October 29, 2025 • 37 mins
Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:
- Rep Chip Roy on SNAP benefits
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
What we need is more common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Common breaking down the world's nonsense about.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
How American common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We'll see this through with the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston. This
is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by viewind
dot Com.
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Now here's Jimmy Barrett. Hey, welcome to the show. Happy Wednesday.
We've got a couple more days left before we switch
to standard time.
Speaker 5 (00:41):
Again.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
I would find the fall switch less objectionable if not
for the fact that it's going to get dark an
hour earlier, at least in my mind, is gonna get
dark in hour earlier. As Terry Smith from the Weather
Channel pointed out to me this morning, you get the
same hours of daylight. It's just when you get the
daylight that's different. You get it in the morning and
you don't get it in the evening. Now, I do
(01:05):
like the fact that it'll be light a little bit earlier,
but I don't like the fact what time is it
getting dark. I'm trying to think it's usually getting dark
at my house at seven, so six it'll start. It'll
start getting dark. Eh, it's not that bad for now,
But when you get into December when the days are
really short, then that I find that depressing when it's
when it gets start before five o'clock or around five
(01:27):
o'clock in the afternoon. All Right, That's not really what
I wanted to talk about today, but I just thought
i'd remind you because it kind of feels like it's
coming early this year. It's always the first Sunday of
November that we switch back to standard time, provided at
some point we don't get smart and just to cyber
We're not gonna switch our clocks anymore. By the way,
with the government shutdown, can I like hop out of this?
(01:47):
Can I just say, well, the government shut down, so
I'm going to I'm gonna shut down my switch to
standard time. I'm going to I'm gonna be on Texas Time,
which is Texas Daylight Saving Time. Let's just do that. Anyway,
we were talking this morning about a story I saw
on Fox twenty six locally here. They kind of got me.
(02:08):
I don't want to say in sense because there's virtually
nothing having to do with the government that insenses me anymore.
I'm just so used to the incompetency of it all.
But it was a local story. You know, all the
local TV stations are running stories about the end of
Snap benefits, and of course the way they cover that
is they go out and find somebody who relies on
Snap benefits, you know, to to cry over the fact
(02:31):
that their Snap benefits are coming to an end for
a while while the government is shut down. They don't
bother to talk about why the government is shut down
or point the finger blame it. Why who's responsible for
the government being shut down in this case Democrats. They
just want, you know, they just want to get the
sob story from some parent of some small kids who
(02:51):
relies on Snap benefits to feed their children and make
us all feel bad about it. Well, here's the thing.
They interviewed a woman I'm gonna get I don't know
for sure. I'm gonna guess she's like twenty five, twenty
six years old, she has four small children. She's not married.
I have no idea if she ever has been married.
(03:15):
I have no idea who the father of those children are,
other than the fact that, you know, if there are fathers,
and there has to be fathers for the children, then
they should be contributing to the welfare of their own children,
right she doesn't work because one of the exemptions you
get on SNAP is that if you have small children
(03:37):
or you're pregnant, you don't have to work. Now, is
there anybody out there that can see that that might
be a little bit of a problem. It might be
a bit of a problem because you if you don't
require people to work then and they keep having kids
so they don't have to work, then you know, they
(03:57):
just the benefits just go on forever and ever, and
of course the benefits increase is the more children you have,
just like with welfare. So we haven't really provided much
of an incentive for people to get off of the
food stamps or in this case, of the SNAP benefits,
and we allow them to continue to get them for
(04:19):
the rest of their lives virtually as long as they
are exempt from having to meet the other requirements. The
other thing that we don't necessarily do You don't necessarily
have to be a United States citizen to qualify for
SNAP benefits. All you have to be is here legally,
So you could be somebody who's here legally from a
foreign country and you can go ahead and collect government
(04:41):
benefits like the SNAP benefits. Is that what we want
to have going on. Do we want to have those
who do pay taxes in this country, who are citizens
in this country, providing for people from other countries to
live basically free here in the United States to get
to these government benefits. I don't think we do. There
(05:04):
are reforms in the big Beautiful Bill regarding the SNAP program,
But I think if we were all left our own devices,
if we had a role in the decision making process,
if we could set the rules for what it would
be for SNAP, then we would probably set different rules
in the government. Now now I realize, in the case
of this woman I saw in Fox twenty six, it's
(05:25):
not the children's fault. I'm not trying to punish children.
I'm not trying to starve children. I'm trying to be
sensitive to those children's needs. After all, they're here through
no fault of their own. But we have to figure
out how we're going to stop incentivizing people to have
children so that they can continue to get government benefits.
(05:47):
It just happens way too much. It's a cycle of
poverty and government assistance that goes on and on and
on and on from generation to generation. So I invited
our listeners this morning in the morning show to come
up with some ideas on ways that you if you
weren't the king or queen to the president or whatever,
how would you reform SNAP.
Speaker 6 (06:08):
This is Henry from Spring. If I were king, and
what I would do about SNAP benefits is hand out
job applications to all of the people that are out
there protesting about the shutdown and their SNAP benefits being
in jeopardy. That is the first thing.
Speaker 7 (06:27):
I would do.
Speaker 6 (06:28):
Hi, it's Carol from Cyprus.
Speaker 8 (06:29):
If I was in charge, I would put a time
limit on SNAP benefits like unemployment benefits, say one hundred weeks.
It's temporary help, not full time welfare.
Speaker 9 (06:39):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
This is Teresa from Snook. Great question this morning, mister Jimmy.
I've been waiting for this one. If I was the president,
the SNAP program would have a two year limit unless
you had a medical reason why you could not work
and any children that you had when you got on
the program or the only children covered.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Jimmy, we need to learn how to recognize straud in
assistance that are going to volunteer for a department christ which.
Speaker 9 (07:06):
Gives every gearings and beautiful fancy neighborhoods with fancy cars
and during yards and nice.
Speaker 7 (07:12):
Neighborhoods to be myself with.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Is the other thing is I've worked for a disest
except with medicaid.
Speaker 10 (07:18):
Is a form of payment.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Hears and letters?
Speaker 11 (07:20):
Would we have in and need how they've just been
to get a pedicure and they have photos that they
have fancy cars.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
It's just not right.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
No, it's not It really isn't right. And thus the
suggestion that we find ways to remove the fraud, we
find ways to I have no problem, by the way,
finding ways to require that only certain items can be
used for SNAP benefits. Do you know what the number
one selling item is, the number one thing that people
(07:51):
use their SNAP benefits to buy. It's soda. Yeah, SODA's
number one. Oh, by the way, one of the calls,
they're mentioned unless you're on disability, the woman in the
story not. I thought of that. The woman in the
story was on quote unquote medical disability. Now, she looked
(08:13):
perfectly healthy to me. She needed to be getting around
just fine. That's another area of reform where we would
have to go in there and say, okay, before you
can claim disability, all right, let's make sure you truly
are disabled.
Speaker 8 (08:27):
This is Escian Spring. I agree with Jimmy. They got Snap,
they got EBT. I'm working. I don't mind helping people,
but why does that mean we need to help them
for their whole lives. It's just another job for them
by politicians.
Speaker 7 (08:43):
Hey, Jimmy Montgomery, Dave here. My biggest issue is this
whole marketing campaign where an now it's called Snap instead
of just playing food damps, and it was meant to
I believe it was meant to take away the embarrassment.
It's like, well, maybe part of that embarrassment would help
people actually get off their asses and find job. I
know there's a lot of people that deserve them, deserve
(09:06):
the benefits and everything, but it's meant to be a
temporary between jobs, that sort of thing. Jimmy, this is
Mike and Alvin.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
It's pretty straightforward to me.
