it's the right answer, but that's
the answer we're giving that. That's what I get out
of that. You know, that's lawyer speak. That is a
that is an opportunity to perjure yourself without actually perjuring yourself.
You know, you don't really they the last thing a
lawyer would want you to give if you're the Southern
(29:41):
Poverty Law Center. Is a yes or no answer. So
we're not saying yep, and we're not saying nope. We're
just saying maybe quick little break back with our final
segment in just a moment, Please stay with us. Jimmy
Barrett Show, Garreon. I am nine fifty KRC. All right,
(30:11):
let's let's tackle this topic. We haven't talked about this
in quite a while in our show, and that is
what's going on or where we're at with Iran. The
President made another statement this morning regarding Iran, and I'm
paraphrasing here because I don't have the statement right in
front of me, but he basically wrote on truth Social that,
(30:33):
you know, the Iranians are taking too long in the
negotiation process and they're going to pay a price for that. Now,
given what's happened and hasn't happened so far, what do
you make of that? Does that mean to you that
we're going to step up attacks or that we're going
(30:55):
back to war, or we're breaking the ceasefire agreements, or
we're gonna start bombing electrical plants? Are we going to
you know, start making you know, are we going to
bomb them? Into oblivion. What is What does that statement mean?
I don't know that it means that, at least based
(31:19):
on what the President has done so far, I can't
honestly seriously say that. I think it means that we're
going to really start attacking them aggressively again. I really can't.
I think it's the President's way of trying, yet again
to move them off the dime, to get them, get
them moving to to say, hey, listen, I'm run out
of patience with you guys, and patience doesn't last forever.
(31:39):
You better get you better come up with a deal here,
or we're we're going to have to do something drastic
without actually committing to doing something drastic. To me, it's
a stall tactic. And we had a guest down this
morning who disagrees with me that it is a stall tactic.
And that's fine. You can disagree with me. I will
be just as nice to you. You usually when you
(32:01):
disagree with me, is when you agree with me. I
don't have any problem with disagreement. I just think that
this guy is looking at this situation with rose colored glasses.
At least that's my opinion based on what I've seen
so far. But let's share the conversation with you anyways.
His name is Mark Vargas, Farmer Iraq Task Force, formerly
a member of the Office of the Secretary of War
(32:22):
from twenty seven to twenty twenty. Here's what he had
to say about what the President is talking about in work.
He thinks we're at as far as negotiations, is it
possible to negotiate with these folks?
Speaker 19 (32:36):
It is, you know, And this is the problem. We
can't forget that. This is a problem that's festered for
nearly fifty years with literal to no accountability. I mean,
they've run for forty seven years without any accountability whatsoever.
In fact, you've got previous presidential administrations, like the administration
that hands them billions of dollars and say, spend this
however you want. And we know exactly where I went.
(32:58):
I went to continue build out their nuclear weapons capability.
When to go fun Hamas and Hespu and Houthis. That's
all been well documented after the fact. And so what
President Trump is dealing is with decades of no activity.
And so you know, the Iran doesn't have an endgame
because they're not smart enough to put together an endgame.
Their game was always just to terrorize and torture and
(33:21):
kill people, including their own citizens. And so you know,
we've totally decimated you know, ninety percent of their military,
you know, one hundred and fifty five of their navy ships,
their weapons factories ninety percent destroyed. I mean, they have
been completely and totally decimated. And so what President Trump
is has given them time to negotiate. And clearly, you know,
(33:42):
with the downing of our US Apache helicopter and thank
god that our two pilots are safe and we're immediately rescued,
and that just gives you an idea of how closely.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
We're monitoring this.
Speaker 19 (33:51):
They go down and immediately we have a boat, a
drone boat in the water to pick them up, and
so we know strategic site that we haven't hit yet
that we can hit. You know, in the in my
time in the military as a civilian, you know, they've
got contingency plans for everything that you can think of
their war gaining it constantly twenty fours a day, seven
(34:14):
days a week, different scenarios. They can give the present
five different scenarios at any given time. And so you know,
President Trump was wanting to give them time to want
to negotiate. We've got our partners involved, the Gulf region,
China was a big deal to get China Jijianping several
weeks ago after a state visit to say Iran kind
of have a nuclear weapon and the straight upfor most
must be completely open around what's left of this regime?
(34:37):
Is it making any friends by launching rockets over to Kuwait?
But President Trump is you just saw just maybe twenty
minutes ago, they put out another tough post on his
truth social audience.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
There's been a lot of tough I was smart. There's
been a lot of a lot of threats, but not
nearly as much action as one would expect it at
this point. Do you think the Irnians are taking Trump
seriously at this point?
Speaker 19 (35:00):
You know, you'd think they would have taken them seriously
after how we decimated them just months ago. But you know,
I'll tell you what, the negotiators are taking this seriously.
