Episode 171: Media Spins on DOGE & Immigration Policy.

Episode Highlights:

Media Myths & DOGE Truths:
We expose the media’s desperate attempts to generate stories claiming that DOGE is cutting jobs and hurting Americans. Spoiler alert: most of these stories aren’t true. Mark argues that when the media tries to undermine government accountability, they’re also undercutting their own credibility. Case in point: The Albuquerque Journal recently ran a Facebook ads soliciting DOGE disaster stories—they didn’t exactly find a treasure trove!

Laughing at Media Meltdowns:
We share a hilarious segment about a locksmith fired at a national park, and we joke about whether anyone locked in a bathroom at that park is now doomed. Sometimes, the jokes write themselves!

Government vs. Mexican Drug Cartels & Maine Confrontation:
We break down the government’s aggressive efforts to dismantle Mexican drug cartels and delve into Trump’s latest confrontation with the Governor of Maine. Mark explains how Trump consistently wins on 80/20 issues—while Democrats stubbornly defend the losing 20%. A long-time Democratic pollster even agrees with his take.

Tariff Talk with Marco Rubio:
Don’t miss Marco Rubio’s detailed explanation of tariffs—a must-hear segment that adds yet another layer to the discussion on how policies are shaping our nation.

A Heart-Wrenching Call for Help:
We close the episode with an emotional story about an Albuquerque family of missionaries who desperately need your help. Their story is a reminder of the need for all of us to come together to help a family that always puts others first.

Help the Hauquitz Family:
https://www.givesendgo.com/HauquitzFamily

https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/

Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose
between a left or right.
Well, I'd like to suggest thereis no such thing as a left or
right.
There's only an up or down.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is the no Doubt About it.
Podcast.

Speaker 3 (00:16):
No doubt about it.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Now your hosts Christy and Mark Runcate,
wildfire you can't catch us now.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Running, running, running, dead.

Speaker 3 (00:27):
All right, we're taking you behind the scenes.
You're about to watch oursecond take at this full show.

Speaker 4 (00:35):
Which is crazy because we've only had to do
this, I think, twice ever on anyshow.
The very first show we everrecorded, we had to redo because
of audio.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Yes, and this one magical, the one we did before
with Mike.
Garofalo victory news, passingthrough Albuquerque, sitting
down with us and is on victoryMonday through Friday.
Incredible stuff.
It used to work at channelseven.
We anchored or Mike anchored Ijust showed up and did the
weather on the morning show andso Mike's been a friend for

(01:03):
years and obviously we have Mikeon regularly.
I go on victory news with him,but we did the whole show.
Yeah, mike gets in his truckand is halfway back to Dallas
halfway halfway.

Speaker 7 (01:13):
All right.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
Maybe not halfway, and then we're like, hey, maybe
you made it to I-40 either way.
Um, we, we, we get the wholething loaded into the system and
not a lick of audio.

Speaker 4 (01:24):
I don't know how it happens.
Can we just make sure that theaudio is actually recording
right now?

Speaker 3 (01:27):
I don't know.
It says it is Ava.
You feel like the audio isrecording right now.

Speaker 8 (01:30):
Emotionally, I would say I'm in tune with the audio
that is going through thecomputer.

Speaker 3 (01:34):
It does look like it's working.
I don't know.

Speaker 8 (01:38):
We have a spiritual connection me and this software
Okay.

Speaker 9 (01:40):
You know, frank Sinatra used to say I'm only
doing one take.
Yeah it's true, but we're doingtwo, but we're doing two, we're
doing two.
Thanks for coming back.

Speaker 4 (01:47):
We appreciate it.
Okay let's jump in then, likewe got some comments yeah yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:51):
Before comments if you want to give a kind of a
quick, Well, we're going to do adeep dive on the media's effort
to create as many stories aspossible around trying to either
shrink the government or getrid of waste, fraud and abuse.
And the media is lookingeverywhere to be like, how can
we stop this Along with somepeople in the political world as

(02:12):
well.
So those two combined and againit's just a mistake to approach
it this way.
But you wouldn't believe someof what's happening in this
state especially.
But then we'll look at itnationally and go through all
that stuff and then some otherstories that are interesting.
But we're going to start localwith that.

Speaker 4 (02:25):
We'll start some local and then we also just have
something we want to sharepersonally at the very end of
our show that we just found outabout.
So we want to share that at theend of the show.
So please stay tuned for thevery end as well.
But okay, let's start with somecomments.
The first one came in fromGerilyn and she says Mark was on
point regarding governmentworkers can now replenish the
private sector workforce.

Speaker 3 (02:46):
Right, well, no, and I think it's something we talk
about all the time, and that isthat in Mike, I know you've
looked at some of these numberstoo, but when you employ someone
for a government job, you haveto tax the taxpayers to pay for
that job, like and so now isthere an economic benefit?
Yeah, they pay taxes andeverything else, but is economic
benefit greater when they'reemployed in the private sector?

(03:06):
I think you could easily makethe case that that answer is yes
, and there are a lot of reallysmart economic people who are
like hey, this will help downthe road because you're going to
have a lot more employees thatare in the private sector,
meaning you don't have topublicly fund them.
Correct, so we don't have to betaxed to fund them.
And then they still pay thesame amount into the system.
So that could be a very realpositive that we, we run into

(03:28):
business after business,wherever you go, they don't have
enough employees and thegovernment payroll has been
exploding.
So if you bring that down andmove them into the private
sector, you're going to see aneconomic benefit to that, not
saying it's not going to comewith some pain and some
uncertainty.
It will, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 9 (03:44):
And if you look at the numbers and I don't have
them all in front of me rightnow but if you look at the Biden
administration and what theydid to expand the executive
branch, in terms of the numberof federal employees and the pay
annual pay of federalemployees- you're going to be
shocked, I believe yeah.

Speaker 4 (04:25):
And that's kind of what we're starting to go for
here.
Now, when you try to do that,are you going to get?
Is the system going to go?
Would say that we use thosesavings to upgrade our defense
Defenses, are radar systems atairports and install the Iron
Dome defense system around ourcountry.

Speaker 9 (04:33):
Well, you know, you can look at a couple different
ways.
First of all, it'd be reallynice to get $5,000, especially
given what we've been putting upwith inflation-wise.
I mean you're trying to buy ahouse, trying to put a down
payment, the mortgage rates areout of control.
I mean you're paying basicallyalmost double what you were
paying four or five years ago.
So the $5,000 would be nice.
But at the same time, when youlook at this country and you say

(04:53):
we're $36, $37 trillion in debt, we need to deal with that.
We need to deal with that now.
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (04:59):
I would agree.
I think you have to go afterwhat's happening here with the
debt and the deficit, because ifyou don't, it's just going to
keep swallowing up your budget.
Remember, we have to not onlydeal with our yearly deficits
here, we have to refinance $10trillion in debt within six
months.
We don't have the money forthat right now because your
interest rate, to your point, isgoing to double, likely on that

(05:20):
money, and so we're in realtrouble on that front.
So I agree.
And plus, you know you get backto the old school days.
Remember, we go back to the1980s and you talk about the
strategic defense initiativewith Reagan.
Like, we're going to get backto that.
And, by the way, you're alsogoing to have to and what I mean
by that is the Star Wars or theIron Dome, you know you could
call it whatever you want butalso we are going to have to

(05:41):
start dealing with the dronethreat.
The drone threat that thiscountry will likely face, the
drone threat that we're likelygoing to instill in other people
as well.
So everything is changing onthat front.

Speaker 4 (05:52):
Well, I would even just appreciate, like a tax cut,
like an additional tax cut thisyear, maybe just to get.
Maybe get some of that moneyback in a different way, really,
just like you're not owed asmuch.

Speaker 3 (06:02):
Those are the Trump tax cuts which need to become
permanent.
Really, just like you're notowed as much, you know that
would be, those are the Trumptax cuts which need to become
permanent.
If they don't become permanentafter this year, your taxes are
going to go up and most workingfamilies tax is going to go up
$3,000 a year.

Speaker 9 (06:12):
I mean, that's a big deal the Trump tax cut is.
It's a must, and I'm sure thepresident would say that too.

