June 11, 2025 • 41 mins
Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:
- Corey DeAngelis on the nationwide protests
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, the youth.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Common breaking down the world's nonsense about how American common
sense will.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
See us 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 2 (00:29):
Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
We open up the show today talking about burning the
American flag, which I think most of us, most of
us who consider ourselves patriots, find an abominable thing to
do to burn the American flag.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
But is it is protected free speech whether we like
it or not. The Supreme Court has already ruled on
this issue that burning the American flag is protected free speech.
You are allowed to burn the American flag. And I
don't think after having a Supreme Court ruling to that
fact that it's very likely, even though we have a
more conservative court now, I don't think it is very
(01:04):
likely that anybody who's going to want to go back
and you know, attempt to try to come up with
the law that the Supreme Court might very well again
find unconstitutional. So I thought it was interesting. I don't
know if President Trump is aware of this or not.
Sometimes I think he uh, he said he may have
(01:25):
said this just for effect, just to get everybody riled up.
I think he probably knows as much as anybody else
how the Supreme Court is ruled on flag burning in
the past, and maybe he just once again get us
riled up. He was at Fort Bragg yesterday talking about
the protesting going on in LA and he brought up
the flag burning and what he would like to see happen.
Speaker 6 (01:44):
These are animals, but they proudly carry the flags of
other countries, but they don't carry the American flag.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
They only burn it.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
Did you see a lot of the flags being burned.
They weren't being burned by people from our country, from
people that love our country. People that burn the American
flag should go to jail for one year.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
That's what they should be doing. And we'll see we
can get that done.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
We're going to try and get that done. We're working
with some of your senators. I know Senator Josh Hawley
is very much involved, and I know the two senators
from here. I think you guys, are you guys in
favor of the boy? Would this be a bad time
for them to say no?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I got those two votes.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
Yeah, well, again that best skilled Supreme Court that causes
the problem. So we kind of put into our task
to our morning show listeners today to tell us on
our talkback feature, to tell us what they think would
be appropriate punishment for people burning the American flag. And
here are some of their responses.
Speaker 7 (02:53):
Good morning, mister Barrick. This is Carlos from Porter Texas.
I think burning the America flag in site anger and
a retaliatory response to some people that take pride in
the country and that love the American flag. I think
there should be an appropriate punishment for it. But I
don't think you can go into another country and burn
(03:13):
that nation's flag and get away with it.
Speaker 8 (03:16):
Five years minimum prison time.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Hi, jaman, my name is John.
Speaker 9 (03:20):
I'm gonna retard to Houston firefodder and so in the
city of Houston, it's against the law of burn trash
a city ordinance. Now, if they think it's trash and
they're burning it, there's a ticket coming your way, brother,
That's all I can say.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Write them up. Yeah, how does that play in court? Though?
Speaker 5 (03:40):
Knowing what we know about Houston judges, sometimes you know
they don't they don't want to keep people who've been
charged with murder away from the public. So they're certainly
not going to send you the jail for burning a flag.
Do you think they'll leave in charge with a fine?
You know, you can write the citation, but I don't
(04:00):
know if anybody's gonna bother to want to try to
make good on collecting the money.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Here's the more ideas.
Speaker 10 (04:06):
This is Brady calling from Cleveland, Texas, and yes, burning
the American flag should at least be a misdemeanor. And
if it's not, I can't burn paper towels in the
streets of downtown Houston. At least setting a fire, you
should absolutely go to jail. Thanks guys.
Speaker 11 (04:25):
This is Wes from Bay Cliff. Burning the American flag
is okay. I'm sure there's some law somewhere that starting
a fire on a public road or in a public
place is illegal.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Just give them a year in jail for that.
Speaker 12 (04:41):
I think if someone burns the American flag, they should
get fifty days in jail, one day for every start
and thirteen months probation, one month.
Speaker 13 (04:52):
For every strake.
Speaker 5 (04:53):
That's good. I like that. That's creative. Again, I don't
see us sending anybody to jail though.
Speaker 9 (05:00):
And I say if you burn an American flag, you
are to be forced to look at pictures of Rosio
o'donald naked.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
No, that comes under a cruel and unusual punishment.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
You can't.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
You can't force people to look at pictures that heard naked.
Speaker 8 (05:14):
Yeah, this is a walker from Waller. Many died for
that defending that flag. Anybody burns that flag, they should
be charged with ours. And I don't care who you are.
Have a good day.
Speaker 14 (05:26):
Hey, Jimmy Craig from Swarnee, Georgia. I don't think there
should be a punishment for burning the flag. The only
condition is they wrapped themselves up in at first.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
See how you're getting great? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (05:41):
I mean if you want to burn the American flag, hey,
why don't you go out in flames with it?
Speaker 15 (05:46):
This is John from Dayton. I think if you're caught
burning American flag, you should do at least one hundred
and twenty hours of community service at a veteran cemetery
and then another one hundred and twenty hours community service
at a VIA hospital.
Speaker 13 (06:07):
This is Romberto ad Alubic.
Speaker 16 (06:09):
Anybody caught burning the American flag should have to perform
a community service for veterans for at least thirty days.
Speaker 5 (06:17):
That those are good ideas back to back right there.
You know, maybe spending a little time with their nation's
veterans would make you remember what that flag means to
other people, maybe give you a little sense more of
a sense of appreciation for our nation's history and what
it is our veterans do for us. Although I have
(06:39):
a sneaking suspicion that people are burning the American flag,
they I don't know if they can be rehabilitated. They
have something wrong going on upstairs. They have a mental
health issue. Well, a lot of these progressives have a
mental health issue right now. And I'm not talking just
Trump dominent syndrome, any other.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Ideas protesters burning the American flag.
Speaker 8 (07:03):
First defense, revoke your voting rights.
Speaker 10 (07:05):
Second defense, Send them to Canada.
Speaker 17 (07:07):
Hello, this is Paul from tom Ball. And just like
Trump put reciprocal tariffs on foreign governments, we should do
the same on flag burners. Whatever that country of that
individual would do to us, we should do the same
to them.
Speaker 18 (07:23):
Okay, if that means getting caned, they get camed. If
that means going to jail, that means going to jail.
If that means bitting put under the jail. That means
getting put under the jail.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
So if you're like from Iran and you burn the
American flag, then you should get the same punishment that
you would get in Iran for burning the Iranian flag.
Is that what you're suggesting, because that could be some
serious stuff. I don't know if I know I talked
on the morning show about this. I don't think I
talked on our afternoon show about this at all. Buddy Iran,
(07:54):
I mean, you want to talk about some draconian measures.
You know, they don't like dogs. Evidently they look at
dogs the way some people look at pigs, that they're unclean.
And it used to be pretty much against the law
to own a dog, but people do. But it is
against the law to walk them in public. You're not
allowed to walk your dog in public. It's considered a
(08:17):
public nuisance to walk your dog. I'm not talking about,
you know, picking up dog pooper that kind stuff. I'm
just talking about the presence of the dog. That dog
here on you makes you unclean, for example, So imagine
what kind of penalty that they would have for somebody
who burned their own flag. Now, fortunately, you know we're
(08:38):
assuming here that a lot of these people are not
Americans that are participating in these protests, and I would
not make that assumption. Just because you see people flying
a Mexican flag during these LA protests, for example, or
running around, you know, with their head cover on with
a Mexican flag, don't assume they're from Mexico. A lot
(08:59):
of these are are like ritual white kids from the
suburbs who've been indoctrinated to believe that California is stolen land,
that Arizona is stolen land, the New Mexico is stolen land,
that Texas has stolen land, all taken from Mexico, and
therefore they should be able to be here if they
(09:21):
want to be here, because this is stolen land. Americans
don't really have a right to be here. There's plenty
of people who believe in this. You know, you'll see
plenty of those SIGs. In fact, I saw those signs
at the last Houston protest, you know, about stolen land.
So they have convinced themselves that they have every right
(09:41):
to be here, that this country shouldn't have a border
because this land doesn't belong to this country. Pretty tough
to work with people like that. All right, quick little
break back with more in a moment. Jimmy Barrett Show
here an AM nine fifty KPRC. All right again we
(10:14):
have we have protesting plan by the way, guests coming up.