Speaker 7 (09:15):
If the number, if the choices of the staples was
severely limited, that would make people self regulated.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
Well and there you get done not being able to
use soda, right, use your Snap benefits to buy soda. Yeah,
it would have to be. I would say, it would
have to be for like proteins and that's it, you know,
actual protein food items nutritious food. You can't use it
to buy back some box of macaroni cheese. You'd have
(09:44):
to use it to buy things that are you know,
can be made into nutritious foods. Is there anything nutritious
about soda? Am I missing out of anything there? No?
I didn't think so. All right, let's grab a couple
more before we move on to a different topic.
Speaker 12 (09:56):
Hey, Jimmy, it's Jason from San Antonio. I know it's
a little bit in the show, but I'm a little
bit intimately familiar with the way that these Snap benefits work.
That mama with those children, there's a very strong likelihood
that she's selling those Snap benefits for half of face
(10:18):
value to buy things that she wants and not providing
food for the children.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Good morning, Jimmy.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
This is Etna from Summerwood.
Speaker 13 (10:26):
Probably not a popular opinion, but I say we start
Spain and neuter in a whole lot of people.
Speaker 6 (10:32):
That'll solve the whole Snap benefit problem.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Okay, you stand alone on that one, dear, I'm sorry,
I can't. I can't join you on that one. No,
I'm the Spain neuter part.
Speaker 7 (10:44):
No.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
I understand the temptation of saying that but no, that's
not the answer. The answer is to remove the fraud
and to make it infinitely more difficult in order to
get the benefits, to make sure that the people we
give the benefits to really truly do qualify for them. Right,
quick little break back with morting moment, Jimmy Barrett show
here an AM nine fifty KPRC. All right, so, last second,
(11:23):
we were talking about the snap benefits and the rules
that we would make if we were in charge and
we could make rules changes and if we could somehow
make the program accountable. When you have forty two over
forty two million people on a program like that, I mean,
the sheer size of the program means that there's way, way,
way more people who are on the program that could
(11:45):
ever possibly be investigated or vetted. So I you know,
it's probably in almost an impossible task to try to
weed out all of the frauding corruption. But when you
have one hundred billion dollars a year program, you have
to find a way to do that and and to
(12:06):
hold people accountable and to punish those, by the way
who you do find that are committing fraud. That's that's
always the ultimate if you do if you find enough
people who have committed fraud, and you prosecute them for
committing fraud and make them pay a penalty or a
in this case a perhaps do a little jail time
for committing that fraud. Then a lot of that fraud
(12:29):
has a tendency to go away, unless, of course, you
want to go to jail, and I'd like to think
that most people still don't want to go to jail. Anyway,
we had Congressman chip Roy, who's also running for Attorney
General here in Texas. We had Congressman chip Roy on
the show this morning and we talked to him about
the government shutdown and about the SNAP program and changes
(12:50):
that could or should be made. Here's my conversation with
Congressman chip Roy. Is this an opportunity but the government
shut down to make some changes?
Speaker 10 (12:57):
Well, great to be on the show. I mean, first
of all, you know, look, let's be very clear, and
I think you know this. The Democrats are the ones
that are chosen to shut down. And you know, all
we need are five Democrats in the Senate to join
with us to do what we did over a month ago,
which is fun to continue in resolution through November twentieth.
We're going to have to now go back and maybe
pass one that's longer because they refuse to do their job.
(13:19):
We're now running the clock out on the November twentieth date.
But to the question of snap benefits, this is the consequence, right,
we made reforms in the big beautiful Bill that the
vast majority of the American people wanted.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
Us to make.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
We have work requirements in place.
Speaker 10 (13:34):
We rooted out a lot of fraud and abuse by
making reforms to the system that would save money in
the long term on snap benefits but still provide benefits
to those who most need it. But we still have
significant reforms that we need.
Speaker 4 (13:48):
To look at.
Speaker 10 (13:50):
What percentage of the people on welfare, including snap benefits,
we're getting those that are saved fur and born that
are potentially illegal aliens. Certainly, this mass of the immigrant
population that is dumped into our country, both through illegal
and legal immigration, how many of them are using up
a lot of these resources. There are other reforms we've
(14:12):
got to look at that you're alluding to that is
getting the lights shown on it by virtue of the shutdown.
And look, I will say this, Democrats are forcing this shutdown.
What that does is forces Donald Trump and my friend
Rusfo who's the head of the Office of Management Budget
to prioritize spending and have to go through with a
fine tooth comb. So for me, look, if they want
(14:33):
to play this game, then be careful what you ask for.
We ought to be going through this with a fine
tooth comb and making the reforms that are necessary so
that we're making it more efficient, effective, and affordable, because
we're racking up debt as we speak. We cracked the
thirty eight trillion dollar mark and we're still piling on debt,
notwithstanding the fact that we made some good progress in
(14:53):
the big beautiful Bill to peel back some of the
wasteful spending.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
I wonder too at this point, you know, obviously your
average American, if if he's if your average America is
going to be traveling between now and let's say Christmas,
if the government shut down doesn't get solved, they're gonna
probably have a flight delayed or maybe even canceled because
of you know what we have going on with their
traffic control and and and people not showing up for
work because they're not getting a paycheck. Does that put
(15:21):
more pressure on Republicans or does that put more pressure
on Democrats.
Speaker 10 (15:26):
Well, look, I think this is gonna be one of
those things that plays out. I think Democrats are starting
to see that their positioning on this is not that popular,
and the you know, the polling is showing that people
are realizing, we've done our job, We're doing our part.
They're refusing. And as this continues to unfold and people
are getting hit where TSA is not getting paid, as
(15:47):
you say, traffic starts to pile up them. Look, Thanksgiving,
what is not the most traveled day of the year,
the day before Thanksgiving? Oh yeah, so you're gonna have
people getting very frustrated. If lines are stacking up TSA,
if flights are get and canceled, and then if benefits
aren't flowing, if veterans are being impacted, if you know,
some of these staff benefits aren't flowing, people are gonna
(16:08):
be getting frustrated. Now there'll be a lot of blame
game and finger pointing. Our position is simple. We passed
a bill. There was a clean funding bill keeping government
funded at current levels, which were the levels that Joe
Biden last approved. That's insane for Democrats to say, oh,
we're going to shut down the government over that new
Gingridge put it well when he said, look, the American
(16:30):
people don't like shutdowns. Well, look at someone who's been
a part of shutdown debates. You know this from a
conservative place where I've said, guys, I don't want to fund.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Whatever that is.
Speaker 10 (16:40):
I say, I've not wanted to fund the implementation of Obamacare.
When Ted Cruz took to the Florida to filibuster for
you know, twenty four hours, I've said I didn't want
to fund, you know, the the mass importation of people
with wide open borders. But okay, they're going into this
saying we we we're going to shut down the because
(17:00):
why because they want to give four hundred billion dollars
to insurance companies. Nobody likes insurance companies so well, subsidies
are for people, No, they're not. These subsidies go to
insurance companies. And the hope is that it might affect premiums.
But the last time I checked, all of our premiums
have gone up because it's an inflationary broken system. They're
(17:22):
holding us hostage to a broken healthcare system, and now
they're holding the government hostage to try to play a
game to fix the healthcare system. They broke they I
don't think that's a winning message for them.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
They seem to think this gives them leverage. Congressman Roy,
how does this give them leverage?