Speaker 4 (06:17):
Right, well, let's see if that happens.
But okay, kent Kelly also wrotein this last one.
It says I am 76 years old andhave some background in aviation
and as long as I can rememberthe FAA has been slow to upgrade
any of the facilities.
They only move about a snailspeed after a tragedy occurs and
again, this was after wecovered the Toronto crash on our
last show, as well as all theother airline situations that

(06:40):
seem to be happening that arecoming our way.
So good, you know.
Obviously somebody had someinsight there.

Speaker 3 (06:46):
No, and he's absolutely right.
The radar is so antiquated, alot of their systems are
antiquated.
Government has to keep up andthey've got to put money into
these systems regularly.
We don't do that.
You know what I mean.
They'll make this massiveinvestment in the 1970s, right,
and then they'll be like, well,we're good to go, and all of a
sudden, 30 years later,everything's out of date and the

(07:07):
only people using it are thosegovernment agencies.
So you have to update thesethings.
You see it, with nuclearweapons, we're having to do it
right now, right, I mean LosAlamos, that's a huge part of
their mission right now isupdating our nuclear weapons.
And that's the same issue.
Now, when you look at the FAA,it's going to take some serious
investment here, and I know it'seasy to say, oh my gosh, they
laid off three, you know, 300people or whatever it is, out of

(07:29):
a staff of 50,000, right.
But the bigger issue is do weinvest the money into the new
technology to make sure the FAAis the very best it can be?

Speaker 9 (07:37):
And if you really think about it, this should have
been done four, eight, 10, 12years ago.
And the money that has beenspent over the last four years
on paying for illegal immigrantsAre you kidding me?
Paying for DEI programs andthings like that?
What if that money four yearsago had been focused on the FAA
and the system?
Just imagine that for a second.

(07:58):
It didn't happen, obviously,and knowing what we know right
now, it's very disappointing.

Speaker 4 (08:02):
Well and I hate to say this, mike, but I think if
you when, when, the when weactually find out all the truth
about how long these programshave been funding agendas that
have nothing to do with the bulkof the country, I think it's
going to go way back, fartherthan four years.
I think we're going to find out.

Speaker 3 (08:14):
This has been going on for decades, kind of just in
secret but thanks you guys forwriting in.

Speaker 4 (08:20):
We have to get to a lot of content today so I can't
read any more comments today.
But if you want to drop us acomment, put it on that YouTube
channel.
That's super helpful for uswhile you hit the subscribe
button also helpful.
And if you want to drop us anemail, you can do that at info
at no doubt about it, podcastcom.

Speaker 3 (08:35):
Okay, the media is concerned and is trying to stoke
as much fear as possible withwhat's happening with the
federal workforce, and I thinkthere's two different things
going on here.
You have to shrink down thefederal workforce and you also,
at the same time, have to removethe waste, fraud and abuse, and
really there's no dividing linebetween the two as far as the

(08:55):
media goes.
They just want a story thatthey can point to and say
they're suffering.
They're suffering, please stop.
Is what they're going for?
Albuquerque Journal greatexample, facebook post that came
out the other day and it'spretty interesting, especially
when you see the article thatthey wrote on Sunday morning.

Speaker 4 (09:11):
Well, I mean this and I forwarded this.
Source gave this to us and thisto us.
It's an ad.
They're basically taking out anad to say, hey, give us your
sad stories against Trump.
So basically we can do a storyon it.
If you read this, it says theDonald Trump administration is
planning for large scalereductions in force across the
federal government.
Have you or someone you know inNew Mexico been affected by the

(09:31):
layoffs and want to tell yourstory?
Contact the Albuquerque journal.
They're fishing.
That's like let's fish for thenegative story.

Speaker 3 (09:38):
I've never seen anything like this, like you
know we were talking, you didn'tsee in the Biden administration
when, when we saw inflationrise, you didn't see the journal
put out a thing likeinflation's crushing working
families.
Please write us with your storyon how Joe Biden has wrecked
your family budget.
You didn't see that, or?

Speaker 4 (09:55):
your, your state and local reps voted in favor of the
inflection inflection,inflation reduction act.
And now that's what we havesuch bad inflation.
Contact us to tell us, you knowus, how this is impacting your
family budget.
No, we didn't see any of that.
We didn't see any of that.
This is shocking to me.

Speaker 3 (10:14):
They should be embarrassed that they put this
out there, I think.
Well, so that's what'sinteresting, because the article
today on the front page of thepaper this is what it looks like
, and it says federal layoffsaffect National Park, tribal
University.
And what it looks like and itsays federal layoffs affect
National Park, a tribaluniversity and more in New
Mexico.
Okay, so if you actually divein and read this story, what you
find out is yes, there are somepeople have been laid off and,

(10:39):
by the way, I want to start bysaying that is not easy for
anybody.
I don't care.
However, you get laid off,whether you get eight months
salary which a lot of people doin this particular case or not.
It uproots your family.
It can be really difficult, andI don't think anybody should go
around and act like it's not,and we're not doing that either.
So let me start by saying that,because it's not easy.
It's not an easy thing to do,but we're also in a spot now

(11:00):
where we have to grow up andrealize that we have a massive
debt and if we don't deal withit, you're not only going to
deal with government servicesgoing down.
Basic services that the countrytries to accomplish will not be
accomplished because we'll bedriven into debt to such a
degree that the people whodesperately need help won't get
it.
So we have to be mature aboutthis and say, okay, what can we

(11:23):
do to fix the problem that we'rein?
And this is part of that fix.
You don't blow off people'sconcerns.
They are concerns and they'rereal right.
But at the same time, a lot ofwhat you see in articles like
the Journal put out today andsome others which we'll point
out, basically say oh my gosh,oh my gosh.
Oh well, that really hasn'thappened yet, but it could be an
issue.
I oh well, that really hasn'thappened yet, but it could be an

(11:44):
issue.
I mean, that's really what'shappening.
So look at this first quote outof the story here, and it just
is kind of funny when you startto realize how they couch the
story right at the verybeginning.

Speaker 4 (11:53):
This past week, rumors abounded you guys.
Rumors, okay, prepare yourself.
The truth was harder to discern, given the atmosphere of fear
and promises of retribution.
Many current and former federalemployees the journal spoke
with said that they wereinstructed not to speak to the
media or had signednondisclosure agreements.
Indeed, if anyone can confirminformation about layoffs,

(12:14):
please see the bottom of thestory and contact us.

Speaker 3 (12:16):
Okay, so they're trolling for more stories, right
?
They're trolling for moresources, first and foremost.
Okay, so let's go to one oftheir first stories on what they
say happened.

Speaker 4 (12:25):
Okay, it's, it's riveting.
One employee and one volunteerat separate offices confirmed
cuts had been made of promotionprobationary employees at the
Aztec ruins national monumentand Chaco culture national
historical park.
The employee who worked at theseparate office said at Chaco
Canyon, at least one maintenanceperson and two people at the
preservation crew who provideupkeep to the ancient dwellings

(12:49):
had been let go.
So here's the quote thethousand-year-old buildings.
Yes, those guys adding that thecuts were definitely made
because they were probationaryand will definitely affect their
operations at Chaco.

Speaker 3 (13:02):
Okay, so that doesn't sound great.
No one wants to lose their job,so did that really happen?

Speaker 4 (13:06):
It sounds like if you keep reading the article,
that's a fat.
No, because, according toDenise Robertson, superintendent
for Aztec Ruins NationalMonument and Chaco Cultural
National Historical Site said nosuch cuts had been made Quote
not at the current time.
She said, when asked about theinformation given by employees
at separate offices, that thesecuts had indeed been made.

(13:27):
Robertson said I'm sayingthat's not, that's incorrect and
I am the park superintendent.

Speaker 9 (13:33):
And just to give you an update.
A probationary employee, afederal probationary employee,
what I believe is any timebetween zero and three years of
hire.

Speaker 3 (13:41):
Yeah, so they're just new employees, basically.
You know.
So usually it's last in, firstout.
That's the concept in businessA lot of times that when you
have to shrink your workforce,your longest tenured people stay
.

Speaker 4 (13:52):
Okay, but you guys are missing the point.
The point is, on thisparticular thing, you got people
that are being quoted as saying, yeah, these cuts are happening
, and then you have thesuperintendent saying, yeah, no,
that's, that's actually notcorrect.

Speaker 7 (14:02):
Good point Right.

Speaker 4 (14:03):
So, again, when I'm the reporter and I'm doing this,
investigating, I would killthis story immediately.
This, this is a very likeinflammatory headline.
It is trying to basically likestoke a fire of a fire that has
yet to start.