In our third segment today, Corey to Angelus, senior fellow
with the American Culture Project, to talk about the No
King's protest that will be going on in downtown Houston.
That though King's protests will be going on all around
the country, he will talk to you about how this
thing is not being funded necessarily but certainly is getting
(10:35):
financial help and planning from the head of the American
Federation of Teachers, Randy Weingarten.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (10:42):
Her, so you've got you've got radical teaching element involved
in this. In the in this protest thing's going on,
I think tore their own detriment. By the way, if
more and more people find out that that's the case,
I would hope that the retroution for the American public
will be swift. But you know what, the things you
(11:03):
still have to counter is the mainstream media, and the
mainstream media has been talking about these riots in LA
as if they wouldn't have happened unless President Trump hadn't
sent the National Guard. That's not true. It was already
happening when the president sent the National Guard. That that
is mainly peaceful protesting, it's not. There's been a tremendous
(11:26):
amount of violence involved anyway. Here is especially Oh and
they also want to make comparisons to slavery slave catchers.
That's what they that's what they're calling Ice slave catchers.
They're comparing Ice to slave catchers. Here's a couple of
people from ms NBC and other mainstream outlets with what
they're saying about the protesting and some reaction to it.
Speaker 19 (11:49):
This reminds me historically of the It's not a clear analogy,
but when the nation when when these political factions divided
the nation in between between slavehold the slam catchers.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Trump is militarizing.
Speaker 16 (12:04):
That state as a test run, as a test run
to make sure that he can do it in places
like New York.
Speaker 13 (12:10):
And he's deciding to throw out all the rules. You
know exactly what his intentions are. He is blonde to Berlusconi.
Speaker 20 (12:16):
The media downplays the violence in the man because they
support the cause. You know, they wax poetic about everything,
but the victims, as Harold pointed out, there are victims.
If this were their house, if this was Stelter's house,
he'd be dialing nine one one until his fingers bleed.
He might have been put down a donut to call
nine one one. What I find interesting is how come
(12:38):
these networks aren't interviewing the protesters.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
There's a selective shielding going on.
Speaker 20 (12:44):
They know the protesters are the worst spokesman for the protests,
so as the media will take care of that for you.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
We don't need to interview them.
Speaker 20 (12:53):
We will be I guess the your spokesman and their
delusional commentary, alongside the videos of the rioters and the
arson is a perfect juxtaposition of reality and ideology. You know,
our eyes we can see the destruction, but their mouths
are trying to get into our ears telling us.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
It's mostly peaceful. But there's no better persuasion than the visual.
Speaker 20 (13:17):
Every video strengthens Trump's position and reminds us how wrong
the media was on everything from the Summer of Love
to the fall of Biden.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
You know what's what's really amazing to me, though, is
that the mainstream media somehow thinks that you can't see
with your own eyes what's actually happening. In Los Angeles
and with these these protests, you know, all all all
all MSNBC is is an echo chamber for the ultra
liberal left, who you know, hear what they want to
(13:49):
hear and are fed what they want to hear. I suppose,
if you want to be critical, you could say the
same thing about you know, the conservative stations and and
and programs like all. But the reality is that I believe,
at least clearly that that we are much more right
than they are. Do you believe that what's going on
(14:12):
here is an attempt by President Trump to see if
he can't get into martial law, you know, to to
to put in the Insurrection Act, which of course that
that is I think part of what the progressive left
we would like to see happen with this is to
get the nation protesting enough, with with enough violence that
(14:32):
that Trump would erect would enact the Insurrection Act, which
would give him much more wide branching powers, which would
back up, at least in their mind, would back up
the idea that Trump wants to be king. And uh,
you know what we've got going on here is just
Ice simply trying to go back to doing its job.
(14:54):
What set up everything in LA was a simple raid
at one location looking for illegal criminals and making arrest
of illegal criminals. That's all that happened. It's like what
has happened here in Houston. It's the same thing. Although
yesterday there were three illegals that were rewarded, if you will,
(15:16):
for showing up for their immigration hearing by being immediately deported.
Here is the report of what happened at the Southwest
Houston court House from our television partner KPRC two.
Speaker 21 (15:27):
After speaking to immigrant rights organizations, immigration attorneys, as well
as getting statements from both ICE and the Department from
Land Security, we now have a clear picture of exactly
who ICE agents were targeting at this particular immigration court
off South Gestner and fifty nine in Southwest Houston. First,
here's video of what we saw today. Three people, three
men were arrested. We were told two are from Venezuela,
(15:48):
one is from Mexico. According to an immigration attorney who
was in court, Bianca Santorini, the three men had asylum
claims spending. They had been accused of entering the country illegally,
but were allowed to remain a United States while their
case was pending In court. When they showed up to
court today. According to Santorini, the federal government asked the
judge to dismiss the government's case against the men.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
While on the surface that may.
Speaker 21 (16:10):
Sound like a positive move for these individuals, it actually
means once the cases were dismissed, they no longer had
legal standing to remain in the United States. All three
had been here less than three two years, so they
were subject to expedited removal. When they left the court room,
they were arrested by ICE agents who had administrative warrants
for their arrests. According to the Immigrant Rights Organization FIL,
for other individuals under the same set of circumstances were
(16:33):
arrested yesterday, and that's why both FIL and Immigration attorney
Viaed Gonzalez are now telling people under similar circumstances to
ask a lot more questions when the government asked for
their case to be dismissed against them.
Speaker 11 (16:46):
This individuals should at least be asking to the judge
what dismiss on mean?
Speaker 2 (16:50):
What does this mean? Does this mean that the government
campus who charged us against me?
Speaker 22 (16:54):
Again?
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Does this mean that they're waiting for me outside? And
if they're in disagreement with the decision of the judge.
They can always appeal to a higher court, which would
be the word of immigration appeals.
Speaker 16 (17:04):
Most of these folks, Yes, they may have come illegally,
but at the end of the day, they're not They're
not a thread, they're not anything. Otherwise eyes and their
prosecutors would would go ahead and detain them and deport
them for that reason, not just for the dismissal.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
You know, again, maybe I'm trying to be too simplistic
with this, but it's amazing to me how many how
many times you hear people say, well, they haven't done
anything wrong. They're here illegally, but they haven't done anything wrong.
You know, they they're here illegally, but here's why they
(17:46):
shouldn't be deported. Here's why, you know, here's why they
need to have more due process, here's why whatever you
lose me right after you say they're here illegally, okay,
and the story end of discussion. You know, I realize
that the Biden administration really muddied the waters on this
(18:08):
thing because they were basically saying it's okay to be here,
I legally, we want you here. And now they're dealing
with an administration where the policy is just the opposite.
We only want you here if you're here legally. So
we've we've done a complete one eighty here. And maybe
maybe these folks are watching the politics of this closely
(18:28):
enough to understand the difference between the two administrations. But
but I would have thought that, you know, President Trump's
reputation preceded him and that they would know better. All right,
what more for you this time around? This has to
go back to California here, California went to court. Evidently
Governor Gavenuson went to court and already lost. And this
is in California to try to get the National Guard
(18:50):
removed from his state. They lost that particular case. There'll
be other court cases. But you know Senator John Kennedy,
who never has a problem missing words. I mean, he
basically called it like he saw it. He called Governor
Gavin Newsom maweeny. And in this clip he talks a
little bit about, you know, what's going on in California
(19:13):
and all the things that the governor and the Maxine
Waters and their congressional delegation and all these other folks
in California are doing wrong. Is a relations to this
issue with Ice.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
All of this is why the aliens won't talk to us.
I mean, I see what you see with the American
people see. I mean no disrespect to Congresswoman Waters, but
somebody needs to tell her that the voices in her
head are not real. Point two. I've listened to so
(19:49):
many of my colleagues and members of the media say
that these are mostly peaceful protests. That's like saying that
It's like saying that Harvey Weinstein is mostly a feminist
because he didn't rape every woman who came into his office.