Speaker 10 (17:37):
What they're doing, Well, they're looking for leverage and they're
they're they're trying to find the leverage, and there's a
difference that doesn't necessarily give them leverage. They don't have
anything to run on next year. That's the simple truth,
and so they're dying to find something. They're trying to
find footing. So they're creating chaos in hopes that they
(17:59):
can land in an area where they can get a
footing to go on offense, they're failing on most every issue.
They've failed on the border, they're failing on the woke stuff.
They're failing on the DEI and the transgender garbage. They're
failing really on their overseas policy. The president's doing a
great job trying to deliver peace in the Middle East
and other things to position us. So they don't have
(18:20):
much to run on except Donald Trump bad and oh gosh,
let's go try to have a healthcare fight because we've
had some success on that. Yeah, well, I think the
gig is up and the American people are going, wait
a minute, my healthcare is really expensive, and I kind
of like what the president's doing, So why are you
shutting the government down?
Speaker 4 (18:37):
I hope you're right about So you're right, Yeah, that's
where they are. The hell I would I completely agree
with this assessment. What we what the unknown factor is
here is does the vast majority of American people do?
Does the vast majority see this as well? We see it,
We see it clearly, but that doesn't mean that everybody does.
(18:58):
Maybe we'll get a clue from election next week on
how the voting turnout is and who people vote for.
You know, there's not a lot of things to vote for,
at least in Texas the propositions, and there's some important
ones in there, so I remind you about that if
you haven't already voted. All right. I think basically what
chip Roy was saying there in in general is that
(19:23):
the kind of the Democrats have lost their way. They
kind of lost their brand. You know, they certainly lost
the brand that they used to be known for. You know,
the Republicans used to be the party of the rich
and the Democrats were the party of the working man.
Now that the Democrats seem to be the party of
the white intellectual liberal and not a whole lot of
(19:45):
anything else. Here's Jesse Waters on his show talking about this.
Speaker 13 (19:49):
According to a new center Left group's report, left wing
ideas have wrecked the Democrats brand and they've only grown
with self described white liberals.
Speaker 5 (19:59):
A real shocker, right.
Speaker 13 (20:00):
Most voters believe Democrats over prioritize issues like protecting the
rights of LGBTQ plus Americans and fighting climate change while
not caring about securing the border or lowering the rate
of crime. And nowhere better is this illustrated than the
beef between Riley Gaines and AOC. Gaines says America is
being destroyed from within by AOC Bernie and Zoora on
(20:22):
the destroyer. AOC snipe back, saying this, maybe if you
channeled all this anger into swimming faster, you wouldn't have
come in fifth. And now, Gaines says, let's settle this
beef with a battle of the wits.
Speaker 14 (20:37):
I want to honestly challenge AOC to a debate. She
can defend socialism, I will defend capitalism. She can defend
removing God. I will defend embracing a biblical worldview. She
can defend child sacrifice. I will defend the sanctity of life,
any of the radical, insane democratic policies and platform that
they stand for. I will debate the opposite. I'm challenging
(20:59):
AOC to it here.
Speaker 5 (21:00):
But here's what Gaines would be up against in a debate.
Speaker 11 (21:03):
This city was built by the Irish escaping famine, Italians
fleeing fascism, choose escaping Holocaust, Black Americans fling sand slavery
and Jim Crow, Latinos and seeking a better life, Native
people standing for themselves, Asian Americans coming together in Queens
(21:26):
in Brooklyn, brooceand it's Satin Island in this country.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
What seems to whip up the crowd is just you know,
shouting loudly if if you're if you're on the left,
and you know, it seems to work for her, doesn't it.
It's amazing how popular she has become. And you know, socialism,
I think is getting a pretty firm hole in New
York City and maybe some other places in the North.
Think New Jersey though, will go Republican and they're race less. Hope,
(21:58):
So all right, quick little break stick around back with
more in a moment Jimmy Baird Show here on AM
nine to fifty KPRC. We are going to begin our
(22:23):
third segment today with what I would.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Call a.
Speaker 4 (22:28):
What would I call this? I would call this a dilemma,
a political dilemma, And I know how this will react
for a lot of people. There's a couple of different
sides of this. Let me put it this way. What
I should do is just set this up, play it
(22:48):
for you, and I'll explain what I mean by a dilemma.
There are members of the Biden administration that are currently
providing testimony to the High House regarding the cognitive condition
of then President Joe Biden and the auto pen and
(23:09):
all that stuff. And one of them that was questioned
is one of Biden was one of Biden's top advisors.
His name is Mike Donalin, and Mike Donalin was paid
four million dollars to run the Biden reelection campaign. Now
(23:33):
that money, no doubt came from the Democrat Party. So
you know who am I to say what it's worth
to hire somebody to run your presidential campaign. I have
no idea what the President Trump spent on his presidential campaign,
but in this particular case, you are one of Biden's
(23:53):
top advisors. You have to know because you work with
this guy intimately, you have to know his condition and
how he is slipping. This is not for the first campaign,
by the way, this is not for the original election campaign.
This is for re electing President Biden. He has signed
on for four million dollars to run the campaign to
(24:15):
re elect Joe Biden. At this point, you know that
what you're dealing with here is a candidate that has
a cognitive problem. So I guess here's the question. Are
you trying to re elect Joe Biden because you really
believe he's the best person for the job, or that
(24:36):
he's still qualified to do the job, or are you
doing it for some other reason? And if as you
take a listen to this, you find out maybe what
the reason was, and it's not even about power, it's
about money. Now, there's some pauses in here because he's
clearly this mcdonaldin guy is clearly very uncommonmfortable with the
(25:01):
questions he's being asked. So but I thought it was
important to leave the pauses in there so you can
hear how he's kind of struggling with answering the questions.
That the committee has for him. Mike Donalan gets asked
about the Biden reelection campaign and getting paid for it.
Speaker 9 (25:19):
Just to be clear, with the amount of pay you've
received for your role in the campaign, would that have
changed depending on how far into the race President Biden
made it?
Speaker 10 (25:43):
Since?
Speaker 9 (25:43):
Is that.
Speaker 10 (25:49):
That him?
Speaker 12 (26:05):
And in my view of the the the money was.
Speaker 10 (26:17):
That to It was a.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
Guarantee that cameaign that we had a negotiation and as
my memory of care.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
W I received uh a boneus depending on the way
the campaign went.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Was a possibility.
Speaker 5 (26:51):
How the campaign went, Were there.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Any circumstances in which you would never received about.
Speaker 10 (26:56):
Us here.
Speaker 15 (27:04):
Te Biden would have been re elected president?
Speaker 8 (27:08):
What was what was the bonus of that?
Speaker 9 (27:16):
I believe it would have been following up get an.
Speaker 6 (27:19):
Issue to the four million dollars, So.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
You are already paid.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Okay, how painful was that? I mean, he's struggling and
trying to rephrase the question, trying very carefully not to
answer the question. The bottom line is the guy got
paid four million dollars to run the Biden reelection campaign,
(27:44):
but there was a four million dollar bonus if Biden
won the election, that's eight million dollars. So you're getting
paid to run a reelection campaign to the tune of
four million dollars. And you, if you can somehow pull
this off so that Biden wins, you get a total
payday of eight million dollars. The financial incentive is there. Evidently,
(28:14):
this is where the moral dilemma comes in. This is
in a perfect world, what would you do? Well? In
a perfect world where power and money don't really matter,
you would say, listen, I don't care what you pay me.