And they've got so many different factions that the President
is having to deal with. Left hand doesn't know what
the right hand is doing. But the President is going
to be look for massive and widespread hits, strategic hits,
(35:22):
and you know it's going to force the negotiators to
panic to figure out what text's going on and to
get a deal sealed, because think about this Rainian regime
is losing five hundred million dollars a day with this blockade.
It's a lot of money and it's impacting China, which
is why China finally poked their head out of the
water and said, you know, they conceded those two points
(35:44):
during the President's state visit.
Speaker 3 (35:46):
And so when it feels like we're being strung along,
you don't feel like we're being strung along here that
they're just going to keep doing this for as long
is as humanly possible for them to do. It feels
like something major is going to have to happen to
get get this thing off the dime.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
I don't think that.
Speaker 19 (36:00):
I don't get the feeling that we're being strung along
at all. The President has made it clear he's with
force in the beginning of the war, and we've taken
out their ayahtola, we've taken out their leadership, most of
their leadership structure. But he wanted to give he's the
President's cognizant of the lessons of a rock and Aghannison,
where there was no exit ramp where we put one
hundred and fifty thousand troops on the ground. We haven't
(36:22):
had to put any troops on the ground in this
This has been an aerial campaign. We're flexing our military
muscle out on the waters with our ship.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
But where's the exit for us? In all this?
Speaker 19 (36:36):
There will be a deal negotiated, There's no doubt about
it because of the support that we have from all
of our golf partners. They've got the real skin in
the game, and and so that's where I think if
this were just the United States and Israel, it's problematic,
but it's not. We've got support of those golf partners,
and that's essential to finally securing a peace deal because
(36:58):
they need to have peace in that region because they've
been terrorized by the Iranian regime as well.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
And so it impacts them in a writing of ways.
Speaker 19 (37:06):
There's safety, security, economic, and so that's where I think
at the end of the day, that coalition is going
to negotiate this piece deal.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
And I hope he's right. I pray he's right. I
don't know if he is, but I pray he is.
All right, Listen, I gotta leave it at that y'all
have a great day. Thanks for listening. We'll see you
tomorrow morning, Barty early five am over on news radio
seven forty KRH. Back here at four on a nine
to fifty KPRC
Well, what we need is more common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
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.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
From Houston Wayting dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by
viewind dot com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
All right, quick, well mention of political happenings. Just start
our Wednesday show today here on AM nine to fifty
kPr C. Did you see on the whole Graham Platner thing.
That's that, you know, the Democrat with the with the
Nazi tattoo in Maine, he got seventy two percent of
the Democrat vote, So the Democrats are all in on
(00:53):
this guy. All the Democrat hierarchy is in on this guy.
So he uh, he will have an opportunity November doing
seat Susan Collins. Susan Collins is not one of my
favorite Republicans, but at least she's not Graham Plattner. Although
you know, I kind of hate to say that too,
because that's been an excuse for way too long. Don't
(01:14):
you think it's the same reason why for so long
that we elected a guy like John cornyn Is because well,
at least he's not James tall Rico or whoever, yo,
whoever he would have been running against in this case,
it would have been James Talerico. Now it's Kim Paxton
against James tall Rico. I happen to think that Kim
Paxson will have no problem with James Tellafrico is. I
(01:36):
like to refer to it because this guy's record is
just crazy. Now, what's really funny to me is the
attempt to try to not just hide his record, And
we're going to get into that in more detail tomorrow
morning on the Morning Show in Katirah. But it's not
just about hiding his record, it's about trying to rehabilitate
(01:58):
his image. They're trying to rebrand him, if you will.
Have you seen all the photos showing up of tall
Rico in like a Texas shirt, you know, like a
Texas flag shirt eating barbecue. This guy has been subjected
to more barbecue in the last couple of weeks that
(02:20):
he's probably eaten in his entire life. They got this
poor guy who normally has a vegan lifestyle and they've
got him eating meat. Now that tells you how badly
he wants to get into the center right that he's
willing to eat meat. For God's sakes, he's willing to
try to pretend he's a manly Texas man. And you know,
(02:42):
as men go, men are a little bit like everything
else in Texas. Everything's bigger in Texas, and that includes
what we expect out of a man. Men in Texas,
for the most part, have a tendency to be a
little bit old fashioned. We like our meat, we like
our guns, we like our law and order. We love America.
We love Texas even more than America sometimes most of
(03:05):
the time. Probably, That's kind of what being a Texas
male is all about. We take care of our families,
we raise our children, we give them discipline. It's what
we do. But that is not the kind of man
that James tall Rico is. That's the kind of man
he is currently trying to pretend to be, and that's
going to be really, really hard. I mean, unless he's
(03:25):
a good actor. There's some people who are really good actors.
We'll see if he's as good an actor as he
is a progressive. They're talking about this on the five yesterday.