Speaker 3 (14:20):
Well, and believe me, there are other portions of
this story where people are laidoff.
So so why?

Speaker 4 (14:24):
not do that story instead of a fake like a hey,
this is what one guy said ishappening, and then their boss
is like no, it hasn't happened.

Speaker 3 (14:33):
Okay, Well, speaking of that, let's go to Veterans
Affairs, Because you know that'sanother area that there's a lot
of concern for, and rightfullyso.

Speaker 4 (14:41):
Okay, so this is Veterans Affairs Zero.
Employees at the New MexicoVeterans Affairs healthcare
system were affected bynationwide layoffs, said a
spokesperson.
While the VA hospital inAlbuquerque escaped cuts, call
center and administrativeemployees who helped veterans
complete paperwork so they couldget medical care were cut,
which could create servicebacklogs, according to

(15:03):
Stansberry.

Speaker 3 (15:04):
Melanie Stansberry.
Melanie Stansberry.
Okay, so there could be aproblem, potentially, but
there's been no cut, but ithasn't happened yet.

Speaker 4 (15:12):
But let's continue to stoke a fire.

Speaker 3 (15:13):
Yes and so, but this is what happens when you are on
the wrong side of an issue,right, and you're on the wrong
side of an 80-20 issue onceagain, which is most people say
I want my government to beresponsible and to not waste a
dime.
Ava, do you have something youwant?

Speaker 8 (15:28):
to add.
Well, I did want to say that Iwas reading recently that there
were going to be a thousandfirings across all of the
national parks in the UnitedStates, which sounds like a lot
of people when you're readingabout it, but that's an average
of one to two employees pernational park.
I saw this on Ben Shapiro'sshow, so I just think I saw the
New York times talking about howit was going to destroy
national parks and like kind ofmess everything up.

(15:48):
But when you're losing one totwo employees per national park,
there's going to be nodifference and I just think
that's an important thing totalk about if you're seeing that
headline.

Speaker 3 (15:56):
And, by the way and there's another point that you
made about seasonal workers,though that you may get rid of
the full, you may get rid of acouple of full-time people, but
the interior secretary, DougBergham, said they're they're
looking to hire I think he saidlike 5,000 seasonal workers.

Speaker 9 (16:07):
They can work at the national parks over the
summertime so that Americanshave a good experience.
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (16:11):
Okay, we have a national park story in just a
minute, so let's just wait forthat.
I have we'll.
We'll get to that one in just aminute too.
Okay, that's how we all got ourstart at this, right?
You had to go in and you had topitch a story every day, right?
So you needed to make sure.

(16:31):
Do I have a good source?
Is there a news hook?
Whatever this reporter I, Ihave no idea what happened.
They went to go cover a nothingburger story, which actually
makes air.
Okay, Nothing, I want to play.
Play it for you, right, and Iwant you to listen to what the
story should have been, becauseI guarantee you your reporter
minds will know what the storyshould have been.

Speaker 3 (16:52):
OK, it's KOB.

Speaker 7 (16:55):
Well, one month into President Trump's second
administration, we are seeingunprecedented changes to the
federal government.
Many have praised the efforts,including funding freezes and
mass layoffs, but many othersare still wondering what could
happen next.
New Mexico's Democraticlawmakers are pledging to fight
those cuts, but the programs andemployees already impacted are

(17:16):
certainly feeling theconsequences.
Zach Ryle spoke with theImmigrant Law Center of New
Mexico for their take.

Speaker 12 (17:23):
Which is now waging war on government waste, fraud
and abuse, and Elon is doing areally good job.

Speaker 5 (17:29):
The Trump administration is making good on
its promise to cut what it saysis wasteful government spending
.
Government workers, includingNew Mexicans, have been fired,
laid off or furloughed.
Organizations and programs haveseen their funding slashed or
frozen.

Speaker 13 (17:44):
It's because of that funding that we can represent
children, regardless of theirimmigration matter.

Speaker 5 (17:49):
The New Mexico Immigrant Law Center provides
legal representation forunaccompanied migrant children,
meaning they are in the USwithout a parent or guardian
while their cases go through theUS court system.

Speaker 13 (18:01):
We have kids that are of all age sets.
We have some kids that are asyoung as three and four years
old, and so to expect a fouryear old to be an immigration
court or to be able, to OK,that's horrendous.

Speaker 3 (18:14):
So to this point, this is horrendous.
You got.
You got three and four year oldkids that are in this country
by themselves, which just nooffense, but that's the story,
ok, that is actually what thestory should.

Speaker 4 (18:23):
Just no offense, but like that's the story.
Okay, that is actually what thestory should be.
Okay, but that's not what thisreporter did.

Speaker 3 (18:29):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (18:29):
That's what the story should be.
Is the second that that guysays that your follow-up
question is what?
Mike?

Speaker 9 (18:34):
where'd the kids come from?
What do we know about them?
Where are they now?
Right?

Speaker 4 (18:39):
Like that's story, but again, that was not what
this reporter was setting out todo.
This reporter is setting out tosay hey, how is Trump's cuts
impacting you and your job here?
So keep listening, though,because again he's leading us up
to think this this immigrationlawyer, federal cuts, ngos
getting cut Right, so I'm notgonna be able to support these

(18:59):
kids anymore.
But hold on, because again thisis a nothing burger story in An
office for a humanitarian visais honestly just unconscionable.

Speaker 5 (19:08):
But that was almost the reality.
On Tuesday the Immigrant LawCenter was informed funding for
this program would be cut.
Then late Friday, attorneyAndres Santiago says they
received word that funding wouldbe restored.

Speaker 13 (19:21):
For the few days that it was canceled.
We had to push new clients thatwere identified as
unaccompanied children intoMarch.

Speaker 5 (19:28):
Representative Melanie Stansbury says this
whiplash and chaos puts anemotional and mental strain on
New Mexicans.

Speaker 6 (19:35):
There's literally thousands of New Mexicans that
don't know what's going tohappen, whether they're going to
lose their jobs.
There's going to be a freeze onfunding for the programs they
work for.

Speaker 5 (19:44):
She says these cuts are hurting families and places
blame with the president andElon Musk.

Speaker 6 (19:49):
We can agree to disagree, but we cannot allow an
unelected billionaire andDonald Trump and his Republican
enablers to continue toterrorize the American people.

Speaker 3 (20:00):
Okay, you have three and four year old kids being
drawn into this country to anuncertain and dangerous future,
and you have the gall to saythat Trump and Musk are
terrorizing people.
The house is on fire and you'reupset with the fire department.

Speaker 4 (20:18):
Right?
Well, here's the point too, isthis reporter keeps saying all
these cuts are affecting Ilisten to him again Thousands.
Stansbury said thousands of NewMexicans.
If there are thousands of NewMexicans which we don't want
them to be impacted with theirjobs, we've said we all have a
heart for people and want themto have a paycheck.
If this is happening in massquantities across the state, why

(20:39):
is this reporter not findingthose people to actually talk to
, instead of going to talk to animmigration attorney that that
guess what the cut didn'tactually impact him whatsoever.
And then you also just see itlike just blasted right through
the biggest story of that guy'squote, which are these kids that
are coming across the borderwithout an adult.
Yeah, that's the story, kobe,you missed the mark once again.

(21:00):
Like I just don't understandhow this, how'd this story even
get on air?

Speaker 3 (21:04):
Well, I think no, they were looking for, they were
trolling for stories.
And that gets to your pointthat if you have thousands of
people believe me, by the way,just so you know how a newsroom
works when there are big timethings like massive layoffs and
cuts, you don't have to reachout to people.
They reach out to you.
Your phones ring off the hookwhen these things happen, and

(21:28):
that is not happening right now.
So they are trolling for everystory they can, and then they
have an absolute crisis withyoung children, and the thought
is well, how can we wrap thisone back on Trump?
And again, the whole thingthey're mad about is not
occurring.

Speaker 4 (21:44):
So therefore, it could occur, though it could
occur, it could cause majorchaos across for many families,
but yet we can't report on thatbecause we don't actually have
that happening yet.

Speaker 9 (21:54):
You know, I kind of call that mass media
manipulation.
Yeah, cause they're trying tomanipulate the public.

Speaker 4 (21:59):
Oh yeah, it's total propaganda.
I just I watched that story andI was like what?