(20:12):
He only raped some of them.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Number Three.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
In terms of Governor Newsom, he's been He's flip flopped
a lot shown on issues, but the governor has been
very consistent on one thing. His antipathy toward the lives
and and uh feelings of ordinary Americans, including public safety.
(20:39):
Governor Newsom is his record shows this. He's the dictionary
definition of weenie. He thinks cops are a bigger problem
than criminals. He thinks if a cop has to shoot
a criminal, it's automatically and always a CoP's fault. But
if a criminal shoots a cop, it's automatically in all
(21:01):
ways the gun's fault. Here's the tip comps'll leave you
alone unless you do illegal stuff. That's what we're seeing
in California. I feel for the people of Los Angeles.
It's a wonderful city. They're wonderful people there. I'm sure
he doesn't see it this way, but Governor Knewsom.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Really, he really.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Owes a debt of gratitude to President Trump because I
think Governor Newsomb dug up more snakes here than he
could kill. He's got a city that is in large
part out of control, and thank god the President and
the federal government sent in troops.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Yeah, too bad, he doesn't see it that way.
Speaker 11 (21:41):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
All right, quick little break. We're back with Warnam.
Speaker 5 (21:43):
Corey de Angelus joins us next, senior fellow of the
American Culture Product to talk about the downtown Houston protesting
and who's behind it, or at least who's helped propping
it up. It's the American Federation of Teachers and their union.
Had Randy Weingard back with him.
Speaker 22 (21:58):
Next, John A nine fifty k p r Sis.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Is with us.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
Corey is a senior fellow with the American Culture Project.
Uh here to talk about the nationwide protesting that's likely
to happen this Saturday is called the No Kings protest,
Like you get it, No Kings as in as if
Trump is some sort of a king. I guess it's
better to be called a king to be called a dictator.
(22:39):
Corey Dangels, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 13 (22:42):
But I mean, if only the teachers unions would fight
this hard to to improve the education system. They're they're
behind these protests. It's called the Nationwide Day of Defiance.
They call for people to quote unquote rise up, and
they have over one thousand events planned for Saturday. And
(23:03):
they actually called on a on a rally yesterday with
Randy Weingarten for people to quote unquote stand in solidarity
with Los Angeles. So they want to they want to
multiply the Los Angeles riots by a thousand. It's insane.
And you know, if the teacher unions didn't already step
on it during COVID, you know, people should really see
(23:26):
that their true intentions here. They're they're more of a
political organization than an education organization. They don't just want
to brainwash their kids in the schools. They want to
change the direction of this country. They want to stow chaos.
They want people rioting on the streets. It's it's totally insane.
They need to back off, especially after what's happening in.
Speaker 5 (23:47):
La So how fart in advance do you think this
thing do you suspect anyway this thing might have been planned?
They say they were waiting. I mean every summertime we
see this happening, you know, the Summer of Love, and
you know, ever since the George Floyd's stuff, it's every
summer they're looking for an excuse to riot in some
of our major cities and to attack the police. So
(24:09):
obviously the Ice raid was just the convenient excuse, right,
And they waited for some place where they knew they'd
have a lot of their quote unquote stormtroopers set up
a place like Los Angeles. Plenty of radicals in Los Angeles.
Speaker 13 (24:23):
Yeah, that's exactly right. And this looks like the Summer
of Love two point zero unfolding. They need to call
it off, They need to back down. They know what's
happening in Los Angeles, and they're explicitly tying their protests
to what's happening in Los Angeles. Right now, there's so
much violence. They can call it mostly peaceful if we want,
if they want, to but we saw that happen in
twenty twenty two. They said fiery but mostly peaceful protests
(24:47):
on CNN. So it's dangerous. People need to be on
the lookout. And it raises the question of why would
the teachers Union to be involved in this in the
first place. Well, one, it's you know, they're an extension
of the Demo Party. Randy Winingarden's union donated ninety nine
percent of their campaign contributions to Democrats in twenty twenty four.
(25:07):
The Democrat Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
teachers Union. But also the teachers Union's benefit antially from
illegal immigration. You have more legal immigrants in the schools.
Public schools are funded based on enrollment. If they have
more people in the schools, they get more money on
a per student basis, whether they're illegal or illegal students,
(25:30):
which goes back to a case from nineteen eighty two
before the Supreme Court, which was a less conservative court
at the time. It was a very split decision five
to four barely ruled that taxpayers all across the country
are forced they must pay for the K to twelve
education of students, whether they are here legally or not.
(25:50):
I don't think the current more conservative Supreme Court would
rule the same way. So lawmakers in Texas or another
red state should file a bill to say, you know,
you could only be entitled to a free public education
here if you're here legally. I think that would pass
both chambers, and I think a governor would sign that,
And if the unions would like to fight that bringing
(26:11):
up the Supreme Court, they could have Filer overturned nationwide.
So there's far reaching implications here. And also public schools
receive more money for students who don't know English. There's
another financial incentives.
Speaker 5 (26:23):
So there's plenty of financial incentives. You mentioned enrollment. I suppose,
if we're going to be technically correct about that, the
schools do not get reimbursed based on enrollment. They get
reimbursed based on attendance. But again, the more students you
have there, and we've already determined here in Texas about
twenty five percent of all the students going to public
(26:44):
schools are the children of the illegal aliens. So if
you have the potential to reduce the burden on our
public school system by up to twenty five percent, then
that that has all sorts of positive financial ramifications for
the State of Texas and local governments. You don't have
to keep building many schools. I mean around here, we're
building schools and we can't keep up because because the
(27:05):
enrollment continues to rise and to rise and to rise.
If you could immediately have an impact of twenty five percent,
not only would you make it a lot more financially
feasible to run our public school system in a place
like Houston, Texas, and save the taxpayers a bunch of
money doing it, but you I mean, at every single level,
(27:26):
you would also take away a big incentive for these
people to come to this country to begin with, exactly.
Speaker 13 (27:33):
And you know, you either can save taxpayer money give
that funding back to the taxpayers, that's the best way
to handle this. Or you know, if you had that
twenty five percent additional funding for the kids who are
here legally, that could increase the per student funding in
Texas from eighteen thousand to about twenty three thousand dollars
per student. That's just just restructuring the same funding that's
(27:55):
already in the system, but allocating it towards kids.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Who are here legally.
Speaker 13 (28:00):
So you know, I think the teachers unions might also
step on the rake if they sue over the school
choice program that excludes students who are here legally for
scholarships for private schools. If they want to sue, this
could go to the Supreme Court too, and perhaps we
overturned Plilo Vdo from nineteen eighty two with our more
conservative court today. It's an interesting thing. We'll see if
(28:22):
it's unfold. But the teachers unions, they haven't learned a
dang thing over the past few years. We've passed school
choice in so many states because they're just overplaying their hand.
They're showing how political they are, and they're doing it
again this weekend. They're planning mass protests nationwide on Saturday.
We know they're not going to be peaceful, even if
(28:43):
they pretend like that's what they would like. We see
what happens is happening in Los Angeles, and this is
free advertising for homeschooling. Do you want these political animals
teaching your kids? They do you want them raising your children.
Not all teachers are bad and all, you know, we
got to be clear about that. But the union leaders
are so political that they're out of step with their membership,
(29:07):
and they're out of step with the American public, fifty
five percent of voters, according to a YUGA survey that
just came out from June, are in support of Trump's
deportation efforts. And guess what, he beat Kamala Harris by
a long shot on education and on immigration. So the
unions are on the wrong side of history here, and
(29:30):
hopefully it's peaceful on Saturday. People need to watch out
and the unions really need to cut it out and
call it off.
Speaker 5 (29:38):
Well, I don't see that happening. I don't know why
they've decided to make this bed for themselves in lie
in it, but this is what they've decided to do.
And I agree with you. I think they're on the
losing side of this proposition. And I'm thinking in states
like Texas, where we are generally more conservative than many
other states, certainly than the Northern states are. We have
teachers here who are conservative or at the very least
(29:59):
are moderate. I'm surprised there is it more of a
revolt in the rank and file of people who are
represented by these unions to take their leadership to task.
Speaker 13 (30:10):
Well, we had a Supreme Court case in twenty eighteen
called the Janice Decision. I'm on Liberty Justice Center's board,
and we represented the main plaintiff, Marchanis in that case.