This rebranding if he will, of James Telrico having a
little fun with it. And I think Jesse Waters kind
of takes the credit for them trying to make James
tall Rico a more manly man.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
The Atlantic is arguing that the polled porposer doesn't need
to run away from his meetless past. Instead, they're upset
at the Republicans who impune tall Rico's manhood and accusing
the rights and yours truly of having not That's not me,
that's Jesse. I am not yours truly, it's Jesse truly
(04:06):
quote unquote narrow, anxious definition of masculinity.
Speaker 5 (04:13):
Jesse.
Speaker 6 (04:14):
Now the dangerous Jesse has your.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Manhood insulting come back to bite you and the keystar
and hand in tall Rico an early victory here.
Speaker 7 (04:26):
Yes, this is the Water's effect. They're watching what I
say and they react to it. I said he was
going to have the meat sweats by this campaign, and
he's got the meat sweats. He will never be able
to eat a salad for the rest of his life.
Everywhere he goes in public, he's going to be shoving
barbecue down his throat. And that's fine, but that's not
really the position you want to be in. He's also
(04:47):
saying he's a border hawk. He's on tape saying there
should be a welcome.
Speaker 8 (04:50):
Matt at the border.
Speaker 7 (04:52):
And now he's against trans surgeries. He's on tape saying
all he thinks about are trans kids. I love trans kids.
That's the first thing that came to his mind. When
they asked him, what do you care about? He said,
trans kids? So, all right, is it going to work?
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I doubt it is.
Speaker 7 (05:10):
Platner's whatever he's trying to do gonna work in Maine.
Speaker 9 (05:14):
I doubt it.
Speaker 7 (05:14):
But you know what, it's because of us. They're on
the defense, because of the Five. You're welcome, Republican Party.
Speaker 9 (05:21):
Where's my check?
Speaker 3 (05:22):
But it's not just because I mean, go ahead and
take all the great you want there, Jesse Waters. But
it's not just because of the Five or Fox. It's
because of stations like ours. You know, we've spent a
lot of time talking about James Telafrico, you know, in
pointing out his policies from the past. It would be
hard for me to imagine anybody voting for James Tallerco
(05:47):
who actually knows who he is and what he stands for.
Unless you are, you know, a progressive democrat. I don't
think there's gonna be any Texas independence. They get fooled
by this, and don't they kind of have to fool
a lot of Texas independence in order to be able
to be successful in this run for office.
Speaker 9 (06:06):
You know.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
The other thing that they can do is to try to,
you know, paint Ken Paxton is some sort of a
wacko and then compare policies and and and that's where
things fall apart. For Tellafrico, is the policies, his policies
on trans kids is they were just mentioning there his
(06:26):
policies on the border. How do you how do you
take a guy who's on record as saying that there
should be a welcome out of the border and then
turn them into some sort of a border hawk.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
You can't. You can't.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
I mean, are there that many I guess they're counting
on there being that many either misinformed or completely uninformed
voters that they could actually be successful at doing something
like that. And maybe they're right.
Speaker 9 (06:53):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
I hope they're not, but maybe they're right. I mean,
I keep seeing videos all the time, you know, some
of the videos that keep Elizabeth was sharing one with
me yesterday, kind of like a man on the street
thing where they're asking, you know, people roles of the
young people, but they're asking people about basic US history
questions or basic geography questions, like what is the capital
(07:16):
of the United States? Okay, And there were tons of
people who couldn't answer the question. They had no idea. Now,
I'd like to think that those are not people that
are showing up to vote, but there are plenty of
people out there that are just completely ignorant and can
be easily fooled with a few key phrases. I guess
(07:38):
that's what they're coming on when it comes to James Telabrico.
All right, there was a big verdict yesterday in North
Texas and Collin County involving the murder of a high
school student by another high school student. That attract me.
You may recall that story, the Carmelo Anthony story. We'll
have more on that coming up. There was a a
(08:00):
conviction of sentence that came out there say we'll share
all that with you coming up next year on AM
nine fifty KPRC. All right, so yesterday in Collin County
(08:30):
there was a conviction and a thirty five year sentence
for Carmelo Anthony. This is the black kid who knifed
to death a white kid. I only mentioned to me
race is not a part of this story. I only
mention this because they've made race part of this story.
So I just want to make sure everybody understands, you know,
who's killing who. So the black kid kills the white kid.
(08:53):
The white kid was basically telling the black kid he
couldn't sit where he was sitting, and they got into
a little bit of an altercation, and the black kid
pulls out a knife and stabs him to death. And
the charges against Carmelo Anthony were either murder or manslaughter,
(09:15):
or he could have been acquitted of all the charges.
He ended up being found guilty by the jury in
all white jury. Again, to me, it's not about race.
But you know, these are the things that people are
arguing about, so let's put it in there. He was
convicted in three hours. That's that's not a very long
(09:36):
time to convict somebody of murder. That tells me that
they thought that the evidence was pretty pretty overwhelming that
the kid was guilty not of manslaughter but of murdered.