Speaker 3 (22:04):
And, believe me, there will be people that will
be laid off, there'll be toughstories and all of this.
There's no question this is noteasy.

Speaker 4 (22:10):
Then you do that story.
You don't do a fake story ofsomething that didn't actually
happen.

Speaker 3 (22:14):
I totally agree with you.
But I'm just saying get ready,because there are going to be
tough stories, they're going tobe real, and they're going to be
real uncertainties for families, but again, at the end of the
day, because we have to havesome sort of reset and we'd
rather have a reset now than, ohmy gosh, social security
collapsed.
Oh my goodness, medicaid iscompletely insolvent.
All of a sudden, you can't meetthe basic needs of the most

(22:37):
needy people in your country.
That's what we're headed for,so we need to stand up and be
ready to do that.
Well, sometimes comedy jumpsinto the middle of this, and
this is some good stuff.
I'm sorry, but the but theheadline from NBC news same sort
of thing, right?
Trump job cuts could thrownational parks and forests into
staffing chaos.
Now, if you're going to connectthis story, you've got to have

(22:57):
a specific story that has beenjust emblematic of the
devastation that is occurring atthis point.
And we have it.
We have it.
Let's read this tweet becauseit's critical.
At California's YosemiteNational Park, otherwise known
as Yosemite, the Trumpadministration fired the only
locksmith on staff on Friday.

(23:17):
He was the sole employee withthe keys and the institutional
knowledge needed to rescuevisitors from locked restrooms.
Are you kidding me?
You got one guy who can grabthe set of keys, stick it in the
lock, turn it and let someoneout from what is likely the

(23:38):
stinkiest bathroom they've everbeen in, cause we've all been in
those national park, butthey're basically a dirt hole
that you're required to.
You know you're in a tight spot, right?
I mean you know, you had a hotdog earlier in the day and
you're like my goodness, I gotnowhere to go.
I got nowhere to go and all ofa sudden I'm locked in here.

Speaker 4 (23:55):
And only one guy has the keys and only one guy can do
it.
Yeah, only one job, only oneperson beyond pathetic.

Speaker 3 (24:01):
I mean honestly and this guy.
When he asked for vacation.
What do you think they said?
They're like why, who's goingto let anybody out?
I mean, we get somebody stuck.

Speaker 4 (24:10):
You have to work 365 days a year because you're the
only person that can do it.
But okay, let's do a littlefollow up on this, because this
is a there's more crying on thisfor the people that are being
the chaos that's being createdat the national parks.
Are you eligible for financialcompensation after being locked
in a national park servicebathroom?
If you've suffered an injury oremotional distress after

(24:31):
spending hours in 120 degreefecal bucket because of the
park's locksmith got fired dueto doge, you may be entitled to
financial compensation.
In the event of a stinkyoutdoor bathroom accident, the
US government can be heldaccountable for damages If a

(24:51):
loved one has been seriously orcatastrophically injured by
falling into the toilet of thelocked pit bathroom or by losing
his or her sense of smellpermanently.

Speaker 3 (24:57):
Very real.

Speaker 4 (24:57):
It may also be possible for your family to
obtain compensation and it's ajoke here, obviously everybody.
But you can reach out to thisattorney and call us now at
555-STINKPIT.

Speaker 3 (25:08):
Well, no, it's.
Do we cheat them and how Likedo we cheat them and how?

Speaker 9 (25:12):
That's what that is oh, I didn't even get that.

Speaker 3 (25:14):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (25:14):
Good job.
Yes, yes, okay.

Speaker 3 (25:17):
It's hilarious, but it's just ridiculous, right.

Speaker 4 (25:20):
Again, as you said, there's going to be real stories
of this happening.
I just think media should atleast wait until the actual
stories come.

Speaker 3 (25:27):
Yeah, and I think that when you start to try to
rein the government in, you seethe pullback and how nasty it
gets.
And I think this is somethingthat again, and we're going to
this is a theme that we're goingto talk about as you go through
this, and we're going to see itwith the immigration issue here
in a second and that is that ifyou're an oppositional party,

(25:47):
if all you believe in isopposing the other guy, no
matter what, if the other guyjumps on the 80 side of the
issue and you're on the 20, youare getting crushed and it's
brutal.

Speaker 4 (25:59):
But I guess this is what's so frustrating.
Is you watch, like some of ourstate leaders and their tweets
because I do that, I follow themand you join the media on this.
Like, like some of our stateleaders and their tweets because
I do that, I follow them andyou join the media on this like,
at some point, is this not justcrying wolf?
Like, how are people notgetting the fact that all you're
doing is trying to stoke a firethat has yet to start and we
don't know exactly how it'sgoing to happen?
I just feel like you start tolose credibility as a media

(26:21):
organization when you're doingthis and as a leader saying this
is so scary, this is going tobe the most frightening thing.
This is terrorizing new Mexicanfamilies and I'm like, okay,
where is that happening yet?
Because we have yet to see thatyet.

Speaker 9 (26:38):
And if you really pay close attention to what's gone
over the last two years, I wouldwager, if you look at the
mainstream media and the storiesand the spin they've tried to
to to put on things, especiallythings involving Donald Trump,
for example you'd be like Whoa.
And then you watch a moreconservative news outlet and
you'd be like wait, it'd benight and day.
You're, you're thinking you'reliving in two different

(26:58):
countries.

Speaker 4 (26:59):
Yeah, it is night and day and I just think I guess I
just I also feel like and I'mnot saying this like I have any
proof of this, but it seems likethose that are showing like
throwing up their hands andsaying as much as like I'm so
upset, we can't let this happen,we can't let Doge.
You know, elon is the bad guyand we don't need this
investigation to happen.
This isn't fair to the American.
Like the louder you repeal this, the guiltier you look.

(27:23):
And I'm not saying that they'reguilty because I don't know,
Nothing's come out yet but Ijust think, if you're, I just
don't get it.
I don't get why you wouldn't befighting for us to stop the
waste, stop using taxpayers.

Speaker 3 (27:35):
Is that you're talking about.
You know what they're sayingabout the individual issues.
I'm saying that they can't winthe war Like you're fighting on
an issue.
You can't win because you'rearguing for more government
secrecy and more governmentcorruption.
That's what you're arguing for.
You're arguing for do not callme out on this because we're
doing what we want to do, andanytime you try to cut a dollar,
we're going to try to findsomeone who lost that dollar.

(27:57):
And even if they didn't, youknow, even if they didn't.
And so therefore, this is what Imean by these 80-20 issues.
They're just on the wrong sideof it, right, and they're on the
wrong side of the immigrationissue as well.
And what's interesting aboutthat issue is that now Homans
has come out and he has morecomments about fighting the
cartels, another issue whereyou're in really solid shape.

(28:18):
If you're in the Trumpadministration.
You're saying look, these guysare pumping fentanyl into this
country and they're killingliterally hundreds of thousands
of people.
We can't allow this to happen.
It's a pretty good place to be,and Homan's obviously is.
You know, captain Bravado.

Speaker 4 (28:34):
Yeah, he's got a little.
He's kind of a caricature.

Speaker 9 (28:37):
Something like at a central casting, as Donald Trump
said the other day.

Speaker 4 (28:40):
Yeah, I mean.
So let's just take a listen tohim.
He was on Fox News talkingabout how they're going to step
up the military craft fight onthis year.

Speaker 7 (28:53):
They're obviously trying to adapt to what you're
throwing at them.
You're seeing this video.
Now they're on boats.
How have you seen the coyotesand the cartels kind of reorient
their business to handle whatyou've done?

Speaker 11 (29:04):
Look, they are going more maritime.
We knew they would.
That's why we've increasedCoast Guard patrols three times,
three times more than we havein the past.
So Coast Guard will answer thatcall.
So we're going to shut themdown maritime too.
Look, we're going to put themout of business.
President Trump has designatedthem criminal terrorist
organizations, which they shouldbe.
They've killed more Americansthan every terrorist
organization in this worldcombined.

(29:25):
President Trump will end upwiping them off the face of the
earth because we're going to putthem out of business.
You put them out of business.
You take their money away.
They can't bribe Mexicanofficials.
They can't bribe anybodywithout money to have no power.
We're not just going to attackin Mexico the Jalisco cartel.
We're going to attack them inthe 43 countries that have
operations currently operationsin 43 different countries.

(29:47):
We're going to attack themworldwide.