This guy is gone, this guy, this guy is not
there anymore. This guy is not capable of serving another
(28:37):
four years as president of the United States. It would
be morally wrong for me to get this guy re elected.
But who are we trying to kid? I mean, who
are we trying to fool here? Clearly you know they
(28:59):
they're gonna try to get him reelected. He's going to
try to earn his extra money because he he wants
he wants the money, he wants the eight million dollars.
And if if the question is what would you do,
what would what would I do?
Speaker 9 (29:16):
Well?
Speaker 4 (29:16):
We're never going to be presented with that opportunity. But
if you're a typical person, you know making even the
making a six figure salary, and somebody puts this kind
of money in front of you to run a campaign,
you're probably gonna do it, right. So I have a
hard time finding fault with the fact that he's looking
(29:38):
out for him. I mean, can can people be bought?
Speaker 5 (29:41):
Hell?
Speaker 4 (29:41):
Yes, they could be bought. This guy's price was eight
million dollars. He could be bought to just not say anything,
run the campaign and pretend like nothing's wrong. And that's
probably true of most people in the political world. There's
only two things that motivate most politicians or people connected
to politicians, and that's power and money, and the two
(30:06):
go hand in hand. All right, quick will break back
with Morner moment Jimmy Bart show here an Am nine
to fifty KPRC. But the President was in Japan yesterday
(30:32):
and they have their first ever female prime minister who's
a conservative, and they were gett along great. They were
having a good old time. He went and talked to
the Navy on the USS George Washington, and had some
fun things to say. It's only President Trump could say them, like.
Speaker 16 (30:51):
Past administrations, we will not be politically correct.
Speaker 5 (30:55):
You don't mind that to you when it.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Comes to defending the United States, we're no longer politically correct.
Speaker 5 (31:01):
We're going to defend our country any way we have to.
Our ultimate strength does not come from equipment.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
It comes from the men and women of the rank
and file.
Speaker 5 (31:11):
That's true.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
It comes from you people, Incredible people, good looking people,
too many good looking people.
Speaker 5 (31:17):
I don't like good looking people. I never liked good
looking people. I'll be honest with you. I've never admitted
that before. But see I'm allowed to see. You know,
we wanted the Supreme Court a thing based on merit.
Speaker 10 (31:30):
You know about that, right.
Speaker 5 (31:32):
He's saying that Supreme Court is ugly. That's what he's saying.
Speaker 16 (31:35):
Contrast Trump bringing home the bacon for America through trade
and peace with the latest bull crap that the dams
are focused on tampon tam pushing a hoax that the
President's top priority is the White House ballroom.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
I can paint any damn picture you want for you.
Speaker 17 (31:48):
They're paying contractors to tear down the East Wing, but
they're not putting money into the food bank that they're
setting on. And when the White House Press Secretary said
the top priority is the ballroom, we could not disagree.
Speaker 16 (31:58):
More goodness, and Jazzy says Trump policies are killing people surprise.
Speaker 18 (32:05):
I think that the question should be which party is
truly about being pro life, which party is truly about
the entirety of the United States, and which party is
really more patriotic. I'm hoping that all Americans can finally
wake up and say, we are going to prioritize ourselves.
We are going to look for people that maybe we
(32:25):
don't think they're super funny or super entertaining, but they
will not try to deal death to us with every
single policy that they hand out.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
Hang on, did Jasmine Crockett just say that she's more
patriotic and more pro life than we are. That's pretty
that's pretty amazing. But then again, most of what comes
out of her mouth is pretty dog on amazing when
you get right down to it. As far as Trump,
I mean, that's just, you know, that's Trump being Trump.
That's that's who President Trump is. Very funny, very very
(32:59):
very Okay, let's let's see here, what else can we
throw into the mix here before we call to day today,
Let's throw this into the mix, because as long as
we're on the topic of President Trump, he was in Japan,
things went really well. Now he's in South Korea a
meeting with the president chief from from from China where
(33:22):
they supposedly are going to have a trade slash TikTok deal.
But as Larry Kudlow was talking about in his program,
he had a guest on talking about the Chinese and
all the things that the Chinese are doing, laundering money
for the cartel. I mean, the Chinese government is a
criminal organization and they rarely, if ever live up to
(33:44):
any of their agreements. So why in the world do
we worry about making a deal with them when the
reality is they're not probably not gonna live up to
the deal anyway. I think if President Trump is guilty
of anything, it's of maybe being having a little too
much wishful thinking on things like Hamas being able to
be peaceful, or the Chinese government actually doing the right thing.
(34:07):
Here is Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweitzer with Larry
Kudlow talking about China laundering money for the cartel.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
China has been saying no more fatanyl, no more precursor
chemicals for seven years, Peter, Why in God's name should
we believe them?
Speaker 5 (34:25):
Now?
Speaker 3 (34:26):
I'm just I'm going to start with that, that's not
my only thing, but I mean, really, here we go again.
Speaker 15 (34:31):
Yeah, no, you're right, Larry. It's good to be skeptical.
And we also have to remember something else, Larry. Their
involvement in fetanyl is not just these precursor chemicals. There are,
according to our DEA, two thousand Chinese nationals in northern
Mexico that effectively are serving as chemists, providing support to
the drug cartels. The pill presses that the cartels use
(34:55):
to produce this poison and smuggle it across the border.
Those pill presses are made in China, and again according
to the DEA, those are sold by Chinese companies to
the drug cartels at cost.
Speaker 5 (35:07):
And then there's a whole issue of the money laundering.
Speaker 15 (35:09):
The money laundering for the drug cartels used to be
done in Latin American banks. It's now Chinese state owned
banks that do the money laundering.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
So this is really a toss off.
Speaker 15 (35:20):
This really does nothing to the issue, and I hope
that the President keeps pushing hard on it because Joe
Biden certainly didn't do that, and we need to, we
need to deal with China on this issue very firmly.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
The other thing is, look, I mean, China, I guess
we'll get will stop the moratorium on wearers for a year.
Speaker 5 (35:39):
I don't know that.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
Scott Besson says that's part of the framework. Okay, okay, okay,
but that's you know, that's like not a great deal.
And on the other side of the coin, I'm reading
China wants mister Trump to give up Taiwan independence. I
don't think we should give up supporting Taiwan independent. I mean,
that's just what she wants. Why should we help him out?
Speaker 5 (35:59):
Yeah, you know, you're right, Lara.
Speaker 15 (36:00):
I mean, look, what China says they want from the
United States and from the Trump administration is stability. What
that really means is they want they want to stabilize
our dependence on them for critical things, whether that's rrorists,
whether that's pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 5 (36:17):
Let's remember at COVID what they did.
Speaker 15 (36:19):
I wrote about this in a book and researched it extensively.
During COVID they knew two months before they told the
world that COVID was transferable from person to person. They
waited sixty days to tell us. What did they do
in those sixty days? They hoarded Ppe supplies around the
world so they could gain leverage on us. That is
(36:39):
the Rahet regime we're dealing with. So we need to
recognize anything that has agreed upon with China is subject
to further negotiation, and anytime they feel the need to
go back to pressuring us on rarers, pressuring us on pharmaceuticals,
they will do.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
So.
Speaker 15 (36:54):
The agreements really don't create the kind of stability that
I think a lot of investors think it.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
Yeah, I'm afraid he's probably right about that. Like I said,
it's like dealing with a moss. You know, you can't
take them at their word for just about anything. All right, listen,
y'all have a great day. Thanks for listening. I'll see
you tomorrow morning, bright and early, starting at five AM
over our news radio seven forty k t r H.