They were talking about it on the Making Kelly podcast yesterday,
and part of what gets your attention to all this
are the people again, the people who want to make
it about race, the race baters, the people who are
(09:58):
out there, you know, trying to stroke trouble in the streets.
So we hear a little example of that and then
get some reaction to it from the Megan Kelly panel.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
I regret to.
Speaker 10 (10:08):
Tell you that Dominique Alexander is speaking outside of the courthouse,
of course, because he's not going to miss his two
minutes of fame, and you'll be shocked, shocked to hear
his messaging.
Speaker 11 (10:19):
Let's play it.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
This process did.
Speaker 12 (10:22):
Its shown that black lives do not matter in Colin County.
It showed us that time and time in American history.
It put emotions over the law after Trayvon Martin in
so many countless names. It has shown us that black
life is not safe in Colin County. It showed us
(10:46):
that they did not listen to the law. It showed
clearly that a judge interfeared.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
In this process.
Speaker 12 (10:54):
It showed very clearly that a black boy was allowed,
not one black.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Soul on a jury.
Speaker 10 (11:06):
Ashley, I mean, OMG.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
It makes me so mad because it's not true. Like,
it's just not true. You know, that's not how jury
selection works. It's just not true.
Speaker 13 (11:16):
And so I mean, yes, it's unfortunate that it was
an all white jury, but his lawyers pitched that jury.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
It's a process of deselection.
Speaker 13 (11:23):
If the lawyers thought that it was unfair and that
it was somehow biased, they could have objected.
Speaker 6 (11:29):
They could have repanned paneled jury, they could have moved
a shuffle. I've done all of that.
Speaker 13 (11:32):
There's so many things you can do if you actually
think there's some systematic exclusion of any race, sex, gender.
Speaker 6 (11:39):
Anything, you can move to reach shuffle. I mean, there's
so many remedies.
Speaker 13 (11:43):
So you know, when I hear him, I'm like, he's
clearly not a lawyer out there talking about something that
he doesn't have any business talking about. And it's very
frustrating because these citizens have given up their lives for
a week and you know, listening to jury, doing jury
duty and actually having to sit through all of this
weighs very heavy on these ters.
Speaker 6 (12:01):
I've talked to a tonagers after the fact, and we were.
Speaker 13 (12:04):
Just at Crime con and they actually had a panel
of exters who were talking about how the profound impact
it had. When he gets up there and he says this,
it just devalues that civic duty that they're doing when
they're doing jury duty, and you know they're paying attention
to this case. You know that they're weighing these lives
very carefully, the lives you know that were lost in
the life that they have in their hands, mister Anthony's life,
(12:25):
and it's just very unfortunate to see their service, their
civic duty discounted like that and just tossed aside and
said that, you know they're racist because because they voted
with the law and with the evidence.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Well, and I think if they were really racists, they
would have they could have convicted him for all the
way up to ninety nine years they could, but basically
put him in prison for the rest of his life.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
That's not what they did.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
We'll get to the sensing party here a few misuses,
but let's get another opinion here on the verdict itself.
Here is Fox Legal expert Jonathan Turley.
Speaker 11 (12:54):
Well, this is an incredible disconnect because this case is
not about race. It's about rage. It's about someone who
went into that tent with a deadly weapon and plunged
it into the chest of an unarmed teenager. Now, these
are both young people. Both of their lives were ruined.
One's life was ended, the other is going to spend
(13:15):
a considerable time in jail. But there are parts of
our society that look through this framing of race because
of you know, the different races of these these two individuals. Otherwise,
this is a fairly conventional case and it's not a
particularly difficult one. The defense's own witness really blew up
(13:37):
on them by saying that, yeah, Anthony was the one
who provoked this moment, this confrontation. That was really a
serious blow for the defense. It's also a surprise. You know,
as a criminal defense attorney, you know there are times
when you have to be honest with your client and say, look,
(13:57):
we could try to see if we can knock this
down to a misdemeanor, but the odds are against it.
Or we can do a hail Mary throw and have
you on the stand, and that is very high risk,
but it may be the only chance you have to
try to persuade a few of these jurors that they
should knock this down to a misdemeanor.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
That obviously didn't happen.
Speaker 11 (14:20):
So when you look at sensing here, there's two dynamics
that are possible as a criminal defense attorney. One is,
this is a jury that rendered the verdict and maybe
some are going to want to show some mercy. But
there's also a counter vailing dynamic that they've crossed that
emotional rubicon. They were given the choice of a misdemeanor
(14:41):
and they rejected it, and rejected it fairly quickly, and
so they could still stay that course and say no,
this is murder and we want a murder heavy sentence.
Speaker 9 (14:54):
There you go.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Okay, Now, we opened up the talkback feature this morning
to kind of get our listener's thoughts on the sentence.