Speaker 3 (29:50):
What does that look like, I wonder?
Does it look like?
Do we fly drones into Mexicoand bomb?
You know their facilities.

Speaker 10 (29:58):
Yeah, I don't know.
I don't know.

Speaker 9 (30:00):
But that was pretty, that was pretty harsh talk, yeah
, and you think about the amountof money these cartels have
made over the last four years.
I mean, some of these illegalimmigrants said they were paying
$20,000 or $30,000 a person Inthe beginning.
I'm like how did they get$20,000 or $30,000 to pay the
cartels first of all?
And then you add all that upand how many billions of dollars

(30:22):
these cartels— I mean these arehuge businesses.

Speaker 4 (30:29):
It's like a big corporation.
Yeah, it's just going to beinteresting to see, like what,
how the cartel respond to thisand how we do.
I mean Holman's kind of a.
I mean he's like right, like wewere saying, he's a tough guy
right now.
He's a.
Definitely I'm the tough guy,you know.
There's things like securitymeasures now are coming up, like
our school, for example, we doa mission trip to help an

(30:49):
orphanage in Mexico.
We have canceled that for thefirst time because of safety
concerns.
Right, so will there be moresafety concerns for, say, travel
to the, to Mexico, for instance, which I know that's not the
biggest worry on the planet foreverybody, but it is.

Speaker 3 (31:05):
You're like I got a trip to Acapulco this weekend.
I cannot have that.
I don't need homens popping offand alerting the cartels that
I'm going to be in Acapulco.

Speaker 4 (31:14):
Well, I'm just saying that Mexico is a popular
tourist destination forAmericans.
It is.
I do think that there's goingto be some impact there as well.
And I just said, you know,we're obviously not going to
Mexico anytime soon, but there Ihave plenty of friends who have
travel plans to go there andI'm thinking maybe everybody
needs to be paying closerattention to those warnings from

(31:35):
Homeland Security.

Speaker 9 (31:35):
Oh, and especially since, since the cartels are
going to be there, their incomestream is going to be limited to
a, to a major degree, andthey're going to say what else
can we do?
Think about it.
They're going to, they're goingto try to think outside the box
and if you're an American andyou're in Mexico, you might have
a problem.

Speaker 4 (31:49):
Right, I just think it's it's.
It's interesting.
It's interesting to see howmuch coming out.
We got no amount of horse, youguys, I mean.
I don't think it's like ChrissyNoem on the horse down at the
border a politician on a horse.

Speaker 3 (32:08):
it is a risky move.
Yeah, I mean, I I'll neverforget the Senate race when I
was running against GavinClarkson and Gavin wears cowboy
hat and he's got the look andGavin's actually a really smart
guy but he got on a.
He got on the horse and youcould tell Gavin was not
familiar with it, and so Ilearned a lesson that day when I
, when I saw that video, I waslike, okay, I am never getting
on a horse as part of a campaignevent or as part of my job,

(32:28):
whatever it is.
No, no.

Speaker 4 (32:30):
Well, no.
And then this is the thing theguys were.
You've had people that havecome up to you and said, mark,
well, we need to get you as acowboy hat and some boots when
you're campaigning.
No.

Speaker 3 (32:46):
I should wear.
Just look like I'm in a costume.

Speaker 4 (32:48):
No we need to put you on skis.
Put you on the ski mountain andyou can go like this and swish
down the slopes and telleverybody your ideas.
One thing I won't be doing isgoing like this.

Speaker 3 (32:57):
Like I'm pretty certain.

Speaker 5 (32:58):
So uh, but yeah I would agree.

Speaker 3 (33:01):
So all right, getting to the last of our 80-20 themes
and a good place to be.
Trump meets with the governorsacross the country.

Speaker 4 (33:08):
Yeah, I think our governor went out there too.
Yeah, I think pretty much allthe governors were there.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
at least close, I'm sure.
Yeah, yeah.
Didn't go well for one governor.
Well, so he starts tanglingwith the governor of Maine,
where the whole men and women'ssports deal came up and Maine
has been pushing back some onthis.
Women's sports deal came up andMaine has been pushing back
some on this.
And again, this is an issuethat 80% of Americans are like
yeah, guess what?
Women's sports should beprotected.
Protect women's sports.

(33:33):
Well, when you're theopposition party, trump says
protect women's sports.
We say don't listen to thegovernor of Maine going back and
forth with Trump, but Iunderstand Maine is the main
here.

Speaker 12 (33:46):
The governor of Maine, are you not going to
comply with it?
Well, we are the federal law.
Well, you better do it.
You better do it because you'renot going to get any federal
funding at all if you don't.
And, by the way, yourpopulation even though it's
somewhat liberal, although I didvery well there your population
doesn't want men playing inwomen's sports.

(34:08):
So you better comply, becauseotherwise you're not getting any
federal funding.
Every state good, I'll see youin court.
I look forward to that.
That should be a real easy one.
And enjoy your life aftergovernor, because I don't think
you'll be in elected politics.

Speaker 4 (34:24):
Okay, I'll see you in court, then yeah, I'll see you.
I'm looking forward to that.
Well, I just can't believe thatshe would even like.
And there's the thing, she'snot the only one.
You know you've got Tim Walz upin Minneapolis or Minnesota
that are saying like I'm goingto fight back on these issues as
well.
We've been getting messages.
Now we're getting messages sentto us that, according to

(34:45):
several people here in NewMexico, that state and local
leaders are trying to fight backon Trump's executive orders as
well At our schools, with DEIstuff, with ICE you know, ice
things under sanctuary citypolicies.
We're still looking into thatto make sure that's all
validated before we bring it toyou guys.
But still, you're going to seethese Democratic states say, I,

(35:06):
we're, we're not going to countout, like, what are they doing?
Are they going to like, concedethe union?
I mean, I don't understand.

Speaker 3 (35:11):
Well, I think that it's again that's what what I
mean by an oppositional partyLike it doesn't work, again
You're on a battlefield youcan't win on.
It's like you, you're beingtold hey, you gotta, you've got
to fight everybody off and getto the top of Mount Everest.
Good luck, you can't.
And that's what I don'tunderstand.
And so, actually, ava, once yougo to my text and pull up the
Mark Penn, mark Penn wrote a anex post on this because he's

(35:35):
looked at some new data andobviously you know Mark Penn is
a former Clinton pollster, yeah,yeah.
So here's what he had to say,and it's interesting stuff.
It says voters are mostly likingwhat they see in the first
month of the new presidency.
By 57, 43 voters say Trump isdoing a better job than Biden.
In an advanced look of pollscoming out on Monday, job

(35:55):
approval at 52,.
But closing the border, cuttingwaste, are highly or, excuse me
, hugely popular.
So it's so.
So is resetting merit as theprime hiring and contracting
principle.
They don't agree witheverything being done, ie the
Gulf of America, which is apretty solid move, but overall

(36:17):
people feel much better aboutthe direction of the country and
the economy.
Democrats are cratering down to36 percent approval.
Schumer's ratings are a lotlower than Elon Musk.
Voters are looking back onBiden's presidency and the
Democratic Party years andscratching their heads on how
they tolerated it.
That's exactly what I'm talkingabout.

Speaker 9 (36:40):
And you know how they tolerated it.

Speaker 3 (36:55):
They were watching certain channels that didn't
give them the absolute truth,that spun things the way they
wanted to spin things and letthem believe they were living in
a different country thanreality.
Right, and actually they didthemselves a disservice by doing
that, right.
The media always does adisservice by not questioning
authority, because they allowthat authority to overstep so
badly that they end up whereBiden was, where he was never
called out by any of themainstream media.
Just notice the difference.
Now, with Trump, anything thathappens, even if it's not a big
deal, is made into a big deal.

(37:15):
What does that do?
It eventually makes Trump moreaccountable for what happens.
They have to think two and threesteps ahead.
It's called second and thirdorder thinking.
If you're really good in yourWhite House, you know, if we do
this, the media is going to saythis and then we've got to say
this.
Right, I mean, you're justalways thinking
three-dimensionally, always.
And they didn't have to do thatin the Biden administration.
And so, because they didn't,they walked down a very lonely

(37:37):
road and by the time they got aways down that road, there was
no way back, and I think they'renot necessarily learning that
lesson yet that hey, stop beingan oppositional party and start
being a party that stands forcertain principles, and
sometimes, when you stand forcertain principles, that means
that you may well agree with thepresident on some things like
cleaning up waste, fraud andabuse and tightening the border.
Like they would be much betterserved to do that and then to

(37:59):
have a fight on the detailsversus having a fight on the
principle, which they willalways lose.