And now basically every state is a right to work state.
What they found was that union dues and compelling public
school teachers and other public employees to pay for these
(30:33):
union dues to pay, which goes towards political causes, is
a violation of their First Amendment rights because it's compelled
speech that they disagree with that overturned nationwide. So no
one needs to be a part of a union, whether
you're in a red state or a blue state. But
a lot of teachers don't know this, and then one
(30:54):
two do they get bullied at school from the other
employees at the public schools. So it's really to But
if they banded together, they could really send a message
even more than school choice does. If the teachers their
own members send a clear message that we're not going
to stand for this, that you know, Randy Winegarden shouldn't
be railing against my political viewpoints, then maybe the members
(31:19):
could elect someone else besides Randy Winegarden, and maybe they
can defund them by not sending their membership dues. There
what's great about states like Florida is they now have
opt in opten into unions each year into to opt out.
So in order for the union to get your money,
they have to convince you every year to opt into
those membership dues. So I think that would be a
(31:40):
great reform in other states too.
Speaker 5 (31:42):
We're talking to Corey Dangelo's senior fellow with the American
Culture Project. What do you suspect the end game of
all this is what? What do the What does the
progressive left hope is going to happen as a result
of all these protests and likely more to come as
the summer continues. Do they hope there's going to be
national revolting we're revold against ice. Do they hope that
we will blame President Trump for the violence? What do
(32:04):
they hope is going to happen here?
Speaker 13 (32:06):
They're idiots? Because this is going to be they should
rename it from a National Day of Defiance to a
National Day of registering Republican voters. We saw how this
hurt them after the twenty twenty two riots, the Summer
of Love. This is going to hurt them in the
midterms elections. So I think Republicans are sitting back and
saying you know, go ahead, go act like lunatics out
(32:27):
in the streets. This is going to hurt you because
people want to be safe and they're going to vote
that way when they go to the ballot box. They
have Trump's arrangement syndrome on the left. That's not going
to stop them. I don't think they're too worried about
losing votes. They want any excuse to loot, to engage
in criminal activity, and to cause chaos, and they learn
a lot of this crap in the public school system.
(32:49):
They have more activist teachers than ones that want to
focus on the basics. And so you know, this is
all connected between the teachers' unions and what we're seeing
unfold in Los Angeles. When you go through this system
of indoctrination that tells you that, you know, everybody that
disagrees with you is just an evil person. This you know,
(33:14):
school choice and improving the public school system will decrease
the likelihood that things like this happen in the future,
you know. And we now have seventeen states that have
passed universal school choice. Texas was sixteen. New Hampshire just
signed their bill into law yesterday, being number seventeen.
Speaker 5 (33:34):
Our Bill is full of flaws, but you know that,
and that's something we're gonna have to fix going down
the road. But at least it's a start. Corey, I
know you got a plan to cash. Thank you for
your time as always, absolutely, thanks so much, Jimmy, you bet.
Corey Dangelis, Senior Fellow the American Culture Project. Back with
bor in the moment, Jimmy Birschow here an M nine
fifty KPRC.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
All right, a couple of a couple of thoughts about China. Yeah,
I know we don't normally go there.
Speaker 5 (34:14):
But a story that I don't feel like it's gotten
a tremendous amount of coverage and it should is the
story of now a third Chinese national being arrested in
connection with this plot to smuggle this fungus, this this
(34:37):
bio weapon into the United States, a fungal bio weapon,
if you will. And it's really amazing to me that
this hasn't gotten more publicity. The story has kind of
been limited to Michigan at this point because the one
of the Chinese nationals was employed at the University of
(34:58):
Michigan and their research over there, and she was receiving
from a couple of other Chinese nationals, one of whom
Evidentlly's her boyfriend, and by the way, all of the
members of the Communist Party of China this fungus. What
were they planning to do with this fungus? This last
person arrested, by the way, came from Wuhan. Huh yeah, yeah,
(35:19):
the same place that brought us COVID nineteen they were
talking about on the floor of the house yesterday. I mean,
I didn't even seen much of any coverage on what
this fungus supposedly can do. What was the purpose behind
this fungus that they wanted to potentially infiltrate our crops
with corn, wheat, barley, those types of things, things that
(35:42):
we depend on the manufacture food. Pretty clear in my
mind what they wanted to do. But here is Representative
La Malfa on the floor of the house describing what
it is that supposedly this fungus is capable of doing.
Speaker 23 (35:57):
Fungal pathogen known as Fusarium Grammanarium was identified in scientific
literature as being a potential aggre terrorism weapon. This is
what the two Chinese nationals called Young King Jian and
zunyog Lu brought into the country. They smuggled these this
(36:18):
pathogen in via their electronic devices, which contained also evidence
of Chinese Communist Party membership, and the different methods with
which they brought the pathogen in were hidden in whether
it's their devices or in tissues, in various ways of smuggling.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
A past customs.
Speaker 23 (36:44):
Now, we can't imagine what kind of a threat this
would be towards our agricultural production in this country if
something like this was allowed to get loose. They tried
to get it into the University of Michigan through their
test labs there, through the work the university does in agriculture,
and somehow maybe do what infect everything that was going
(37:06):
through Michigan and coming out in the new crops. Some
of the effects on it are in certain grains. It
would be devastating. For example, when wheat and barley maize rice,
indeed for the world's most important staple crops. It would
inflect infect these crops during their flowering stage, which then
reduces the grain yield and the grain quality. The grains
(37:29):
often would pear, shriveled, bleached, or pinkish, making them unusable. Also,
with these mitotoxins in here, you would have an issue
which would cause toxicity humans and animals, which would be
causing them to vomiting, or even worse effects in the
livestock or people that would happen to use it.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
So what would the possible impact be.
Speaker 23 (37:54):
It could be billions of dollars in crop losses globally
each year due to lost yields, contamination, and reach out
in the market. These micatoxins would cause vomiting, as I mentioned,
liver damage, immune suppression, and reproductive defects in both humans
and livestock.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
Sounds nice, huh, So I would think the I don't
know if the intent there is to poison Americans as
much as it is to wipe out crops. And if
you wipe out crops, then you potentially starve the population.
(38:33):
I mean, that's got to be part of it, right,
I would think, you know, that's part of what they
would want to accomplish with this, would be to starve
the population. So that would mean at least two things
that they've done to us so far unleash COVID nineteen
And I don't know if COVID nineteen was like just
to test, let's see how effective we are at getting
(38:57):
this into the United States and what sort of impact
it has on the United States. They certainly saw how
we reacted to it, you know, with all the lockdowns
and all the other things we did during COVID nineteen.
How might we react to, you know, our crops failing.
What kind of chaos would that potentially set off in
(39:20):
the country. I think most of what they're trying to
do would be to distract us from our ability to
respond to whatever it is they want to do, whether
it's attacking Taiwan and taking that over, whether it's taking
over control of the entire South Pacific, maybe maybe all
the way to Hawaii. I think they would like us
(39:40):
gone from the Pacific Ocean. They would they would like
that all to be wide open to them. That certainly
would be part of it, I would guess, and just
generally distract us away from our inability to fight them back.
And they seem to be willing to do almost anything
in order to be able to make that happen, including
(40:02):
poisoning millions of Americans. Are potentially starving millions of Americans
to death, you know, That's that's how hell bent they
are in global domination. And until we you know, take
this even more seriously than we are. Now, these things
are going to continue.
Speaker 13 (40:21):
You know.
Speaker 5 (40:21):
It's like I guess they're working on the we have
some sort of quote unquote framework now, they've been meeting
on a China trade deal, some sort of framework now.
But do you think for one second a country that's
willing to come here and poison your citizens is going
to agree to a tariff deal and then stick to
the agreement. Course not. Cannot be trusted in any way,
(40:46):
shape or form. The Chinese cannot be trusted. All right, y'all,
have a great day. Thank you for listening to sure
to appreciate it. See you tomorrow morning bright in early
five am over our news radio seven forty KTRH. We're
back here at four on a nine to fifty KTRC sor.