As I said, they could have given him up to
ninety nine years, they opted for thirty five years. So
Carmelo Anthony will be eligible for parole. He's nineteen years
(15:17):
old now. He'll be eligible for parole in about sixteen
seventeen years, which would make him, you know, still a
very young man when he has a chance to get out.
That's assuming he gets paroled before his complete sentence is
over and done with, and that remains to be seen
if that happens but that's the parameter under which we're
(15:39):
working that he may only serve sixteen seventeen years of
his thirty five year sentence or thirty two year sentence.
Here are some reaction from some of our listeners on
the conviction and on the sentence.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Josh from Leake City.
Speaker 7 (15:54):
Yeah, I'm a fan of bringing back.
Speaker 14 (15:56):
Public execution, death by firing squads, maybe even the electricture.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Austin Metcalf is ineligible for anything because he's gone, his
life has been taken.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
But yet this guy can do it, and.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Then people want to riot because of a verdict that
they don't agree with.
Speaker 15 (16:14):
How the hell does that make sense?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Good morning on a dream day.
Speaker 9 (16:17):
Wis Cossle. I feel Carmelo Anthony deserved life.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
He took somebody else's life.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
This is Henry from Spring and Carmelo Anthony should have
gotten life without the possibility of parole. He committed murder period.
That sentence was too light.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Wow, sentence was too light. I'm noticing a trend here.
By the way, was that one caller from Green Bay, Wisconsin?
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Really?
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Okay, man, that's getting up north right there. Okay, let's
grab a few more posts.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Upset about this kid being convicted of murder because he
was black.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
No, ma'am, he was because he killed another human being.
Speaker 9 (17:02):
Period.
Speaker 16 (17:04):
Jimmy, this is a Lena in sugar Land. Why did
that kid at the track mate have a knife in
his backpack? Why do all little thugs black, white, purple
have guns in their backpacks?
Speaker 17 (17:18):
Guilty is charged not near enough time.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
I hope the Metcalf family attends every parole hearing.
Speaker 17 (17:27):
This is Lori from Winning and I think one thing
people don't understand is the sentence is not about rehabilitation.
It's not whether this guy can be changed or come
out a different person. The sentence is of punishment for
the crime committed. That being said, I don't believe thirty
(17:48):
five years was long enough.
Speaker 14 (17:50):
This is Zibbie for Baytown. I think the sentencing of
Cornella was too short. I think that all prison systems,
under taxpayers' money, be all psychiatric boards to at least
possibly ensure that when these people come out, they may
turn out to be better people instead of being able
(18:10):
to educate themselves to do wrong.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Well, yeah, but that's kind of making the assumption that
they're not better people because they have a mental health issue.
I think there're just some people are evil and evil people.
There's no rehabilitating evil people no matter what you do.
And I think the caller was right too about the
whole rehabilitation idea. I mean, we've always been taught right
(18:33):
that the idea behind prison is that it's not just punishment,
is to rehabilitate that person so they can come out
a better person and become a positive member of society
or something along those lines. Now, I think we really
kind of have to give up on that, at least
based on the way the prison system is. I don't
think there's anything about prison that makes somebody a better person.
(18:54):
I think the only thing you can hope for right
now out of prison is that it's such a miserable
experience that you never want to go back. And clearly
it's not that, because there's so many people that feel
so comfortable there that when they do go out of prison,
they try to get back into prison as soon as
they can. We see that all the time too. All right,
quick Lowe break back with more in a moment, Jimmy
Vert show a nine fifty KPRC. All right, this next
(19:31):
segment is dedicated to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which
first of all, never have had much respect for it
to begin with. All you have to do is take
a look at their list of hate groups and you
can see really what they're all about. There are many
different Christian organizations that are part of that. I'm saying,
(19:53):
I'm sorry about that. There are plenty of Christian organizations
that are on that list because they don't support LGBTQ issues.
So they're considered a hate group at least by the
Southern Poverty Law Center for their religious beliefs. Even though
it was the testimony of Brian Fair. Brian Fair is
(20:14):
the CEO, if you will, the interim president of the
Southern Poverty Law Center, and he made it very clear,
or he tried to make it very clear that no, no, well,
we don't put you on the list just because you're
a religious group. We put you on the list because
of what you do. So okay, So how do we
(20:36):
explain why there's no Islamic groups who hate Jewish people
and support terrorism. How is it they're not on some
sort of a hate list with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Anyway,
let's start with this. This is the questioning, and it's
always fun to listen to these committee meetings. Here's the
questioning from Texas Representative Brandon Gill questioning the Southern Poverty
(21:01):
Law Centers Brian Fair.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
Mister, mister Fair, do you recognize the tattoo on this
man's chest? This is Secretary heg Seth. No, it's it's
a tattoo of the Jerusalem Cross. Your organization has referred
to it as essentially a hate image. Do you do
(21:24):
you agree with that assessment.
Speaker 18 (21:28):
I would have to see the assessment in our material
to determine. Referred to are not familiar with the symbol?