We are back here at four on AM nine fifty KPRC.
What we need is more common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Common breaking down the world's nonsense about.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
How American common sense.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We'll see this through with the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston. This
is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by viewind
dot Com.
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Now here's Jimmy Barrett. Hey, welcome to the show. Happy Wednesday.
We've got a couple more days left before we switch
to standard time.
Speaker 5 (00:41):
Again.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
I would find the fall switch less objectionable if not
for the fact that it's going to get dark an
hour earlier, at least in my mind, is gonna get
dark in hour earlier. As Terry Smith from the Weather
Channel pointed out to me this morning, you get the
same hours of daylight. It's just when you get the
daylight that's different. You get it in the morning and
you don't get it in the evening. Now, I do
(01:05):
like the fact that it'll be light a little bit earlier,
but I don't like the fact what time is it
getting dark. I'm trying to think it's usually getting dark
at my house at seven, so six it'll start. It'll
start getting dark. Eh, it's not that bad for now,
But when you get into December when the days are
really short, then that I find that depressing when it's
when it gets start before five o'clock or around five
(01:27):
o'clock in the afternoon. All Right, That's not really what
I wanted to talk about today, but I just thought
i'd remind you because it kind of feels like it's
coming early this year. It's always the first Sunday of
November that we switch back to standard time, provided at
some point we don't get smart and just to cyber
We're not gonna switch our clocks anymore. By the way,
with the government shutdown, can I like hop out of this?
(01:47):
Can I just say, well, the government shut down, so
I'm going to I'm gonna shut down my switch to
standard time. I'm going to I'm gonna be on Texas Time,
which is Texas Daylight Saving Time. Let's just do that. Anyway,
we were talking this morning about a story I saw
on Fox twenty six locally here. They kind of got me.
(02:08):
I don't want to say in sense because there's virtually
nothing having to do with the government that insenses me anymore.
I'm just so used to the incompetency of it all.
But it was a local story. You know, all the
local TV stations are running stories about the end of
Snap benefits, and of course the way they cover that
is they go out and find somebody who relies on
Snap benefits, you know, to to cry over the fact
(02:31):
that their Snap benefits are coming to an end for
a while while the government is shut down. They don't
bother to talk about why the government is shut down
or point the finger blame it. Why who's responsible for
the government being shut down in this case Democrats. They
just want, you know, they just want to get the
sob story from some parent of some small kids who
(02:51):
relies on Snap benefits to feed their children and make
us all feel bad about it. Well, here's the thing.
They interviewed a woman I'm gonna get I don't know
for sure. I'm gonna guess she's like twenty five, twenty
six years old, she has four small children. She's not married.
I have no idea if she ever has been married.
(03:15):
I have no idea who the father of those children are,
other than the fact that, you know, if there are fathers,
and there has to be fathers for the children, then
they should be contributing to the welfare of their own children,
right she doesn't work because one of the exemptions you
get on SNAP is that if you have small children
(03:37):
or you're pregnant, you don't have to work. Now, is
there anybody out there that can see that that might
be a little bit of a problem. It might be
a bit of a problem because you if you don't
require people to work then and they keep having kids
so they don't have to work, then you know, they
(03:57):
just the benefits just go on forever and ever, and
of course the benefits increase is the more children you have,
just like with welfare. So we haven't really provided much
of an incentive for people to get off of the
food stamps or in this case, of the SNAP benefits,
and we allow them to continue to get them for
(04:19):
the rest of their lives virtually as long as they
are exempt from having to meet the other requirements. The
other thing that we don't necessarily do You don't necessarily
have to be a United States citizen to qualify for
SNAP benefits. All you have to be is here legally,
So you could be somebody who's here legally from a
foreign country and you can go ahead and collect government
(04:41):
benefits like the SNAP benefits. Is that what we want
to have going on. Do we want to have those
who do pay taxes in this country, who are citizens
in this country, providing for people from other countries to
live basically free here in the United States to get
to these government benefits. I don't think we do. There
(05:04):
are reforms in the big Beautiful Bill regarding the SNAP program,
But I think if we were all left our own devices,
if we had a role in the decision making process,
if we could set the rules for what it would
be for SNAP, then we would probably set different rules
in the government. Now now I realize, in the case
of this woman I saw in Fox twenty six, it's
(05:25):
not the children's fault. I'm not trying to punish children.
I'm not trying to starve children. I'm trying to be
sensitive to those children's needs. After all, they're here through
no fault of their own. But we have to figure
out how we're going to stop incentivizing people to have
children so that they can continue to get government benefits.
(05:47):
It just happens way too much. It's a cycle of
poverty and government assistance that goes on and on and
on and on from generation to generation. So I invited
our listeners this morning in the morning show to come
up with some ideas on ways that you if you
weren't the king or queen to the president or whatever,
how would you reform SNAP.
Speaker 6 (06:08):
This is Henry from Spring. If I were king, and
what I would do about SNAP benefits is hand out
job applications to all of the people that are out
there protesting about the shutdown and their SNAP benefits being
in jeopardy. That is the first thing.
Speaker 7 (06:27):
I would do.
Speaker 6 (06:28):
Hi, it's Carol from Cyprus.
Speaker 8 (06:29):
If I was in charge, I would put a time
limit on SNAP benefits like unemployment benefits, say one hundred weeks.
It's temporary help, not full time welfare.
Speaker 9 (06:39):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
This is Teresa from Snook. Great question this morning, mister Jimmy.
I've been waiting for this one. If I was the president,
the SNAP program would have a two year limit unless
you had a medical reason why you could not work
and any children that you had when you got on
the program or the only children covered.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Jimmy, we need to learn how to recognize straud in
assistance that are going to volunteer for a department christ which.
Speaker 9 (07:06):
Gives every gearings and beautiful fancy neighborhoods with fancy cars
and during yards and nice.
Speaker 7 (07:12):
Neighborhoods to be myself with.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Is the other thing is I've worked for a disest
except with medicaid.
Speaker 10 (07:18):
Is a form of payment.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Hears and letters?
Speaker 11 (07:20):
Would we have in and need how they've just been
to get a pedicure and they have photos that they
have fancy cars.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
It's just not right.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
No, it's not It really isn't right. And thus the
suggestion that we find ways to remove the fraud, we
find ways to I have no problem, by the way,
finding ways to require that only certain items can be
used for SNAP benefits. Do you know what the number
one selling item is, the number one thing that people
(07:51):
use their SNAP benefits to buy. It's soda. Yeah, SODA's
number one. Oh, by the way, one of the calls,
they're mentioned unless you're on disability, the woman in the
story not. I thought of that. The woman in the
story was on quote unquote medical disability. Now, she looked
(08:13):
perfectly healthy to me. She needed to be getting around
just fine. That's another area of reform where we would
have to go in there and say, okay, before you
can claim disability, all right, let's make sure you truly
are disabled.
Speaker 8 (08:27):
This is Escian Spring. I agree with Jimmy. They got Snap,
they got EBT. I'm working. I don't mind helping people,
but why does that mean we need to help them
for their whole lives. It's just another job for them
by politicians.
Speaker 7 (08:43):
Hey, Jimmy Montgomery, Dave here. My biggest issue is this
whole marketing campaign where an now it's called Snap instead
of just playing food damps, and it was meant to
I believe it was meant to take away the embarrassment.
It's like, well, maybe part of that embarrassment would help
people actually get off their asses and find job. I
know there's a lot of people that deserve them, deserve
(09:06):
the benefits and everything, but it's meant to be a
temporary between jobs, that sort of thing. Jimmy, this is
Mike and Alvin.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
It's pretty straightforward to me.