Speaker 10 (41:04):
But n hadvanding th
Well, what we need is more common sense, the youth.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Common breaking down the world's nonsense about how American common
sense will.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
See us 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 2 (00:29):
Now here's Jimmy Barrett.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
We open up the show today talking about burning the
American flag, which I think most of us, most of
us who consider ourselves patriots, find an abominable thing to
do to burn the American flag.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
But is it is protected free speech whether we like
it or not. The Supreme Court has already ruled on
this issue that burning the American flag is protected free speech.
You are allowed to burn the American flag. And I
don't think after having a Supreme Court ruling to that
fact that it's very likely, even though we have a
more conservative court now, I don't think it is very
(01:04):
likely that anybody who's going to want to go back
and you know, attempt to try to come up with
the law that the Supreme Court might very well again
find unconstitutional. So I thought it was interesting. I don't
know if President Trump is aware of this or not.
Sometimes I think he uh, he said he may have
(01:25):
said this just for effect, just to get everybody riled up.
I think he probably knows as much as anybody else
how the Supreme Court is ruled on flag burning in
the past, and maybe he just once again get us
riled up. He was at Fort Bragg yesterday talking about
the protesting going on in LA and he brought up
the flag burning and what he would like to see happen.
Speaker 6 (01:44):
These are animals, but they proudly carry the flags of
other countries, but they don't carry the American flag.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
They only burn it.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
Did you see a lot of the flags being burned.
They weren't being burned by people from our country, from
people that love our country. People that burn the American
flag should go to jail for one year.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
That's what they should be doing. And we'll see we
can get that done.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
We're going to try and get that done. We're working
with some of your senators. I know Senator Josh Hawley
is very much involved, and I know the two senators
from here. I think you guys, are you guys in
favor of the boy? Would this be a bad time
for them to say no?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I got those two votes.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
Yeah, well, again that best skilled Supreme Court that causes
the problem. So we kind of put into our task
to our morning show listeners today to tell us on
our talkback feature, to tell us what they think would
be appropriate punishment for people burning the American flag. And
here are some of their responses.
Speaker 7 (02:53):
Good morning, mister Barrick. This is Carlos from Porter Texas.
I think burning the America flag in site anger and
a retaliatory response to some people that take pride in
the country and that love the American flag. I think
there should be an appropriate punishment for it. But I
don't think you can go into another country and burn
(03:13):
that nation's flag and get away with it.
Speaker 8 (03:16):
Five years minimum prison time.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Hi, jaman, my name is John.
Speaker 9 (03:20):
I'm gonna retard to Houston firefodder and so in the
city of Houston, it's against the law of burn trash
a city ordinance. Now, if they think it's trash and
they're burning it, there's a ticket coming your way, brother,
That's all I can say.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Write them up. Yeah, how does that play in court? Though?
Speaker 5 (03:40):
Knowing what we know about Houston judges, sometimes you know
they don't they don't want to keep people who've been
charged with murder away from the public. So they're certainly
not going to send you the jail for burning a flag.
Do you think they'll leave in charge with a fine?
You know, you can write the citation, but I don't
(04:00):
know if anybody's gonna bother to want to try to
make good on collecting the money.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Here's the more ideas.
Speaker 10 (04:06):
This is Brady calling from Cleveland, Texas, and yes, burning
the American flag should at least be a misdemeanor. And
if it's not, I can't burn paper towels in the
streets of downtown Houston. At least setting a fire, you
should absolutely go to jail. Thanks guys.
Speaker 11 (04:25):
This is Wes from Bay Cliff. Burning the American flag
is okay. I'm sure there's some law somewhere that starting
a fire on a public road or in a public
place is illegal.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Just give them a year in jail for that.
Speaker 12 (04:41):
I think if someone burns the American flag, they should
get fifty days in jail, one day for every start
and thirteen months probation, one month.
Speaker 13 (04:52):
For every strake.
Speaker 5 (04:53):
That's good. I like that. That's creative. Again, I don't
see us sending anybody to jail though.
Speaker 9 (05:00):
And I say if you burn an American flag, you
are to be forced to look at pictures of Rosio
o'donald naked.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
No, that comes under a cruel and unusual punishment.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
You can't.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
You can't force people to look at pictures that heard naked.
Speaker 8 (05:14):
Yeah, this is a walker from Waller. Many died for
that defending that flag. Anybody burns that flag, they should
be charged with ours. And I don't care who you are.
Have a good day.
Speaker 14 (05:26):
Hey, Jimmy Craig from Swarnee, Georgia. I don't think there
should be a punishment for burning the flag. The only
condition is they wrapped themselves up in at first.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
See how you're getting great? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (05:41):
I mean if you want to burn the American flag, hey,
why don't you go out in flames with it?
Speaker 15 (05:46):
This is John from Dayton. I think if you're caught
burning American flag, you should do at least one hundred
and twenty hours of community service at a veteran cemetery
and then another one hundred and twenty hours community service
at a VIA hospital.
Speaker 13 (06:07):
This is Romberto ad Alubic.
Speaker 16 (06:09):
Anybody caught burning the American flag should have to perform
a community service for veterans for at least thirty days.
Speaker 5 (06:17):
That those are good ideas back to back right there.
You know, maybe spending a little time with their nation's
veterans would make you remember what that flag means to
other people, maybe give you a little sense more of
a sense of appreciation for our nation's history and what
it is our veterans do for us. Although I have
(06:39):
a sneaking suspicion that people are burning the American flag,
they I don't know if they can be rehabilitated. They
have something wrong going on upstairs. They have a mental
health issue. Well, a lot of these progressives have a
mental health issue right now. And I'm not talking just
Trump dominent syndrome, any other.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Ideas protesters burning the American flag.
Speaker 8 (07:03):
First defense, revoke your voting rights.
Speaker 10 (07:05):
Second defense, Send them to Canada.
Speaker 17 (07:07):
Hello, this is Paul from tom Ball. And just like
Trump put reciprocal tariffs on foreign governments, we should do
the same on flag burners. Whatever that country of that
individual would do to us, we should do the same
to them.
Speaker 18 (07:23):
Okay, if that means getting caned, they get camed. If
that means going to jail, that means going to jail.
If that means bitting put under the jail. That means
getting put under the jail.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
So if you're like from Iran and you burn the
American flag, then you should get the same punishment that
you would get in Iran for burning the Iranian flag.
Is that what you're suggesting, because that could be some
serious stuff. I don't know if I know I talked
on the morning show about this. I don't think I
talked on our afternoon show about this at all. Buddy Iran,
(07:54):
I mean, you want to talk about some draconian measures.
You know, they don't like dogs. Evidently they look at
dogs the way some people look at pigs, that they're unclean.
And it used to be pretty much against the law
to own a dog, but people do. But it is
against the law to walk them in public. You're not
allowed to walk your dog in public. It's considered a
(08:17):
public nuisance to walk your dog. I'm not talking about,
you know, picking up dog pooper that kind stuff. I'm
just talking about the presence of the dog. That dog
here on you makes you unclean, for example, So imagine
what kind of penalty that they would have for somebody
who burned their own flag. Now, fortunately, you know we're
(08:38):
assuming here that a lot of these people are not
Americans that are participating in these protests, and I would
not make that assumption. Just because you see people flying
a Mexican flag during these LA protests, for example, or
running around, you know, with their head cover on with
a Mexican flag, don't assume they're from Mexico. A lot
(08:59):
of these are are like ritual white kids from the
suburbs who've been indoctrinated to believe that California is stolen land,
that Arizona is stolen land, the New Mexico is stolen land,
that Texas has stolen land, all taken from Mexico, and
therefore they should be able to be here if they
(09:21):
want to be here, because this is stolen land. Americans
don't really have a right to be here. There's plenty
of people who believe in this. You know, you'll see
plenty of those SIGs. In fact, I saw those signs
at the last Houston protest, you know, about stolen land.
So they have convinced themselves that they have every right
(09:41):
to be here, that this country shouldn't have a border
because this land doesn't belong to this country. Pretty tough
to work with people like that. All right, quick little
break back with more in a moment. Jimmy Barrett Show
here an AM nine fifty KPRC. All right again we
(10:14):
have we have protesting plan by the way, guests coming up.