Speaker 5 (21:34):
You're not familiar. Do you have any thoughts on that
symbol on that tattoo? No, I don't know none at all.
You don't have any opinion on it?
Speaker 9 (21:43):
No, I don't. Okay.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
What about this tattoo? Do you have an opinion on
this tattoo? I'm not an expert on tattoos.
Speaker 9 (21:52):
No, I don't. Okay. I can give you a little
bit of background.
Speaker 5 (21:55):
This is a tattoo on Maine Democrat Senate candidate Grander's chest.
That's the Nazi SS death had death head tattoo. Do
you have any opinions on that?
Speaker 9 (22:11):
If it's what you say, if it's a Nazis, we
oppose Nazis, we.
Speaker 5 (22:20):
Opposed, and I agree, we do oppose Nazis. Do you
think if somebody got a Nazi tattoo on their chest
that's indicative that they might be a Nazi?
Speaker 18 (22:30):
You'd have to ask, uh, mister Plattner, why he has
that symbol. I've likely said that if it is a
symbol of Nazism, we oppose Nazis.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
You don't think that that's indicative that perhaps he holds
Nazi sentiments.
Speaker 9 (22:44):
It may well be. It may well be.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
I think do people who aren't Nazis normally get Nazi
tattoos on their chest?
Speaker 9 (22:52):
Again, I assume they don't. You assume they don't. I
would assume so too. I don't know anybody who's not
a Nazi.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
I don't know anybody who has a Nazi tattoo on
their chest but is not a Nazi.
Speaker 9 (23:07):
Do you, I know?
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Do you think that somebody who has a Nazi tattoo
on their chest should serve in the United States Senate?
Speaker 9 (23:21):
I wouldn't vote through that person. I certainly wouldn't either.
Speaker 5 (23:27):
Do you think that this should disqualify him politically from
serving in the Senate.
Speaker 18 (23:34):
Again, I'm not sure what the line of questions. What's
going the SPLC. If you're asking me, I'm sorry, go ahead.
If you're asking me if the SPLC opposes Nazis and
Nazis symbols, the answer is yes.
Speaker 9 (23:48):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
That probably was the best that this guy, Brian Fair
did all day. He actually almost held his own there.
He didn't fare quest as well with Representative Chip Roy.
Speaker 9 (24:02):
But we have the constitutional right to express.
Speaker 15 (24:05):
How many leftists? How many leftists anti Jewish groups do
you have listed on your website?
Speaker 2 (24:10):
We name them.
Speaker 18 (24:13):
Anyone listening to this can go to our website and
see our again. Our year and Hate and Extremism report
was released this month.
Speaker 15 (24:22):
How many extremists Islamic groups do you have of the
fifteen hundred or so organizations you have in your hate map?
Speaker 9 (24:28):
Again, anyone can go to our website.
Speaker 15 (24:30):
My officely have been looking over it and can't really
find one.
Speaker 9 (24:35):
Again, it is the SPLCS.
Speaker 15 (24:38):
The SBLC can provide us a list of the it
is the Islamic oriented groups do you have in your
hate map?
Speaker 9 (24:44):
Mister Roy.
Speaker 18 (24:45):
We don't target any group because of its religion. Really,
I want to be clear about that really, Yes, that's
exactly right. We target no group because of its religion.
We target groups because they express statements and engage activities
that demean and villain.
Speaker 15 (25:03):
You brought up LGBTQ groups a second So you brought
up lgbt groups a minute ago. So you think there's
a bunch of Islamic groups that are pro LGBTQ. Is
that the position of the SPLC. I just want to
make sure the record is reflecting.
Speaker 18 (25:15):
That, mister roy As I said, we target no group
or label no group because of its religion. We target
groups and label groups because of what they say about others.
And we have a constitutional right to do that, and
we will continue.
Speaker 19 (25:33):
To do that.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
Okay, just so you know they will continue to do that.
They have a constitutional right to do that. Do they
have a constitutional right to fund hate groups? Is there
a constitutional right to do that, because that's one of
the accusations against them is that they have funded hate
groups like the Klan, hate groups that pretty much had
(25:57):
already gone to almost nothing, almost zero, in an attempt
to try to make sure they continue to exist. And
the accusation is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has
funded some of these groups and organizations has paid them
to demonstrate and do things, if for no other reason,
(26:18):
then to show the potential donors out there to their
organization why they're still needed, even if they're maybe not
needed so much. All right, so let's grab one more
line of questioning here, curious Representative Jim Jordan.
Speaker 20 (26:33):
Mister Fair, did the Southern Probably Law Center use donor
money to have field sources attend extremist rallies across the country?
Mister Sherman, it's a simple question. Did you use your
donor money for that purpose?
Speaker 9 (26:48):
We used donor money.
Speaker 18 (26:52):
So yesterday there a confidential informance to infiltrade extremist organizations.