Speaker 7 (09:15):
If the number, if the choices of the staples was
severely limited, that would make people self regulated.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
Well and there you get done not being able to
use soda, right, use your Snap benefits to buy soda. Yeah,
it would have to be. I would say, it would
have to be for like proteins and that's it, you know,
actual protein food items nutritious food. You can't use it
to buy back some box of macaroni cheese. You'd have
(09:44):
to use it to buy things that are you know,
can be made into nutritious foods. Is there anything nutritious
about soda? Am I missing out of anything there? No?
I didn't think so. All right, let's grab a couple
more before we move on to a different topic.
Speaker 12 (09:56):
Hey, Jimmy, it's Jason from San Antonio. I know it's
a little bit in the show, but I'm a little
bit intimately familiar with the way that these Snap benefits work.
That mama with those children, there's a very strong likelihood
that she's selling those Snap benefits for half of face
(10:18):
value to buy things that she wants and not providing
food for the children.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Good morning, Jimmy.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
This is Etna from Summerwood.
Speaker 13 (10:26):
Probably not a popular opinion, but I say we start
Spain and neuter in a whole lot of people.
Speaker 6 (10:32):
That'll solve the whole Snap benefit problem.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Okay, you stand alone on that one, dear, I'm sorry,
I can't. I can't join you on that one. No,
I'm the Spain neuter part.
Speaker 7 (10:44):
No.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
I understand the temptation of saying that but no, that's
not the answer. The answer is to remove the fraud
and to make it infinitely more difficult in order to
get the benefits, to make sure that the people we
give the benefits to really truly do qualify for them. Right,
quick little break back with morting moment, Jimmy Barrett show
here an AM nine fifty KPRC. All right, so, last second,
(11:23):
we were talking about the snap benefits and the rules
that we would make if we were in charge and
we could make rules changes and if we could somehow
make the program accountable. When you have forty two over
forty two million people on a program like that, I mean,
the sheer size of the program means that there's way, way,
way more people who are on the program that could
(11:45):
ever possibly be investigated or vetted. So I you know,
it's probably in almost an impossible task to try to
weed out all of the frauding corruption. But when you
have one hundred billion dollars a year program, you have
to find a way to do that and and to
(12:06):
hold people accountable and to punish those, by the way
who you do find that are committing fraud. That's that's
always the ultimate if you do if you find enough
people who have committed fraud, and you prosecute them for
committing fraud and make them pay a penalty or a
in this case a perhaps do a little jail time
for committing that fraud. Then a lot of that fraud
(12:29):
has a tendency to go away, unless, of course, you
want to go to jail, and I'd like to think
that most people still don't want to go to jail. Anyway,
we had Congressman chip Roy, who's also running for Attorney
General here in Texas. We had Congressman chip Roy on
the show this morning and we talked to him about
the government shutdown and about the SNAP program and changes
(12:50):
that could or should be made. Here's my conversation with
Congressman chip Roy. Is this an opportunity but the government
shut down to make some changes?
Speaker 10 (12:57):
Well, great to be on the show. I mean, first
of all, you know, look, let's be very clear, and
I think you know this. The Democrats are the ones
that are chosen to shut down. And you know, all
we need are five Democrats in the Senate to join
with us to do what we did over a month ago,
which is fun to continue in resolution through November twentieth.
We're going to have to now go back and maybe
pass one that's longer because they refuse to do their job.
(13:19):
We're now running the clock out on the November twentieth date.
But to the question of snap benefits, this is the consequence, right,
we made reforms in the big beautiful Bill that the
vast majority of the American people wanted.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
Us to make.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
We have work requirements in place.
Speaker 10 (13:34):
We rooted out a lot of fraud and abuse by
making reforms to the system that would save money in
the long term on snap benefits but still provide benefits
to those who most need it. But we still have
significant reforms that we need.
Speaker 4 (13:48):
To look at.
Speaker 10 (13:50):
What percentage of the people on welfare, including snap benefits,
we're getting those that are saved fur and born that
are potentially illegal aliens. Certainly, this mass of the immigrant
population that is dumped into our country, both through illegal
and legal immigration, how many of them are using up
a lot of these resources. There are other reforms we've
(14:12):
got to look at that you're alluding to that is
getting the lights shown on it by virtue of the shutdown.
And look, I will say this, Democrats are forcing this shutdown.
What that does is forces Donald Trump and my friend
Rusfo who's the head of the Office of Management Budget
to prioritize spending and have to go through with a
fine tooth comb. So for me, look, if they want
(14:33):
to play this game, then be careful what you ask for.
We ought to be going through this with a fine
tooth comb and making the reforms that are necessary so
that we're making it more efficient, effective, and affordable, because
we're racking up debt as we speak. We cracked the
thirty eight trillion dollar mark and we're still piling on debt,
notwithstanding the fact that we made some good progress in
(14:53):
the big beautiful Bill to peel back some of the
wasteful spending.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
I wonder too at this point, you know, obviously your
average American, if if he's if your average America is
going to be traveling between now and let's say Christmas,
if the government shut down doesn't get solved, they're gonna
probably have a flight delayed or maybe even canceled because
of you know what we have going on with their
traffic control and and and people not showing up for
work because they're not getting a paycheck. Does that put
(15:21):
more pressure on Republicans or does that put more pressure
on Democrats.
Speaker 10 (15:26):
Well, look, I think this is gonna be one of
those things that plays out. I think Democrats are starting
to see that their positioning on this is not that popular,
and the you know, the polling is showing that people
are realizing, we've done our job, We're doing our part.
They're refusing. And as this continues to unfold and people
are getting hit where TSA is not getting paid, as
(15:47):
you say, traffic starts to pile up them. Look, Thanksgiving,
what is not the most traveled day of the year,
the day before Thanksgiving? Oh yeah, so you're gonna have
people getting very frustrated. If lines are stacking up TSA,
if flights are get and canceled, and then if benefits
aren't flowing, if veterans are being impacted, if you know,
some of these staff benefits aren't flowing, people are gonna
(16:08):
be getting frustrated. Now there'll be a lot of blame
game and finger pointing. Our position is simple. We passed
a bill. There was a clean funding bill keeping government
funded at current levels, which were the levels that Joe
Biden last approved. That's insane for Democrats to say, oh,
we're going to shut down the government over that new
Gingridge put it well when he said, look, the American
(16:30):
people don't like shutdowns. Well, look at someone who's been
a part of shutdown debates. You know this from a
conservative place where I've said, guys, I don't want to fund.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
Whatever that is.
Speaker 10 (16:40):
I say, I've not wanted to fund the implementation of Obamacare.
When Ted Cruz took to the Florida to filibuster for
you know, twenty four hours, I've said I didn't want
to fund, you know, the the mass importation of people
with wide open borders. But okay, they're going into this
saying we we we're going to shut down the because
(17:00):
why because they want to give four hundred billion dollars
to insurance companies. Nobody likes insurance companies so well, subsidies
are for people, No, they're not. These subsidies go to
insurance companies. And the hope is that it might affect premiums.
But the last time I checked, all of our premiums
have gone up because it's an inflationary broken system. They're
(17:22):
holding us hostage to a broken healthcare system, and now
they're holding the government hostage to try to play a
game to fix the healthcare system. They broke they I
don't think that's a winning message for them.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
They seem to think this gives them leverage. Congressman Roy,
how does this give them leverage?