In our third segment today, Corey to Angelus, senior fellow
with the American Culture Project, to talk about the No
King's protest that will be going on in downtown Houston.
That though King's protests will be going on all around
the country, he will talk to you about how this
thing is not being funded necessarily but certainly is getting
(10:35):
financial help and planning from the head of the American
Federation of Teachers, Randy Weingarten.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (10:42):
Her, so you've got you've got radical teaching element involved
in this. In the in this protest thing's going on,
I think tore their own detriment. By the way, if
more and more people find out that that's the case,
I would hope that the retroution for the American public
will be swift. But you know what, the things you
(11:03):
still have to counter is the mainstream media, and the
mainstream media has been talking about these riots in LA
as if they wouldn't have happened unless President Trump hadn't
sent the National Guard. That's not true. It was already
happening when the president sent the National Guard. That that
is mainly peaceful protesting, it's not. There's been a tremendous
(11:26):
amount of violence involved anyway. Here is especially Oh and
they also want to make comparisons to slavery slave catchers.
That's what they that's what they're calling Ice slave catchers.
They're comparing Ice to slave catchers. Here's a couple of
people from ms NBC and other mainstream outlets with what
they're saying about the protesting and some reaction to it.
Speaker 19 (11:49):
This reminds me historically of the It's not a clear analogy,
but when the nation when when these political factions divided
the nation in between between slavehold the slam catchers.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Trump is militarizing.
Speaker 16 (12:04):
That state as a test run, as a test run
to make sure that he can do it in places
like New York.
Speaker 13 (12:10):
And he's deciding to throw out all the rules. You
know exactly what his intentions are. He is blonde to Berlusconi.
Speaker 20 (12:16):
The media downplays the violence in the man because they
support the cause. You know, they wax poetic about everything,
but the victims, as Harold pointed out, there are victims.
If this were their house, if this was Stelter's house,
he'd be dialing nine one one until his fingers bleed.
He might have been put down a donut to call
nine one one. What I find interesting is how come
(12:38):
these networks aren't interviewing the protesters.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
There's a selective shielding going on.
Speaker 20 (12:44):
They know the protesters are the worst spokesman for the protests,
so as the media will take care of that for you.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
We don't need to interview them.
Speaker 20 (12:53):
We will be I guess the your spokesman and their
delusional commentary, alongside the videos of the rioters and the
arson is a perfect juxtaposition of reality and ideology. You know,
our eyes we can see the destruction, but their mouths
are trying to get into our ears telling us.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
It's mostly peaceful. But there's no better persuasion than the visual.
Speaker 20 (13:17):
Every video strengthens Trump's position and reminds us how wrong
the media was on everything from the Summer of Love
to the fall of Biden.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
You know what's what's really amazing to me, though, is
that the mainstream media somehow thinks that you can't see
with your own eyes what's actually happening. In Los Angeles
and with these these protests, you know, all all all
all MSNBC is is an echo chamber for the ultra
liberal left, who you know, hear what they want to
(13:49):
hear and are fed what they want to hear. I suppose,
if you want to be critical, you could say the
same thing about you know, the conservative stations and and
and programs like all. But the reality is that I believe,
at least clearly that that we are much more right
than they are. Do you believe that what's going on
(14:12):
here is an attempt by President Trump to see if
he can't get into martial law, you know, to to
to put in the Insurrection Act, which of course that
that is I think part of what the progressive left
we would like to see happen with this is to
get the nation protesting enough, with with enough violence that
(14:32):
that Trump would erect would enact the Insurrection Act, which
would give him much more wide branching powers, which would
back up, at least in their mind, would back up
the idea that Trump wants to be king. And uh,
you know what we've got going on here is just
Ice simply trying to go back to doing its job.
(14:54):
What set up everything in LA was a simple raid
at one location looking for illegal criminals and making arrest
of illegal criminals. That's all that happened. It's like what
has happened here in Houston. It's the same thing. Although
yesterday there were three illegals that were rewarded, if you will,
(15:16):
for showing up for their immigration hearing by being immediately deported.
Here is the report of what happened at the Southwest
Houston court House from our television partner KPRC two.
Speaker 21 (15:27):
After speaking to immigrant rights organizations, immigration attorneys, as well
as getting statements from both ICE and the Department from
Land Security, we now have a clear picture of exactly
who ICE agents were targeting at this particular immigration court
off South Gestner and fifty nine in Southwest Houston. First,
here's video of what we saw today. Three people, three
men were arrested. We were told two are from Venezuela,
(15:48):
one is from Mexico. According to an immigration attorney who
was in court, Bianca Santorini, the three men had asylum
claims spending. They had been accused of entering the country illegally,
but were allowed to remain a United States while their
case was pending In court. When they showed up to
court today. According to Santorini, the federal government asked the
judge to dismiss the government's case against the men.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
While on the surface that may.
Speaker 21 (16:10):
Sound like a positive move for these individuals, it actually
means once the cases were dismissed, they no longer had
legal standing to remain in the United States. All three
had been here less than three two years, so they
were subject to expedited removal. When they left the court room,
they were arrested by ICE agents who had administrative warrants
for their arrests. According to the Immigrant Rights Organization FIL,
for other individuals under the same set of circumstances were
(16:33):
arrested yesterday, and that's why both FIL and Immigration attorney
Viaed Gonzalez are now telling people under similar circumstances to
ask a lot more questions when the government asked for
their case to be dismissed against them.
Speaker 11 (16:46):
This individuals should at least be asking to the judge
what dismiss on mean?
Speaker 2 (16:50):
What does this mean? Does this mean that the government
campus who charged us against me?
Speaker 22 (16:54):
Again?
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Does this mean that they're waiting for me outside? And
if they're in disagreement with the decision of the judge.
They can always appeal to a higher court, which would
be the word of immigration appeals.
Speaker 16 (17:04):
Most of these folks, Yes, they may have come illegally,
but at the end of the day, they're not They're
not a thread, they're not anything. Otherwise eyes and their
prosecutors would would go ahead and detain them and deport
them for that reason, not just for the dismissal.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
You know, again, maybe I'm trying to be too simplistic
with this, but it's amazing to me how many how
many times you hear people say, well, they haven't done
anything wrong. They're here illegally, but they haven't done anything wrong.
You know, they they're here illegally, but here's why they
(17:46):
shouldn't be deported. Here's why, you know, here's why they
need to have more due process, here's why whatever you
lose me right after you say they're here illegally, okay,
and the story end of discussion. You know, I realize
that the Biden administration really muddied the waters on this
(18:08):
thing because they were basically saying it's okay to be here,
I legally, we want you here. And now they're dealing
with an administration where the policy is just the opposite.
We only want you here if you're here legally. So
we've we've done a complete one eighty here. And maybe
maybe these folks are watching the politics of this closely
(18:28):
enough to understand the difference between the two administrations. But
but I would have thought that, you know, President Trump's
reputation preceded him and that they would know better. All right,
what more for you this time around? This has to
go back to California here, California went to court. Evidently
Governor Gavenuson went to court and already lost. And this
is in California to try to get the National Guard
(18:50):
removed from his state. They lost that particular case. There'll
be other court cases. But you know Senator John Kennedy,
who never has a problem missing words. I mean, he
basically called it like he saw it. He called Governor
Gavin Newsom maweeny. And in this clip he talks a
little bit about, you know, what's going on in California
(19:13):
and all the things that the governor and the Maxine
Waters and their congressional delegation and all these other folks
in California are doing wrong. Is a relations to this
issue with Ice.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
All of this is why the aliens won't talk to us.
I mean, I see what you see with the American
people see. I mean no disrespect to Congresswoman Waters, but
somebody needs to tell her that the voices in her
head are not real. Point two. I've listened to so
(19:49):
many of my colleagues and members of the media say
that these are mostly peaceful protests. That's like saying that
It's like saying that Harvey Weinstein is mostly a feminist
because he didn't rape every woman who came into his office.
(20:12):
He only raped some of them.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Number Three.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
In terms of Governor Newsom, he's been He's flip flopped
a lot shown on issues, but the governor has been
very consistent on one thing. His antipathy toward the lives
and and uh feelings of ordinary Americans, including public safety.
