Episode 207: More Flooding Hits New Mexico...Why Bill Nye Is A Fool & The Fight To Stop China!

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
all right and hits keep on coming.
Yeah, we've turned into aweather show here, apparently.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
Um, we're gonna people love the fact that you're
talking about weather.
We got so many comments Icouldn't even put them all in
the show.
I mean, I couldn't begin to putthem all in the show, but great
feedback, definitely.
I mean especially when it's uh,you know, emergency weather
right you know, people areobviously very alert on that,
especially here in new mexico,which we have some breaking news
on that as well, with theflooding in rio dosa, which we

(00:34):
will also get to.
But just holy cow, I mean, itdoes feel like just this.
I mean we're at the what, thebeginning of the monsoons too.
Yeah, have they even started?

Speaker 2 (00:44):
yeah, yeah, we, yeah, we have the.
Some of the classic monsoonsignatures have been present
over the past few weeks now.
We had a very wet spring too,which was good, and that was not
the monsoon flow pattern, butthis now is, and we'll get in to
all of that and we're gonnahave a more varied show.
Today we will get into a littlebit of some of the reaction to
the show we did and, if you wantto go back and listen to the
show we did just a couple ofdays ago, we're coming back at

(01:07):
you pretty quickly here to getback on schedule.
But we talked about the Texasfloods, why these floods were so
devastating in those areas ofTexas, and it's an instructive
thing for New Mexico because wedo get the bad floods.
We're about to talk about onehere in a second in Ruidoso as
well, and then we're going toget into someone who I think is
one of the more damaging peoplein the country because he has

(01:31):
the rare ability, as a charlatan, to act like he is an expert on
something he has no knowledgein.
And there are plenty of peoplethat are blowhards all across
the country that get on podcastsand get on news programs.
There are plenty of those, butmost of them have the personal
self-respect to not cloakthemselves in expertise, not

(01:51):
give themselves false expertise,and the one person who does
that more than anybody else inthe country was on CNN, and I
find him to be infuriating, andso we will briefly talk about
him and expose him for the phonythat he is, and I use very
strong language with him becauseI think what he does is
incredibly damaging and I thinkhe's just a.

(02:12):
He's a political hack who posesas a scientist, and it is
infuriating.
And so then we're going to talkabout some of the other things
that are happening here.
One of them weather modification.
Does that have an?

Speaker 3 (02:22):
issue.
Is that an issue?
Well, I mean, it's been talkingabout, it's been talked about
all over Twitter, even our ex.
Last night I responded bysaying hey, listen, we're gonna
talk about cloud seeding.
You know, Mark wants to clearthe air on at least for what you
know, your understanding of itis and what you know it to be.
And let's talk about that,because I think there is a lot
of uh conspiracy right thereabout uh cloud seeding.

(02:43):
So, we are going to hit that aswell.

Speaker 2 (02:46):
Yes, we will absolutely hit that, and then
we're going to get into somemore national political issues
as well, One of them that we'vebeen wanting to talk about for a
long time we've we've mentionedit before how in the world of
the Chinese own farmland in theUnited States?

Speaker 3 (03:01):
We talked about that a year ago.
It's crazy, it's crazy theamount of amount that they
actually own.
So a little bit of a clawbackpotentially trying to happen.

Speaker 2 (03:08):
Absolutely, which is about time, and I think it's a
smart thing to do.
Then the immigration battlescontinue to be a huge, huge
issue.
We'll talk about what thenumbers look like CNN has some
new numbers out on that andwe're also going to get into the
interesting dance that thepresident is going to have to
undertake with his base, withhis MAGA base and this is normal
for any president.
Where you get in there, youstart doing things, your base

(03:32):
loves it, and then as you go tostage two and stage three of
your presidency, when youcontinue to enact things and
sometimes reality runs upagainst campaign promises, and
there are some people who arejust diehards, who want one
thing and one thing only,whatever that is, they're
purists, and those politicalpurists oftentimes get very
angry, and so I think it's goingto be very interesting to see

(03:52):
how the president handles that.
Then we're going to get into alittle bit of the Medicaid stuff
and some more polling, and thenfinally, we're going to get
into, I think, what's happenedone interesting thing with the
president.
I think the president may bewatching somebody who does
impressions of him and in a way,the president is doing his own
voice, as it's beingimpersonated by someone else, if

(04:13):
that makes sense.
So it's almost like DonaldTrump does Shane Gillis who's
doing Donald Trump.
So it's pretty funny and we'llget into that as well.