Speaker 20 (26:58):
Did the Southern Property Law Center use donor dollars have
field sources host extremist rallies throughout the country?
Speaker 9 (27:05):
Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 8 (27:06):
So what the indictment says, did.
Speaker 20 (27:07):
The Southern Private Law Center use donor dollars to have
field sources growisting chapters.
Speaker 8 (27:11):
Of extremist groups?
Speaker 9 (27:13):
Mister Chairman, as I said, question.
Speaker 8 (27:16):
Mister Fair, did you use donor money for the purpose?
Speaker 2 (27:19):
I just read this.
Speaker 8 (27:20):
I'm reading straight from the superseding indictment, and.
Speaker 18 (27:22):
Mister Chairman, the indictment will be managed and responded to
by counsel in the criminal.
Speaker 20 (27:28):
Case the way, Well, you just answered the question from
mister rasking concerning the indictment. He asked, did field sources
and information to the FBI that.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Help with things?
Speaker 8 (27:34):
You answered that question.
Speaker 9 (27:35):
I know that's a matter of public knowledge in our
public filing.
Speaker 20 (27:38):
Did the Southern Private Law Center use donor money to
have field sources create new chapters of extremist groups? Again,
mister chairman, did the Southern Private Loss Center use donor
money to recruit new individuals into those extremist groups?
Speaker 9 (27:54):
All right? Assuming you don't want me to answer, since
you're not giving any time.
Speaker 20 (27:57):
To answer, I'm giving you time to answer because I
said yes or did you you is your donor's money
for that purpose?
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Yes?
Speaker 19 (28:02):
Or no?
Speaker 18 (28:03):
Again, those issues will be resolved in the pending allegations
against the SPOC.
Speaker 8 (28:09):
Seems to me if the answer is no, you could
say no.
Speaker 9 (28:13):
We have asserted that the allegations are false.
Speaker 20 (28:15):
Did the Southern Probably Center use donor money to have
Field sources make it donations to extremist group leaders and
purchase materials for crossburnings?
Speaker 2 (28:24):
It's a legend indictment that happened.
Speaker 9 (28:26):
We've alleged that those allegations are false.
Speaker 20 (28:29):
Did Southern Probably Center used donor dollars to have field
sources create racist parapernality that that extremist group sold at rallies.
Speaker 9 (28:37):
We've alleged that those allegations are false.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
Ah, that's the attorney speaking right there. Right, we've alleged
that those allegations are false. Okay, what does that mean?
We have alleged that those allegations are false. It doesn't
mean no, it doesn't mean yes. It means that we're
(29:00):
saying that that's not a true statement. That's basically that's
all that says. Well, we're saying that, you know, that's
the allegation. We're saying that that's the allegation's not true.
That's what we're saying. You know, that's that's the answer
(29:20):
we're giving. Doesn't mean it's the right answer, but that's
the answer we're giving that. That's what I get out
of that. You know, that's lawyer speak. That is a
that is an opportunity to perjure yourself without actually perjuring yourself.
You know, you don't really they the last thing a
lawyer would want you to give if you're the Southern
(29:41):
Poverty Law Center. Is a yes or no answer. So
we're not saying yep, and we're not saying nope. We're
just saying maybe quick little break back with our final
segment in just a moment, Please stay with us. Jimmy
Barrett Show, Garreon. I am nine fifty KRC. All right,
(30:11):
let's let's tackle this topic. We haven't talked about this
in quite a while in our show, and that is
what's going on or where we're at with Iran. The
President made another statement this morning regarding Iran, and I'm
paraphrasing here because I don't have the statement right in
front of me, but he basically wrote on truth Social that,
(30:33):
you know, the Iranians are taking too long in the
negotiation process and they're going to pay a price for that. Now,
given what's happened and hasn't happened so far, what do
you make of that? Does that mean to you that
we're going to step up attacks or that we're going
(30:55):
back to war, or we're breaking the ceasefire agreements, or
we're gonna start bombing electrical plants? Are we going to
you know, start making you know, are we going to
bomb them? Into oblivion. What is What does that statement mean?
I don't know that it means that, at least based
(31:19):
on what the President has done so far, I can't
honestly seriously say that. I think it means that we're
going to really start attacking them aggressively again. I really can't.
I think it's the President's way of trying, yet again
to move them off the dime, to get them, get
them moving to to say, hey, listen, I'm run out
of patience with you guys, and patience doesn't last forever.
(31:39):
You better get you better come up with a deal here,
or we're we're going to have to do something drastic
without actually committing to doing something drastic. To me, it's
a stall tactic. And we had a guest down this
morning who disagrees with me that it is a stall tactic.
And that's fine. You can disagree with me. I will
be just as nice to you. You usually when you
(32:01):
disagree with me, is when you agree with me. I
don't have any problem with disagreement. I just think that
this guy is looking at this situation with rose colored glasses.
At least that's my opinion based on what I've seen
so far. But let's share the conversation with you anyways.