(20:39):
Governor Newsom is his record shows this. He's the dictionary
definition of weenie. He thinks cops are a bigger problem
than criminals. He thinks if a cop has to shoot
a criminal, it's automatically and always a CoP's fault. But
if a criminal shoots a cop, it's automatically in all
(21:01):
ways the gun's fault. Here's the tip comps'll leave you
alone unless you do illegal stuff. That's what we're seeing
in California. I feel for the people of Los Angeles.
It's a wonderful city. They're wonderful people there. I'm sure
he doesn't see it this way, but Governor Knewsom.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Really, he really.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Owes a debt of gratitude to President Trump because I
think Governor Newsomb dug up more snakes here than he
could kill. He's got a city that is in large
part out of control, and thank god the President and
the federal government sent in troops.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Yeah, too bad, he doesn't see it that way.
Speaker 11 (21:41):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
All right, quick little break. We're back with Warnam.
Speaker 5 (21:43):
Corey de Angelus joins us next, senior fellow of the
American Culture Product to talk about the downtown Houston protesting
and who's behind it, or at least who's helped propping
it up. It's the American Federation of Teachers and their union.
Had Randy Weingard back with him.
Speaker 22 (21:58):
Next, John A nine fifty k p r Sis.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Is with us.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
Corey is a senior fellow with the American Culture Project.
Uh here to talk about the nationwide protesting that's likely
to happen this Saturday is called the No Kings protest,
Like you get it, No Kings as in as if
Trump is some sort of a king. I guess it's
better to be called a king to be called a dictator.
(22:39):
Corey Dangels, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 13 (22:42):
But I mean, if only the teachers unions would fight
this hard to to improve the education system. They're they're
behind these protests. It's called the Nationwide Day of Defiance.
They call for people to quote unquote rise up, and
they have over one thousand events planned for Saturday. And
(23:03):
they actually called on a on a rally yesterday with
Randy Weingarten for people to quote unquote stand in solidarity
with Los Angeles. So they want to they want to
multiply the Los Angeles riots by a thousand. It's insane.
And you know, if the teacher unions didn't already step
on it during COVID, you know, people should really see
(23:26):
that their true intentions here. They're they're more of a
political organization than an education organization. They don't just want
to brainwash their kids in the schools. They want to
change the direction of this country. They want to stow chaos.
They want people rioting on the streets. It's it's totally insane.
They need to back off, especially after what's happening in.
Speaker 5 (23:47):
La So how fart in advance do you think this
thing do you suspect anyway this thing might have been planned?
They say they were waiting. I mean every summertime we
see this happening, you know, the Summer of Love, and
you know, ever since the George Floyd's stuff, it's every
summer they're looking for an excuse to riot in some
of our major cities and to attack the police. So
(24:09):
obviously the Ice raid was just the convenient excuse, right,
And they waited for some place where they knew they'd
have a lot of their quote unquote stormtroopers set up
a place like Los Angeles. Plenty of radicals in Los Angeles.
Speaker 13 (24:23):
Yeah, that's exactly right. And this looks like the Summer
of Love two point zero unfolding. They need to call
it off, They need to back down. They know what's
happening in Los Angeles, and they're explicitly tying their protests
to what's happening in Los Angeles. Right now, there's so
much violence. They can call it mostly peaceful if we want,
if they want, to but we saw that happen in
twenty twenty two. They said fiery but mostly peaceful protests
(24:47):
on CNN. So it's dangerous. People need to be on
the lookout. And it raises the question of why would
the teachers Union to be involved in this in the
first place. Well, one, it's you know, they're an extension
of the Demo Party. Randy Winingarden's union donated ninety nine
percent of their campaign contributions to Democrats in twenty twenty four.
(25:07):
The Democrat Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
teachers Union. But also the teachers Union's benefit antially from
illegal immigration. You have more legal immigrants in the schools.
Public schools are funded based on enrollment. If they have
more people in the schools, they get more money on
a per student basis, whether they're illegal or illegal students,
(25:30):
which goes back to a case from nineteen eighty two
before the Supreme Court, which was a less conservative court
at the time. It was a very split decision five
to four barely ruled that taxpayers all across the country
are forced they must pay for the K to twelve
education of students, whether they are here legally or not.
(25:50):
I don't think the current more conservative Supreme Court would
rule the same way. So lawmakers in Texas or another
red state should file a bill to say, you know,
you could only be entitled to a free public education
here if you're here legally. I think that would pass
both chambers, and I think a governor would sign that,
And if the unions would like to fight that bringing
(26:11):
up the Supreme Court, they could have Filer overturned nationwide.
So there's far reaching implications here. And also public schools
receive more money for students who don't know English. There's
another financial incentives.
Speaker 5 (26:23):
So there's plenty of financial incentives. You mentioned enrollment. I suppose,
if we're going to be technically correct about that, the
schools do not get reimbursed based on enrollment. They get
reimbursed based on attendance. But again, the more students you
have there, and we've already determined here in Texas about
twenty five percent of all the students going to public
(26:44):
schools are the children of the illegal aliens. So if
you have the potential to reduce the burden on our
public school system by up to twenty five percent, then
that that has all sorts of positive financial ramifications for
the State of Texas and local governments. You don't have
to keep building many schools. I mean around here, we're
building schools and we can't keep up because because the
(27:05):
enrollment continues to rise and to rise and to rise.
If you could immediately have an impact of twenty five percent,
not only would you make it a lot more financially
feasible to run our public school system in a place
like Houston, Texas, and save the taxpayers a bunch of
money doing it, but you I mean, at every single level,
(27:26):
you would also take away a big incentive for these
people to come to this country to begin with, exactly.
Speaker 13 (27:33):
And you know, you either can save taxpayer money give
that funding back to the taxpayers, that's the best way
to handle this. Or you know, if you had that
twenty five percent additional funding for the kids who are
here legally, that could increase the per student funding in
Texas from eighteen thousand to about twenty three thousand dollars
per student. That's just just restructuring the same funding that's
(27:55):
already in the system, but allocating it towards kids.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Who are here legally.
Speaker 13 (28:00):
So you know, I think the teachers unions might also
step on the rake if they sue over the school
choice program that excludes students who are here legally for
scholarships for private schools. If they want to sue, this
could go to the Supreme Court too, and perhaps we
overturned Plilo Vdo from nineteen eighty two with our more
conservative court today. It's an interesting thing. We'll see if
(28:22):
it's unfold. But the teachers unions, they haven't learned a
dang thing over the past few years. We've passed school
choice in so many states because they're just overplaying their hand.
They're showing how political they are, and they're doing it
again this weekend. They're planning mass protests nationwide on Saturday.
We know they're not going to be peaceful, even if
(28:43):
they pretend like that's what they would like. We see
what happens is happening in Los Angeles, and this is
free advertising for homeschooling. Do you want these political animals
teaching your kids? They do you want them raising your children.
Not all teachers are bad and all, you know, we
got to be clear about that. But the union leaders
are so political that they're out of step with their membership,
(29:07):
and they're out of step with the American public, fifty
five percent of voters, according to a YUGA survey that
just came out from June, are in support of Trump's
deportation efforts. And guess what, he beat Kamala Harris by
a long shot on education and on immigration. So the
unions are on the wrong side of history here, and
(29:30):
hopefully it's peaceful on Saturday. People need to watch out
and the unions really need to cut it out and
call it off.
Speaker 5 (29:38):
Well, I don't see that happening. I don't know why
they've decided to make this bed for themselves in lie
in it, but this is what they've decided to do.
And I agree with you. I think they're on the
losing side of this proposition. And I'm thinking in states
like Texas, where we are generally more conservative than many
other states, certainly than the Northern states are. We have
teachers here who are conservative or at the very least
(29:59):
are moderate. I'm surprised there is it more of a
revolt in the rank and file of people who are
represented by these unions to take their leadership to task.
Speaker 13 (30:10):
Well, we had a Supreme Court case in twenty eighteen
called the Janice Decision. I'm on Liberty Justice Center's board,
and we represented the main plaintiff, Marchanis in that case.