Speaker 3 (04:20):
Okay, well, let's dive into some of these comments
.
Thanks again you guys forwriting and I feel like we have
such a great community out thereand I know that you don't
always agree with everythingthat we say.
You guys, I feel like, for themost part, are really polite to
each other online and Iappreciate that, even when you
disagree on topics.
So please keep that up.
We love that kind of communityhere and we appreciate that.
So keep those emails andcomments coming on YouTube,

(04:42):
please for sure.
Okay, this one came in as emailso I can't actually pop this
one up, but it came fromGretchen Bedeau Gretchen.
It says Dear Mark and Christy,I don't normally post on social
media, but wanted to write athank you for the special no
Doubt About it show you did onthe Texas flooding.
It gave my husband and I abetter perspective of the
flooding that happened around us.
I especially liked learningabout the mescal.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
Mesoscale convective vortex.
Thank you, mcb.

Speaker 3 (05:05):
Okay, low pressure system and moisture from
decaying tropical storm over ourhome in the hills.
We got 11 inches of rain.
We live in the hills above andsouthwest of Kerrville and south
of Hunt.
Our dry creek beds ran, but ourhome, animals and property are
safe.
We like to listen to yourpodcast to keep up with New
Mexico events.
You are both informative andfun.
Keep up the good work.

(05:26):
Thank you again.
Gretchen, thanks so much.
She actually had lived here.
They've retired now.
There she voted for you,governor.
I mean her kids performed indebate and stuff.
So she wrote a lot more thanthat.

Speaker 2 (05:37):
But, gretchen, thank you for taking the time to write
us.
Yeah, that's a really coolletter.
Thank you, Gretchen.

Speaker 3 (05:40):
Yeah, thank you so much about that.
Okay, susan wrote in.
Susan says thank you for yourcompassion and honesty while
discussing the horrific event.
Kit Kelly said such aninformative and sad show today
Heart-wrenching story about thedad that could not save his
daughters and parents.
Like you, I am absolutelydisgusted by this.
Some insane people trying topoliticize this Inexcusable and

(06:01):
beyond redemption.
And here we have Chepa Kelly.
Sure, okay, chepa Kelly 7807.
Chepa Kelly, thank you for theexceptional presentation which
removed the political andreplaced it with human
perspective on the devastatingTexas flood.
There are no R's or D's whenour nation is suffering.
We have never missed an episodebecause we can see your passion

(06:22):
and love for New Mexico and ourcountry.
Thank you for being socommitted to staying true to
yourselves.
Ron Keddie, may God bless youand your family, which was very
nice.
And then Pete I put this one inbecause he added a lot more
detail to you.
Pete said I'm a trained weatherspotter for 14 years and hold a
Bachelor of Science degree ingeography.
I would add the following Onewarning sirens are mostly

(06:44):
designed for those who may beoutside, versus inside a
structure, where they're lessaudible for what it's worth.
They are prone to storm-relatedpower outages, but many are
equipped with backup powergeneration.
Another thing is regarding theNOAA weather radios.
I'm puzzled that more peopledon't have these because they
save lives.
Relatively inexpensive they'reless less than 30 or $40.

(07:05):
There are a lot.
Alert buzzers can wake up thedeepest of sleepers from another
room and work on battery power.
As we both know, these devicesgive immediate real time watches
and warnings directly from thenational weather service.
As they are issued, theseradios are the best way to be
alerted.
And he went on to say that healso believed that the national
weather service did their jobthat day and did it to the best
of their ability.

(07:25):
So thanks again, you guys, forwriting in.
Please.
If you want to drop us an email, you can send it to info at no
doubt about it.
Podcastcom.
Sign up for emails also on ourwebsite which is no doubt about
it, podcastcom and also justcontinue to make those comments
on our YouTube channel.
It helps us greatly, so thankyou so much.