Speaker 10 (17:37):
What they're doing, Well, they're looking for leverage and they're
they're they're trying to find the leverage, and there's a
difference that doesn't necessarily give them leverage. They don't have
anything to run on next year. That's the simple truth,
and so they're dying to find something. They're trying to
find footing. So they're creating chaos in hopes that they
(17:59):
can land in an area where they can get a
footing to go on offense, they're failing on most every issue.
They've failed on the border, they're failing on the woke stuff.
They're failing on the DEI and the transgender garbage. They're
failing really on their overseas policy. The president's doing a
great job trying to deliver peace in the Middle East
and other things to position us. So they don't have
(18:20):
much to run on except Donald Trump bad and oh gosh,
let's go try to have a healthcare fight because we've
had some success on that. Yeah, well, I think the
gig is up and the American people are going, wait
a minute, my healthcare is really expensive, and I kind
of like what the president's doing, So why are you
shutting the government down?
Speaker 4 (18:37):
I hope you're right about So you're right, Yeah, that's
where they are. The hell I would I completely agree
with this assessment. What we what the unknown factor is
here is does the vast majority of American people do?
Does the vast majority see this as well? We see it,
We see it clearly, but that doesn't mean that everybody does.
(18:58):
Maybe we'll get a clue from election next week on
how the voting turnout is and who people vote for.
You know, there's not a lot of things to vote for,
at least in Texas the propositions, and there's some important
ones in there, so I remind you about that if
you haven't already voted. All right. I think basically what
chip Roy was saying there in in general is that
(19:23):
the kind of the Democrats have lost their way. They
kind of lost their brand. You know, they certainly lost
the brand that they used to be known for. You know,
the Republicans used to be the party of the rich
and the Democrats were the party of the working man.
Now that the Democrats seem to be the party of
the white intellectual liberal and not a whole lot of
(19:45):
anything else. Here's Jesse Waters on his show talking about this.
Speaker 13 (19:49):
According to a new center Left group's report, left wing
ideas have wrecked the Democrats brand and they've only grown
with self described white liberals.
Speaker 5 (19:59):
A real shocker, right.
Speaker 13 (20:00):
Most voters believe Democrats over prioritize issues like protecting the
rights of LGBTQ plus Americans and fighting climate change while
not caring about securing the border or lowering the rate
of crime. And nowhere better is this illustrated than the
beef between Riley Gaines and AOC. Gaines says America is
being destroyed from within by AOC Bernie and Zoora on
(20:22):
the destroyer. AOC snipe back, saying this, maybe if you
channeled all this anger into swimming faster, you wouldn't have
come in fifth. And now, Gaines says, let's settle this
beef with a battle of the wits.
Speaker 14 (20:37):
I want to honestly challenge AOC to a debate. She
can defend socialism, I will defend capitalism. She can defend
removing God. I will defend embracing a biblical worldview. She
can defend child sacrifice. I will defend the sanctity of life,
any of the radical, insane democratic policies and platform that
they stand for. I will debate the opposite. I'm challenging
(20:59):
AOC to it here.
Speaker 5 (21:00):
But here's what Gaines would be up against in a debate.
Speaker 11 (21:03):
This city was built by the Irish escaping famine, Italians
fleeing fascism, choose escaping Holocaust, Black Americans fling sand slavery
and Jim Crow, Latinos and seeking a better life, Native
people standing for themselves, Asian Americans coming together in Queens
(21:26):
in Brooklyn, brooceand it's Satin Island in this country.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
What seems to whip up the crowd is just you know,
shouting loudly if if you're if you're on the left,
and you know, it seems to work for her, doesn't it.
It's amazing how popular she has become. And you know, socialism,
I think is getting a pretty firm hole in New
York City and maybe some other places in the North.
Think New Jersey though, will go Republican and they're race less. Hope,
(21:58):
So all right, quick little break stick around back with
more in a moment Jimmy Baird Show here on AM
nine to fifty KPRC. We are going to begin our
(22:23):
third segment today with what I would.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Call a.
Speaker 4 (22:28):
What would I call this? I would call this a dilemma,
a political dilemma, And I know how this will react
for a lot of people. There's a couple of different
sides of this. Let me put it this way. What
I should do is just set this up, play it
(22:48):
for you, and I'll explain what I mean by a dilemma.
There are members of the Biden administration that are currently
providing testimony to the High House regarding the cognitive condition
of then President Joe Biden and the auto pen and
(23:09):
all that stuff. And one of them that was questioned
is one of Biden was one of Biden's top advisors.
His name is Mike Donalin, and Mike Donalin was paid
four million dollars to run the Biden reelection campaign. Now
(23:33):
that money, no doubt came from the Democrat Party. So
you know who am I to say what it's worth
to hire somebody to run your presidential campaign. I have
no idea what the President Trump spent on his presidential campaign,
but in this particular case, you are one of Biden's
(23:53):
top advisors. You have to know because you work with
this guy intimately, you have to know his condition and
how he is slipping. This is not for the first campaign,
by the way, this is not for the original election campaign.
This is for re electing President Biden. He has signed
on for four million dollars to run the campaign to
(24:15):
re elect Joe Biden. At this point, you know that
what you're dealing with here is a candidate that has
a cognitive problem. So I guess here's the question. Are
you trying to re elect Joe Biden because you really
believe he's the best person for the job, or that
(24:36):
he's still qualified to do the job, or are you
doing it for some other reason? And if as you
take a listen to this, you find out maybe what
the reason was, and it's not even about power, it's
about money. Now, there's some pauses in here because he's
clearly this mcdonaldin guy is clearly very uncommonmfortable with the
(25:01):
questions he's being asked. So but I thought it was
important to leave the pauses in there so you can
hear how he's kind of struggling with answering the questions.
That the committee has for him. Mike Donalan gets asked
about the Biden reelection campaign and getting paid for it.
Speaker 9 (25:19):
Just to be clear, with the amount of pay you've
received for your role in the campaign, would that have
changed depending on how far into the race President Biden
made it?
Speaker 10 (25:43):
Since?
Speaker 9 (25:43):
Is that.
Speaker 10 (25:49):
That him?
Speaker 12 (26:05):
And in my view of the the the money was.
Speaker 10 (26:17):
That to It was a.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
Guarantee that cameaign that we had a negotiation and as
my memory of care.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
W I received uh a boneus depending on the way
the campaign went.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Was a possibility.
Speaker 5 (26:51):
How the campaign went, Were there.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Any circumstances in which you would never received about.
Speaker 10 (26:56):
Us here.
Speaker 15 (27:04):
Te Biden would have been re elected president?
Speaker 8 (27:08):
What was what was the bonus of that?
Speaker 9 (27:16):
I believe it would have been following up get an.
Speaker 6 (27:19):
Issue to the four million dollars, So.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
You are already paid.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Okay, how painful was that? I mean, he's struggling and
trying to rephrase the question, trying very carefully not to
answer the question. The bottom line is the guy got
paid four million dollars to run the Biden reelection campaign,
(27:44):
but there was a four million dollar bonus if Biden
won the election, that's eight million dollars. So you're getting
paid to run a reelection campaign to the tune of
four million dollars. And you, if you can somehow pull
this off so that Biden wins, you get a total
payday of eight million dollars. The financial incentive is there. Evidently,
(28:14):
this is where the moral dilemma comes in. This is
in a perfect world, what would you do? Well? In
a perfect world where power and money don't really matter,
you would say, listen, I don't care what you pay me.
This guy is gone, this guy, this guy is not
there anymore. This guy is not capable of serving another
(28:37):
four years as president of the United States. It would
be morally wrong for me to get this guy re elected.