And now basically every state is a right to work state.
What they found was that union dues and compelling public
school teachers and other public employees to pay for these
(30:33):
union dues to pay, which goes towards political causes, is
a violation of their First Amendment rights because it's compelled
speech that they disagree with that overturned nationwide. So no
one needs to be a part of a union, whether
you're in a red state or a blue state. But
a lot of teachers don't know this, and then one
(30:54):
two do they get bullied at school from the other
employees at the public schools. So it's really to But
if they banded together, they could really send a message
even more than school choice does. If the teachers their
own members send a clear message that we're not going
to stand for this, that you know, Randy Winegarden shouldn't
be railing against my political viewpoints, then maybe the members
(31:19):
could elect someone else besides Randy Winegarden, and maybe they
can defund them by not sending their membership dues. There
what's great about states like Florida is they now have
opt in opten into unions each year into to opt out.
So in order for the union to get your money,
they have to convince you every year to opt into
those membership dues. So I think that would be a
(31:40):
great reform in other states too.
Speaker 5 (31:42):
We're talking to Corey Dangelo's senior fellow with the American
Culture Project. What do you suspect the end game of
all this is what? What do the What does the
progressive left hope is going to happen as a result
of all these protests and likely more to come as
the summer continues. Do they hope there's going to be
national revolting we're revold against ice. Do they hope that
we will blame President Trump for the violence? What do
(32:04):
they hope is going to happen here?
Speaker 13 (32:06):
They're idiots? Because this is going to be they should
rename it from a National Day of Defiance to a
National Day of registering Republican voters. We saw how this
hurt them after the twenty twenty two riots, the Summer
of Love. This is going to hurt them in the
midterms elections. So I think Republicans are sitting back and
saying you know, go ahead, go act like lunatics out
(32:27):
in the streets. This is going to hurt you because
people want to be safe and they're going to vote
that way when they go to the ballot box. They
have Trump's arrangement syndrome on the left. That's not going
to stop them. I don't think they're too worried about
losing votes. They want any excuse to loot, to engage
in criminal activity, and to cause chaos, and they learn
a lot of this crap in the public school system.
(32:49):
They have more activist teachers than ones that want to
focus on the basics. And so you know, this is
all connected between the teachers' unions and what we're seeing
unfold in Los Angeles. When you go through this system
of indoctrination that tells you that, you know, everybody that
disagrees with you is just an evil person. This you know,
(33:14):
school choice and improving the public school system will decrease
the likelihood that things like this happen in the future,
you know. And we now have seventeen states that have
passed universal school choice. Texas was sixteen. New Hampshire just
signed their bill into law yesterday, being number seventeen.
Speaker 5 (33:34):
Our Bill is full of flaws, but you know that,
and that's something we're gonna have to fix going down
the road. But at least it's a start. Corey, I
know you got a plan to cash. Thank you for
your time as always, absolutely, thanks so much, Jimmy, you bet.
Corey Dangelis, Senior Fellow the American Culture Project. Back with
bor in the moment, Jimmy Birschow here an M nine
fifty KPRC.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
All right, a couple of a couple of thoughts about China. Yeah,
I know we don't normally go there.
Speaker 5 (34:14):
But a story that I don't feel like it's gotten
a tremendous amount of coverage and it should is the
story of now a third Chinese national being arrested in
connection with this plot to smuggle this fungus, this this
(34:37):
bio weapon into the United States, a fungal bio weapon,
if you will. And it's really amazing to me that
this hasn't gotten more publicity. The story has kind of
been limited to Michigan at this point because the one
of the Chinese nationals was employed at the University of
(34:58):
Michigan and their research over there, and she was receiving
from a couple of other Chinese nationals, one of whom
Evidentlly's her boyfriend, and by the way, all of the
members of the Communist Party of China this fungus. What
were they planning to do with this fungus? This last
person arrested, by the way, came from Wuhan. Huh yeah, yeah,
(35:19):
the same place that brought us COVID nineteen they were
talking about on the floor of the house yesterday. I mean,
I didn't even seen much of any coverage on what
this fungus supposedly can do. What was the purpose behind
this fungus that they wanted to potentially infiltrate our crops
with corn, wheat, barley, those types of things, things that
(35:42):
we depend on the manufacture food. Pretty clear in my
mind what they wanted to do. But here is Representative
La Malfa on the floor of the house describing what
it is that supposedly this fungus is capable of doing.
Speaker 23 (35:57):
Fungal pathogen known as Fusarium Grammanarium was identified in scientific
literature as being a potential aggre terrorism weapon. This is
what the two Chinese nationals called Young King Jian and
zunyog Lu brought into the country. They smuggled these this
(36:18):
pathogen in via their electronic devices, which contained also evidence
of Chinese Communist Party membership, and the different methods with
which they brought the pathogen in were hidden in whether
it's their devices or in tissues, in various ways of smuggling.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
A past customs.
Speaker 23 (36:44):
Now, we can't imagine what kind of a threat this
would be towards our agricultural production in this country if
something like this was allowed to get loose. They tried
to get it into the University of Michigan through their
test labs there, through the work the university does in agriculture,
and somehow maybe do what infect everything that was going
(37:06):
through Michigan and coming out in the new crops. Some
of the effects on it are in certain grains. It
would be devastating. For example, when wheat and barley maize rice,
indeed for the world's most important staple crops. It would
inflect infect these crops during their flowering stage, which then
reduces the grain yield and the grain quality. The grains
(37:29):
often would pear, shriveled, bleached, or pinkish, making them unusable. Also,
with these mitotoxins in here, you would have an issue
which would cause toxicity humans and animals, which would be
causing them to vomiting, or even worse effects in the
livestock or people that would happen to use it.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
So what would the possible impact be.
Speaker 23 (37:54):
It could be billions of dollars in crop losses globally
each year due to lost yields, contamination, and reach out
in the market. These micatoxins would cause vomiting, as I mentioned,
liver damage, immune suppression, and reproductive defects in both humans
and livestock.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
Sounds nice, huh, So I would think the I don't
know if the intent there is to poison Americans as
much as it is to wipe out crops. And if
you wipe out crops, then you potentially starve the population.
(38:33):
I mean, that's got to be part of it, right,
I would think, you know, that's part of what they
would want to accomplish with this, would be to starve
the population. So that would mean at least two things
that they've done to us so far unleash COVID nineteen
And I don't know if COVID nineteen was like just
to test, let's see how effective we are at getting
(38:57):
this into the United States and what sort of impact
it has on the United States. They certainly saw how
we reacted to it, you know, with all the lockdowns
and all the other things we did during COVID nineteen.
How might we react to, you know, our crops failing.
What kind of chaos would that potentially set off in
(39:20):
the country. I think most of what they're trying to
do would be to distract us from our ability to
respond to whatever it is they want to do, whether
it's attacking Taiwan and taking that over, whether it's taking
over control of the entire South Pacific, maybe maybe all
the way to Hawaii. I think they would like us
(39:40):
gone from the Pacific Ocean. They would they would like
that all to be wide open to them. That certainly
would be part of it, I would guess, and just
generally distract us away from our inability to fight them back.
And they seem to be willing to do almost anything
in order to be able to make that happen, including
(40:02):
poisoning millions of Americans. Are potentially starving millions of Americans
to death, you know, That's that's how hell bent they
are in global domination. And until we you know, take
this even more seriously than we are. Now, these things
are going to continue.
Speaker 13 (40:21):
You know.
Speaker 5 (40:21):
It's like I guess they're working on the we have
some sort of quote unquote framework now, they've been meeting
on a China trade deal, some sort of framework now.
But do you think for one second a country that's
willing to come here and poison your citizens is going
to agree to a tariff deal and then stick to
the agreement. Course not. Cannot be trusted in any way,
(40:46):
shape or form. The Chinese cannot be trusted. All right, y'all,
have a great day. Thank you for listening to sure
to appreciate it. See you tomorrow morning bright in early
five am over our news radio seven forty KTRH. We're
back here at four on a nine to fifty KTRC sor.
Speaker 10 (41:04):
But n hadvanding th
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.