Speaker 4 (38:03):
Well, ok, so I know that our leaders, our state
leaders, are not going to spendthe money to do real polling in
our state to see where peopleland on these issues.
But if media were smart,instead of just like saying, hey
, let me take an ad out here totell me your woes of maybe
potentially getting fired rightInstead, why don't media like
put together a real poll, likethey do during the election, by

(38:24):
the way, they all do it duringthe election.
Why do they not do it now andask the people of New Mexico
about DEI, about sanctuary citypolicies, about women in men's
sports, see what your viewersactually think in general?
And then you do your storiesbased on that polling and saying
listen, we did our own poll,this is what we've come up with.

Speaker 9 (38:46):
You don't think they'll ever do this, perhaps in
blue states.
They don't want to know theanswers, they don't want to hear
the truth?
Well, clearly not, and theydon't think they'll ever do this
perhaps in blue states.

Speaker 4 (38:52):
They don't want to know the answers they don't want
to hear the truth?
Well, clearly not.
They don't want to report it.
I just think, if I was a newsdirector, okay, but if I'm a
news, director, here's myargument to you.
Okay, that's not our job oh,they're gonna be all your job to
take an ad out and ask for fakestories.
Well, I agree.

Speaker 3 (39:04):
But but their job is gonna be they're gonna be much
more high and mighty on thisthey're going to say that's not
our job.
Our job is just to report thenews fairly and accurately.
Of course they don't do that,and so they don't they also,
though, they do polls, babe,during the election process.

Speaker 4 (39:17):
They do.

Speaker 3 (39:17):
But again, poll.
A good poll is 50 plus thousanddollars.
Do you think the journal hasthe money for that?
Let me answer that for you no,any TV station in this market
now has the money for that?
The answer is no.
So how do they do it during theelection season?
Because it's a sunk cost.
First of all, they understandit's part of the sunk cost of
covering an election Like youhave to do it and there's no

(39:39):
choice.
And not only that, more peopleare paying attention to it and
in most cases you can do a pollthat will cover multiple states.
In other words, like Emersonwill do multiple state polls and
they're tied in directly with.
Next.

Speaker 4 (39:50):
OK, and they can't find.
They can't find another pollthat's been done nationally on
these issues and cover that.

Speaker 3 (39:55):
Well, they could, I guess, if they want to you just
got to remember.

Speaker 9 (39:57):
for a second Polls can be easily manipulated.
I know OK, and polls during thelast presidential election.
I monitored them, I looked veryclosely at them and I didn't
trust them.
I mean, so you, you know you,what you need to do is really
find a pollster that you trustand then monitor their numbers,
because people can jump up.
You know, it's likewhack-a-mole a bunch of people

(40:18):
jumping up doing all their pollsbut you don't know which ones
are worthy of watching.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
Well, you have to look at the cross tabs too,
because that tells you theverbiage of the question asked,
which is to your point.
Because if you were to say topeople do you approve good,
hardworking employees being laidoff at the national park
service when it could affect the, the, the production and the
experience for people going toenjoy our national parks?
Well, of course I don't.
Do you approve of extra peopleinvolved in the government that
are not doing a job?

(40:44):
And they're not, you know, likeyou could, just you just make
the question.
I guess it's all marketing.

Speaker 4 (40:53):
It's all marketing, Unless you really want to know
the real answer.
And then then there'sabsolutely a way to do that,
Like if media want to gain uh,some sense of uh, I don't know.
Trust, trust again.
Ask the real questions, findthe straight answer, do the
black and white of it, even asurvey Like I agree.
I just don't know why you need$50,000 to do this.

Speaker 3 (41:08):
I'm sorry, but that's what a poll costs.

Speaker 4 (41:10):
Do a man on the street then oh, that's, accurate
.
Yeah, hey, fred how you doingyeah, no, no, no, we're good.

Speaker 10 (41:15):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 (41:15):
I wonder why this poll sucks?
Because mainly because we got16 people that all live in one
neighborhood.
Okay.

Speaker 4 (41:21):
I know.

Speaker 3 (41:25):
I know.
Go look at the size of thejournal from 10 years ago to now
.
It's tiny.

Speaker 4 (41:31):
now it's hard, but yet they can take out money on
asking these kind of questions.
Why not ask a question?

Speaker 3 (41:36):
Okay, hold on.
Hold on, A Facebook post is nota $50,000 poll.

Speaker 4 (41:40):
But why not ask the questions then in a survey type
thing there?

Speaker 3 (41:44):
on Facebook.
Look, I don't know, but I'mjust telling you that doesn't do
any good.
That's not a real weighted pollthat could be manipulated
easily.

Speaker 9 (41:50):
Yeah, that is true.

Speaker 4 (41:51):
Okay, fine, fine, fine, fine.
I'm not a news director, I'mjust trying to cook up new names
.

Speaker 3 (41:54):
No, no, but you're right in the respect that if you
go back to the TV stations nowand you look at where they are,
mike and I were talking.
Remember this one time.
It was at Channel 7.

(42:15):
Mary Lynn Roper, greenlit an admaking fun of Steve Stucker.
I mean, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah,they put Steve Stucker on a
promo as a clown.
Okay, don't watch a clown.
And our guy at that time wasJohn Klevenosky.
He was our, our, ourmeteorologist in the morning.
Okay, they put that ad outtrying to make Stucker look like

(42:38):
a clown.
It completely backfires.
It backfires in epic proportion.
Right, and they have to pullthe ad.
All right, they have to pullthe promo off right away, cause
it was a horrible thing to doand anyone who knows Steve
Stucker knows he is about thebest person that ever lived.

Speaker 4 (42:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (42:53):
So it turns out, you know this thing, but that gives
you the mindset Right.
And so channel four startedgiving away televisions on the
morning show, right Duringratings, to get numbers.
And then we started giving awaytelevisions and then we're
going back.
I mean, this stuff mattered atchannel 13,.
Every book mattered, yeah, nowthey don't care, and they, and I
don't know why, I think theyjust have their little piece of

(43:15):
the pie, but the numbers are athird of what they used to be.
And so you see all these things.
You're so frustrated, but I'malso frustrated because we look
at, like how we grew up in news.
You won and it was a win.
Like you care, you got thosenumbers every morning.
There's not a person in thismarket now who gets numbers
every morning, who cares aboutthem, and I, when you told me
that that nobody's following thenumbers every day like they

(43:37):
used to.

Speaker 9 (43:38):
It blew my mind.
I gotta be honest with you.

Speaker 4 (43:40):
Yeah, and I just think that betting a story as a
reporter, having to go in andsay, okay, this is what I have,
these are my two sources, youhave to have both sides right.
You sort of had to say I havethis side for this, this you had
to like, pitch it to, and you,I was nervous for pitch meetings
Cause.
I was like you know you're likethey can shoot me down, and
then I got to go find my nextstory.

Speaker 3 (43:57):
Right, you're in.
You were.
I remember driving into worksweating it Like.

Speaker 9 (44:01):
I had no story.

Speaker 4 (44:02):
Yeah, oh yeah.

Speaker 9 (44:03):
I'd be calling my sources on the way, yeah,
exactly you're calling him 10minutes before the meeting.

Speaker 4 (44:09):
Oh, and just praying that you had both sides, I mean,
that was the biggest thing thatwas always drilled into me is
well, who do you have on theother side to talk to?
Yeah, For every single story.
Now you're like, well, we'vegot an immigration attorney that
is going to make up somethingthat's not really happening.
But it's like what, how doesthis story not get killed?
And the reporter gets back tous to put that, even if he put

(44:29):
that whole package together, anew strategist should look to
that set and said, uh, orproducer and said this is a
terrible story and you need togo back and go and get the real
story on this.

Speaker 3 (44:40):
The real story is who enters, introduce us to the
three and four year olds, and wewant to tell the story of these
kids who are in this countryalone.

Speaker 9 (44:45):
Yeah, and where are they right now?
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (44:47):
And what can we do to help them?

Speaker 4 (44:48):
We can help them out, we'll just help them out, okay.
Getting it, let's move on yeah.