But who are we trying to kid? I mean, who
are we trying to fool here? Clearly you know they
(28:59):
they're gonna try to get him reelected. He's going to
try to earn his extra money because he he wants
he wants the money, he wants the eight million dollars.
And if if the question is what would you do,
what would what would I do?
Speaker 9 (29:16):
Well?
Speaker 4 (29:16):
We're never going to be presented with that opportunity. But
if you're a typical person, you know making even the
making a six figure salary, and somebody puts this kind
of money in front of you to run a campaign,
you're probably gonna do it, right. So I have a
hard time finding fault with the fact that he's looking
(29:38):
out for him. I mean, can can people be bought?
Speaker 5 (29:41):
Hell?
Speaker 4 (29:41):
Yes, they could be bought. This guy's price was eight
million dollars. He could be bought to just not say anything,
run the campaign and pretend like nothing's wrong. And that's
probably true of most people in the political world. There's
only two things that motivate most politicians or people connected
to politicians, and that's power and money, and the two
(30:06):
go hand in hand. All right, quick will break back
with Morner moment Jimmy Bart show here an Am nine
to fifty KPRC. But the President was in Japan yesterday
(30:32):
and they have their first ever female prime minister who's
a conservative, and they were gett along great. They were
having a good old time. He went and talked to
the Navy on the USS George Washington, and had some
fun things to say. It's only President Trump could say them, like.
Speaker 16 (30:51):
Past administrations, we will not be politically correct.
Speaker 5 (30:55):
You don't mind that to you when it.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Comes to defending the United States, we're no longer politically correct.
Speaker 5 (31:01):
We're going to defend our country any way we have to.
Our ultimate strength does not come from equipment.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
It comes from the men and women of the rank
and file.
Speaker 5 (31:11):
That's true.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
It comes from you people, Incredible people, good looking people,
too many good looking people.
Speaker 5 (31:17):
I don't like good looking people. I never liked good
looking people. I'll be honest with you. I've never admitted
that before. But see I'm allowed to see. You know,
we wanted the Supreme Court a thing based on merit.
Speaker 10 (31:30):
You know about that, right.
Speaker 5 (31:32):
He's saying that Supreme Court is ugly. That's what he's saying.
Speaker 16 (31:35):
Contrast Trump bringing home the bacon for America through trade
and peace with the latest bull crap that the dams
are focused on tampon tam pushing a hoax that the
President's top priority is the White House ballroom.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
I can paint any damn picture you want for you.
Speaker 17 (31:48):
They're paying contractors to tear down the East Wing, but
they're not putting money into the food bank that they're
setting on. And when the White House Press Secretary said
the top priority is the ballroom, we could not disagree.
Speaker 16 (31:58):
More goodness, and Jazzy says Trump policies are killing people surprise.
Speaker 18 (32:05):
I think that the question should be which party is
truly about being pro life, which party is truly about
the entirety of the United States, and which party is
really more patriotic. I'm hoping that all Americans can finally
wake up and say, we are going to prioritize ourselves.
We are going to look for people that maybe we
(32:25):
don't think they're super funny or super entertaining, but they
will not try to deal death to us with every
single policy that they hand out.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
Hang on, did Jasmine Crockett just say that she's more
patriotic and more pro life than we are. That's pretty
that's pretty amazing. But then again, most of what comes
out of her mouth is pretty dog on amazing when
you get right down to it. As far as Trump,
I mean, that's just, you know, that's Trump being Trump.
That's that's who President Trump is. Very funny, very very
(32:59):
very Okay, let's let's see here, what else can we
throw into the mix here before we call to day today,
Let's throw this into the mix, because as long as
we're on the topic of President Trump, he was in Japan,
things went really well. Now he's in South Korea a
meeting with the president chief from from from China where
(33:22):
they supposedly are going to have a trade slash TikTok deal.
But as Larry Kudlow was talking about in his program,
he had a guest on talking about the Chinese and
all the things that the Chinese are doing, laundering money
for the cartel. I mean, the Chinese government is a
criminal organization and they rarely, if ever live up to
(33:44):
any of their agreements. So why in the world do
we worry about making a deal with them when the
reality is they're not probably not gonna live up to
the deal anyway. I think if President Trump is guilty
of anything, it's of maybe being having a little too
much wishful thinking on things like Hamas being able to
be peaceful, or the Chinese government actually doing the right thing.
(34:07):
Here is Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweitzer with Larry
Kudlow talking about China laundering money for the cartel.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
China has been saying no more fatanyl, no more precursor
chemicals for seven years, Peter, Why in God's name should
we believe them?
Speaker 5 (34:25):
Now?
Speaker 3 (34:26):
I'm just I'm going to start with that, that's not
my only thing, but I mean, really, here we go again.
Speaker 15 (34:31):
Yeah, no, you're right, Larry. It's good to be skeptical.
And we also have to remember something else, Larry. Their
involvement in fetanyl is not just these precursor chemicals. There are,
according to our DEA, two thousand Chinese nationals in northern
Mexico that effectively are serving as chemists, providing support to
the drug cartels. The pill presses that the cartels use
(34:55):
to produce this poison and smuggle it across the border.
Those pill presses are made in China, and again according
to the DEA, those are sold by Chinese companies to
the drug cartels at cost.
Speaker 5 (35:07):
And then there's a whole issue of the money laundering.
Speaker 15 (35:09):
The money laundering for the drug cartels used to be
done in Latin American banks. It's now Chinese state owned
banks that do the money laundering.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
So this is really a toss off.
Speaker 15 (35:20):
This really does nothing to the issue, and I hope
that the President keeps pushing hard on it because Joe
Biden certainly didn't do that, and we need to, we
need to deal with China on this issue very firmly.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
The other thing is, look, I mean, China, I guess
we'll get will stop the moratorium on wearers for a year.
Speaker 5 (35:39):
I don't know that.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
Scott Besson says that's part of the framework. Okay, okay, okay,
but that's you know, that's like not a great deal.
And on the other side of the coin, I'm reading
China wants mister Trump to give up Taiwan independence. I
don't think we should give up supporting Taiwan independent. I mean,
that's just what she wants. Why should we help him out?
Speaker 5 (35:59):
Yeah, you know, you're right, Lara.
Speaker 15 (36:00):
I mean, look, what China says they want from the
United States and from the Trump administration is stability. What
that really means is they want they want to stabilize
our dependence on them for critical things, whether that's rrorists,
whether that's pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 5 (36:17):
Let's remember at COVID what they did.
Speaker 15 (36:19):
I wrote about this in a book and researched it extensively.
During COVID they knew two months before they told the
world that COVID was transferable from person to person. They
waited sixty days to tell us. What did they do
in those sixty days? They hoarded Ppe supplies around the
world so they could gain leverage on us. That is
(36:39):
the Rahet regime we're dealing with. So we need to
recognize anything that has agreed upon with China is subject
to further negotiation, and anytime they feel the need to
go back to pressuring us on rarers, pressuring us on pharmaceuticals,
they will do.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
So.
Speaker 15 (36:54):
The agreements really don't create the kind of stability that
I think a lot of investors think it.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
Yeah, I'm afraid he's probably right about that. Like I said,
it's like dealing with a moss. You know, you can't
take them at their word for just about anything. All right, listen,
y'all have a great day. Thanks for listening. I'll see
you tomorrow morning, bright and early, starting at five AM
over our news radio seven forty k t r H.
We are back here at four on AM nine fifty KPRC.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!