His name is Mark Vargas, Farmer Iraq Task Force, formerly
a member of the Office of the Secretary of War
(32:22):
from twenty seven to twenty twenty. Here's what he had
to say about what the President is talking about in work.
He thinks we're at as far as negotiations, is it
possible to negotiate with these folks?
Speaker 19 (32:36):
It is, you know, And this is the problem. We
can't forget that. This is a problem that's festered for
nearly fifty years with literal to no accountability. I mean,
they've run for forty seven years without any accountability whatsoever.
In fact, you've got previous presidential administrations, like the administration
that hands them billions of dollars and say, spend this
however you want. And we know exactly where I went.
(32:58):
I went to continue build out their nuclear weapons capability.
When to go fun Hamas and Hespu and Houthis. That's
all been well documented after the fact. And so what
President Trump is dealing is with decades of no activity.
And so you know, the Iran doesn't have an endgame
because they're not smart enough to put together an endgame.
Their game was always just to terrorize and torture and
(33:21):
kill people, including their own citizens. And so you know,
we've totally decimated you know, ninety percent of their military,
you know, one hundred and fifty five of their navy ships,
their weapons factories ninety percent destroyed. I mean, they have
been completely and totally decimated. And so what President Trump
is has given them time to negotiate. And clearly, you know,
(33:42):
with the downing of our US Apache helicopter and thank
god that our two pilots are safe and we're immediately rescued,
and that just gives you an idea of how closely.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
We're monitoring this.
Speaker 19 (33:51):
They go down and immediately we have a boat, a
drone boat in the water to pick them up, and
so we know strategic site that we haven't hit yet
that we can hit. You know, in the in my
time in the military as a civilian, you know, they've
got contingency plans for everything that you can think of
their war gaining it constantly twenty fours a day, seven
(34:14):
days a week, different scenarios. They can give the present
five different scenarios at any given time. And so you know,
President Trump was wanting to give them time to want
to negotiate. We've got our partners involved, the Gulf region,
China was a big deal to get China Jijianping several
weeks ago after a state visit to say Iran kind
of have a nuclear weapon and the straight upfor most
must be completely open around what's left of this regime?
(34:37):
Is it making any friends by launching rockets over to Kuwait?
But President Trump is you just saw just maybe twenty
minutes ago, they put out another tough post on his
truth social audience.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
There's been a lot of tough I was smart. There's
been a lot of a lot of threats, but not
nearly as much action as one would expect it at
this point. Do you think the Irnians are taking Trump
seriously at this point?
Speaker 19 (35:00):
You know, you'd think they would have taken them seriously
after how we decimated them just months ago. But you know,
I'll tell you what, the negotiators are taking this seriously.
And they've got so many different factions that the President
is having to deal with. Left hand doesn't know what
the right hand is doing. But the President is going
to be look for massive and widespread hits, strategic hits,
(35:22):
and you know it's going to force the negotiators to
panic to figure out what text's going on and to
get a deal sealed, because think about this Rainian regime
is losing five hundred million dollars a day with this blockade.
It's a lot of money and it's impacting China, which
is why China finally poked their head out of the
water and said, you know, they conceded those two points
(35:44):
during the President's state visit.
Speaker 3 (35:46):
And so when it feels like we're being strung along,
you don't feel like we're being strung along here that
they're just going to keep doing this for as long
is as humanly possible for them to do. It feels
like something major is going to have to happen to
get get this thing off the dime.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
I don't think that.
Speaker 19 (36:00):
I don't get the feeling that we're being strung along
at all. The President has made it clear he's with
force in the beginning of the war, and we've taken
out their ayahtola, we've taken out their leadership, most of
their leadership structure. But he wanted to give he's the
President's cognizant of the lessons of a rock and Aghannison,
where there was no exit ramp where we put one
hundred and fifty thousand troops on the ground. We haven't
(36:22):
had to put any troops on the ground in this
This has been an aerial campaign. We're flexing our military
muscle out on the waters with our ship.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
But where's the exit for us? In all this?
Speaker 19 (36:36):
There will be a deal negotiated, There's no doubt about
it because of the support that we have from all
of our golf partners. They've got the real skin in
the game, and and so that's where I think if
this were just the United States and Israel, it's problematic,
but it's not. We've got support of those golf partners,
and that's essential to finally securing a peace deal because
(36:58):
they need to have peace in that region because they've
been terrorized by the Iranian regime as well.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
And so it impacts them in a writing of ways.
Speaker 19 (37:06):
There's safety, security, economic, and so that's where I think
at the end of the day, that coalition is going
to negotiate this piece deal.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
And I hope he's right. I pray he's right. I
don't know if he is, but I pray he is.
All right, Listen, I gotta leave it at that y'all
have a great day. Thanks for listening. We'll see you
tomorrow morning, Barty early five am over on news radio
seven forty KRH. Back here at four on a nine
to fifty KPRC
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.