Speaker 3 (44:52):
Yeah, sorry, sorry, we got a little sidetracked yeah
.

Speaker 4 (44:55):
You pulled this clip, which I think is really good,
because I think a lot of folkshave been confused or maybe just
don't get or understand tariffsLike I know for sure arms about
it.
Rubio just has a really goodcommunication style and really
answers this so directly.
This should be played in everyclassroom.

Speaker 3 (45:16):
And just so.
Another point on the media andthis kind of gets to it.
Catherine Harrods used to be atFox, she used to be at CBS.
She's really good, and now thatthe new media has been formed,
where you have a bunch ofdifferent sources, catherine
Harrods is independent.
So she sits down with MarcoRubio where she would have been
one of the main media peopledoing this.
Now she's an independent wherethere's so much more information
, and valuable information atthat.

(45:36):
This is part of that.

Speaker 4 (45:38):
Okay, so let's play this clip.
I think this is fascinating.

Speaker 8 (45:40):
Talked about expanding the US footprint.
In a hot mic moment, Canada'sprime minister said that
absorbing Canada is a real thing.

Speaker 10 (45:51):
Is it a real thing?
You know how that came about.
Presidents meeting with Trudeauand Trudeau says well, if you
impose, if you even out ourtrade relationship, then we will
cease to exist as a country.
At which point the presidentresponded very logically and
that is well.
If you can't exist withoutcheating and trade, then you
should become a state.
That was his observation.
That's how it started.
It is how it started, and Ithink he's told the story

(46:12):
publicly.
And that's how all this began.
Look, canada is our friend,canada is our neighbor, canada
is our partner.
But it goes back to the point Imade.
For decades, the United Statesallowed uneven trade imbalances
to develop During the Cold War.
You know why we did it.
We did it because we felt likewe want countries to be strong
economically, even if it meansthey're cheating, because we

(46:32):
don't want them to fall victimto some internal Marxist coup
that overturns their governmentor what have you.
Those days are gone.
These are rich, developedeconomies and, ultimately, who
can argue against the fact thatwhatever they charge us, we
should charge them?
Whatever they prohibit, if theydon't allow american companies
to do it, we should not allowtheir companies to do it here.
American banks can't evenoperate in canada.

(46:54):
So there has to be reciprocityhere.
We can continue to worktogether on all kinds of things,
but whether it's canada, mexico, china, anybody else, when it
comes to economics and trade,there has to be reciprocity,
there has to be fairness.
And who would argue?
How can anybody argue againstthat?
The days where we just allowcountries to take advantage of
us, that has to end.
That's not good for the globalorder.
That leads to imbalances thatcreate friction points.

(47:16):
That's the case with Canada,it's the case with a lot of
countries who are allies andfriends.
But on trade we have animbalance and it has to be dealt
with.

Speaker 3 (47:23):
It's really good.
It's really good.
So whenever people talk abouttrade, just put in your head
what they're going for is equal.
So in other words, if you sendan automobile into the United
States and we tariff at 10percent, when we send an
automobile to you, it should betariffed at 10 percent.

Speaker 4 (47:40):
And that's what they're going for.
And the fact that some of thesetariffs haven't been negotiated
in decades.

Speaker 9 (47:46):
Yeah, oh, it blows my mind when you hear about it and
think about the amount of moneythis country would bring in if
we actually did what?
The reciprocal tariffs, whichwhat Donald Trump wants to do.
Or let's say we took awaytariffs and everybody you know,
in certain cases prices will godown, right.

Speaker 3 (48:03):
No, you can remove them all across the board too.
In some cases, you couldabsolutely just completely do
the free trade, even across theboard.
What's interesting, too, islike take China, one of these
examples.
Are we buying land in China?
Can you buy land in China?
The answer is no, heck.
No, you can't.
Can China buy land in theUnited States?
The answer is yes, they can.
Yeah, which is funny.
I mean, that is crazy.

(48:23):
That needs to change.
Like that's the sort of thing.
So when you hear about tariffs,remember, think about that lens
, think about the lens of equaltreatment on tariffs, versus the
demagoguery which is, oh mygosh, tariffs are going to raise
prices.
Going to raise prices, going toraise prices.
Yeah, they're going to raiseprices.
If you try to equal it out.
Or the other country says youknow what?
We were hitting you at 20% foryour automobiles, we'll bring it

(48:45):
down to 10.
We'll hit you with 10.
That's what's starting tohappen already.
It's the reason that none ofthese things have actually been
incorporated yet, becausethey're getting an adjustment.

Speaker 9 (48:53):
And if you really think about it for a second, two
quick things.
First of all, some states arecoming out there and not letting
our adversaries buy land inthem, so they're taking baby
steps, but it's not nationally.
And then, when it comes totariffs, if all of a sudden an
American car, if we wanted tosell it in Europe I don't know,
the tariffs are high there, 25,I think, something like that at
least Imagine if that wasdropped to 5% and all of a

(49:17):
sudden American automobilemanufacturers had another
opportunity to sell a lot ofcars in Europe, because that's
not happening right now.

Speaker 4 (49:24):
Right, and you also brought up a good point, mike.
When we were prepping for theshow we talked about, like
number one, why haven't thesetariff audits kind of been
discussed before now?
And number two, you were like,and this whole Doge thing where
people are freaking out.
You're like, why wasn't thishandled, you know, decades ago?
Why were we not looking intothis fraud and you know, all
this waste decades ago?

Speaker 9 (49:44):
And let me say this it's the beauty of a businessman
becoming a president, and abusinessman with business
associates.
They get it.
They get how to negotiatecertain things, wyckoff and
whatnot.
You know how to get ourhostages that are around the
country, around the world, backto the United States.
Elon Musk doing what he's doing, donald Trump being a
businessman, he gets it wherethe last number of presidents

(50:07):
have all been politicians, andthat's a huge difference.

Speaker 3 (50:11):
And there will be some cases too, though, by the
way, on the trade front, wherewe have to keep products out of
the country, like, for example,chinese EVs.
They cannot come into thiscountry.

Speaker 4 (50:20):
Right.

Speaker 3 (50:21):
Because they are able to produce an EV at a price
that is absolutely insane.
Okay, so they would absolutelydestroy the EV market in the
United States, so there will betariffs on their EV should be a
hundred percent.

Speaker 9 (50:34):
I was going to say I think I've heard Trump mentioned
something like that?

Speaker 3 (50:36):
Yeah Well, you have to, because literally they could
produce an EV half the cost.
Like you want a super cool.
You know, a hundred thousanddollar EV in the U S, china can
do it for 40 or 50,000, whichwould just destroy the whole
market.

Speaker 4 (50:54):
So so some of that does have to be accounted for.
And again, there's plenty ofour products that just don't get
in places for that exact reason.
Okay, and here's my personalrequest it's tax season and, um,
I told you this the other daythat I wish we had some sort of
AI program, like Elon has whenhe's going through the USAID and
all these other companies tosee what they've been spending
their money on and what's waste,what's good.
I would like to be able to havean AI program that I just give
all of our bank statements toand like here's our spend,

(51:16):
here's our credit cards.
Could you just analyze it forme and do all my tax reports for
me, so I don't have to spendcountless hours?
I have a tiny budget.

Speaker 3 (51:24):
I'll bet money that we can find that.

Speaker 4 (51:26):
You think.

Speaker 9 (51:27):
I do.

Speaker 3 (51:34):
If not now, then very soon.
Yeah, there's no doubt.
I mean they've got largelanguage models going after full
federal government programsthat are billions of dollars.
What about the little guys?

Speaker 4 (51:37):
I absolutely think it is out there.
I just hope.
It's been three weekends tryingto cobble together, I know.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
You're trying to do anything.

Speaker 4 (51:42):
You can not to have to do that.
I totally get it.
I service because it'sincredible Okay.

Speaker 3 (51:48):
Last episode we talked about the numbers on the
late night shows.
In that they're unbelievablebecause Greg Gutfeld gets about
3.3 million people to watch ashow he's on Fox news.
Okay, um, basically JimmyKimmel, and I think it's the
tonight show.
If you combine Kimmel and thetonight show, you're not at 3.3
million yeah.
Yeah, and then and then, ofcourse, you have Colbert in

(52:10):
there as well.
You also have Seth Meyers, whodoes an even later show, and one
of the arguments we made wasthey made such an incredible
mistake by by not necessarilytalking about politics.
That's okay, but advocating forone side constantly.
That's what Colbert does,that's what Kimball does and
that's what Seth Meyers does.
The three of them constantlypush a message they want you to

(52:32):
go in their direction, okay.
Well, what they've basicallydone then is taken basically 20%
of the audience and split themup between the three of them and
they're just like, well, goodfor us, it's complete broadcast
suicide.
And because of that, gutfeldcomes out and he takes
everything else and it's such aterrible business plan and I
can't believe the executives atthese networks let it happen.

(52:54):
It's one thing like if I'mKimmel's boss, I go to him and I
say listen, you can shredRepublicans, go for it.
Just shred Democrats to shredeverybody and go nuts.
You want to make fun of them,mock them, do whatever, do it,
there's nothing wrong with that,but just don't push everybody
constantly in one direction.
And so I stumbled upon a clipof Johnny Carson talking to 60
Minutes and they were almostlamenting the fact that Johnny

(53:18):
Carson never weighed in on oneside or the other.
Not that Johnny Carson didn'trip up, he did.
He made fun of everybody, butyou never knew where he was
coming from.
And this little clip fromCarson is super illustrative of
what used to happen and doesn'thappen anymore.

Speaker 1 (53:35):
You get sensitive about the fact that people say
he'll never take a seriouscontroversy.
Well, I have an answer to that.
I said now tell me the lasttime that Jack Benny, red
Skelton, any comedian, use hisshow to do serious issues.
That's not what I'm there for,can't they see that?
But you're not.

(53:57):
Do they think that just becauseyou have a tonight show, that
you must deal in serious issues?
That's a danger.
It's a real danger.
Once you start that, you startto get that self-important
feeling that what you say hasgreat import.
And you know, strangely enough,you could use that show as a
forum, you could sway people,and I don't think you should as
an entertainer.

Speaker 9 (54:18):
That's.
I mean really, he's hit thatnail right on the head.
And I've been watching a lot ofJohnny Carson clips lately,
even popping up on my Facebookfeed, and I didn't even know
about that interview.
But these these clips are soright down the middle,
nonpolitical at all, and it justI miss those days, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4 (54:36):
I would love to see us get back to those days, yeah.

Speaker 3 (54:38):
No, yeah, and just someone who's just or Saturday
Night Live too.
I'd like to see Saturday NightLive go back to like ripping, on
both sides too, because it'sjust not that funny anymore.

Speaker 4 (54:45):
Yeah, no.

Speaker 3 (54:46):
I think you're right.
I think that's a really goodpoint.
Okay, one more quick littleweather story.
Of course, ava.
Let's go to the tweet first,and this is from Jack Dirk, and
this is amazing stuff.
So we're basically 52 days intothe year.
Okay, check out the number ofsnow days, days in which snow
has fallen in upstate New YorkSyracuse 49 of 52.

(55:10):
Binghamton 45 of 52.
Rochester, where my brotherlives, we call it the rock baby
51 out of 52 days.
Buffalo 51 out of 52.
Albany 41.
Unbelievable.
And you see what's happened andwhat's come off the lake,
especially Lake Ontario, thatpushed into Buffalo, and you see
the video which is just likelook at this.

(55:32):
I mean they're just gettingcrushed day in and day out with
lake effect snow.
So when you think about what'shappening in New Mexico or, mike
, you're going back to Texastoday.
Just remember it could be worseit could be worse.
You could be up getting lakeeffect, snow and just getting
buried.

Speaker 4 (55:50):
You could have bad weather, super high taxes and a
terrible governor in New York.

Speaker 3 (55:55):
Oh my gosh, that's a trifecta, right there.

Speaker 4 (55:57):
Yeah, Move west people, there you go no it's
unbelievable, those numbers.

Speaker 3 (56:01):
I was just staggering when I saw the numbers.

Speaker 4 (56:03):
Yeah, that's rough, yeah, okay.
So this is some sad news thatwe found out about earlier today
and we wanted to share with youguys, because this family is so
close to us and they are partof our school community.
And Craig is the dad and Craigwas tragically hit.
He was riding his bike ontramway in 40.

(56:23):
And he was hit by a city busand he passed away last night.
And this is a missionary family.
They're missionaries and theyhave six children and this
family serves our community andother communities, god's
community so beautifully.
Anybody that's come in touchwith this family is just better

(56:43):
because of them.
And I just wanted to share.
We're doing.
A GoFundMe account has been puttogether for this family.
We're going to share that linkwith you guys.
I'm telling you this familydeserves every bit that we can
give to them.
And did you want to saysomething, mike?

Speaker 9 (57:01):
No, I was just going to say give, send go.

Speaker 4 (57:02):
Yeah, Give, send, go is the link.
We're going to share it in ourshow notes.
And again, they're missionaries.
Craig was instrumental inhelping out our high school and
Ava wants to say a few wordsbecause Ava knew him personally
as well.

Speaker 8 (57:18):
I just I think this whole family is just really good
, like it's just full of reallygood people.
You can't think of a bad thingto say about the Hawkwoods
family.
Craig actually managed part ofUNM's Christian outreach program
.
He worked with them.
He did a really great job there.
We went on a service trip thejunior class last year.
He went with us and he was justlike, he's just so good.

(57:39):
He was just such a good person.
Kenan is such a good kid.
He's in my class.
I consider him a dear friendand I think he's just wonderful.
His mother, brynn she went on adrama trip with us a couple of
days ago and she's like a saintand they're just wonderful
people and like, if there'sanybody who deserves like our

(58:00):
love and support and care, it'sthis family.
They lived in Africa for like10 years ministering to people
there, risking their lives, andthey are just like the most.
They're just such good, genuine, kind people and Mr Hockwitz
was so kind to me, so kind to myfriends, and you could just not
like ever come up with a badthing to say about them.

(58:20):
It's just, it's an awful, awfulthing that's happened and um,
they really deserve like as muchof our support as we can give
them yeah.

Speaker 4 (58:27):
Thanks, ava, it's so true.
Like I have one of the sons inmy class as well and they're
just beautiful people.
I've become friends with MissBrynn and it's heartbreaking
today, so we're trying to dowhat we can here, which is to
tell you about this Gives and Golink, if it's in your heart to

(58:48):
give to this family.
We know these guys personallyand it would be put to great use
, this missionary family so andI think when you see two little,
two little boys, that are four.

Speaker 8 (58:57):
They have twins.
They have twin four-year-olds.
They have a girl in fourthgrade.
They have a girl, I believe, insecond grade.

Speaker 3 (59:03):
And they have dedicated their lives to being
the hands and feet of God, and Iknow when you see something
like this happen, it's easy tobe like what, how could this?
Where's God in this?
But I can assure you that Craigis standing next to the God he
served every single day here.
I guarantee you that and Iguarantee you his heart is full

(59:26):
and I know it's horrid and it's,but also he is someone who is
with the King of King and Lordof Lords.
The person he served he is Now.
That doesn't make it any easierfor everybody else left behind.
Right.
But also something like this.
I know that there are somepeople who are like oh my gosh,
why would God let this happen?
God brought one of his servantshome.

(59:49):
Don't forget that.

Speaker 4 (59:50):
Yeah, yeah, it's tough Anyway.
So we'll post that in ourcomments on YouTube as well.
The link on our look in ourcomments section.

Speaker 8 (59:58):
It'll be in the description of the video as well
in the description of theSpotify episode and the Ample
Podcast episode.

Speaker 4 (01:00:03):
Okay, perfect.
So that's where you can findthe link.
If you don't see it for somereason, just write to us and
we'll make sure that you getthat Cause we would really love
to see if we can support thisfamily.
But I'm sorry to end on such asad note.
Keep this family in yourprayers.
Mike, thanks for joining us.
It's twice today, Twice.

Speaker 3 (01:00:19):
Coming back.
All right, you can get back inthe car now and try to head home
and we'll hopefully have audioyes tomorrow.

Speaker 9 (01:00:26):
You're back on tomorrow.

Speaker 3 (01:00:28):
Go victorycom.
Thanks, brother, we'll see youback here soon.

Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
You've been listening to the no Doubt About it
podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it podcast.

Speaker 3 (01:00:50):
No doubt about it at no Doubt About it.
Podcast no doubt about it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:53):
The no Doubt About it Podcast is a Choose Adventure
Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.

Speaker 3 (01:01:01):
There is no doubt about it.