Speaker 2 (07:41):
So I want to add a quick thing to what Pete said
about the weather radios.
I think what we're about totalk about in Ruidoso if you
live in Ruidoso or you knowsomeone who lives in Ruidoso, I
think this is a great idea,because we grew up with them in
our house.
We had NOAA weather radios allthe time, and so he's right.
There is a piercing warningwhen that happens and they don't

(08:03):
constantly ring.
You can set it up in a way thatmakes sure that you get the
most serious warnings.
So even in the middle of thenight, you know, we would get
some very strong stormsoccasionally and the thing would
go off and it would alerteverybody.
And if you live in Ruedo so Ithink I would I would absolutely
highly recommend you get one,because if what happens
yesterday or what happenedyesterday on Tuesday happens

(08:25):
again, there's no question it'sgoing to flood the same way, and
I'll explain why it happenedhere in just a second.
But what you saw on the scenesthat we saw in Rudoso here over
the past day or so are exactlylike the scenes we saw in Texas,
Although it didn't take nearlyas much rain in Rudoso to do
what it did as it did in Texasto give you an idea.
Okay, so Texas.
As you mentioned the family inKerrville, they got 10 plus

(08:47):
inches of rain.
Rudoso got three.
Even, not even Rudoso got three.
The mountains outside of Rudosogot three.

Speaker 3 (08:54):
Okay, that was, that's what it took.
Okay, so it just really dependson the topography and the burn
scar.

Speaker 2 (09:00):
Okay, so let's get to it.

Speaker 3 (09:10):
First of all, I have a question about that.
Noah weather radio Okay.
So I I covered the F4 tornadowhen I was a news anchorage
reporter and it scared me so badbecause it happened at night
and so I lived in a threebedroom apartment.
My mom sent me a weather radioand I just remember it being a
weather radio and it would gooff all the time, do you?
It scared me so bad.
I finally had to get rid of itbecause I kind of had like PTSD
from that tornado because it wasreally scary and it killed a
lot of people and so I kind ofwas freaked out about it because
I wasn't used to living intornado alley Right, was that a

(09:30):
new radio?
I have.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
You probably was I'm not a hundred percent sure, but
it probably was and what you cando with them is you can set
them for certain thresholds,just like you set your phone.

Speaker 3 (09:38):
Oh, I probably did not do that.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (09:48):
And that's.

Speaker 2 (09:49):
Believe me, they've come a long way, like when I was
a kid, you got them and you setthem down and that's going off,
and it's going off, and it'sjust the way it is.
Well, that's not the case now.
So you can set these things up.
So when there is a floodwarning and what I probably
would use as the threshold is aflood warning or or flood
emergency, the minute thathappens, everything should be
going off.
In other words, I think, too,on our phones, we need to
seriously look at.
If you live in a place likeKerrville, I think what they
should do is work a deal withyour carrier and work a deal

(10:10):
with the iPhone and whateverelse.
You have to work the Androidsto be able to say we are going
to send you a message that, nomatter when it is, no matter
what your phone is set on, youcan, you can opt into a, I guess
, a warning system that wouldblow up your phone no matter
what.

Speaker 3 (10:25):
Well, it's kind of like an Amber alert.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but even more so, even more so.
It's gotta be much, it's gottabypass everything on your phone
to be able to crank it up, withthe exception of being turned
off, Right, right, but.
But without that, it doesn'tmatter if your your ringers
turned off, not, it shouldbypass all of it and you have a
weather emergency, you've optedinto this and it will go off.
So if you are taking a vacationon the guadalupe river, I mean

(10:49):
just for, I mean I wouldabsolutely have that set now.
I don't think that's fully setthe way we need it to be, but I
think it can get done okay, okay, interesting.
All right, let's talk about riodoso yeah, so this was the video
that came out on tuesday, justdevastating, as you can see a
cabin just absolutely floatingdown the rio ruidoso the whole
house I mean just hard.
I mean this town has beenthrough so much, from the fire

(11:12):
last year to the regular floodslast year, to some this year, to
this and we've had three deathsso reported so far two kids,
two small children, just awfulto watch this play out they went
from a normal flow to 20 feetabove flood stage, basically
within an hour.
I mean, it was just devastatingto look at how this plays out

(11:34):
and I think this is just the wayit is down there right now
because of the way things set up, and I want to show you first,
just the way it's set up.

Speaker 3 (11:43):
because of the burn scars is what you're talking
about.

Speaker 2 (11:44):
Yeah, and the way, the way the water flows out of
the Sacramento mountains intotown.
Okay, so the Sacramentomountains basically sit just
West of Rudoso.
Okay, and that's important Now,by the way, look at this, this
is a time-lapse shot.
Look how quickly this happened.
I mean, it's just scary, okay.
So I want to show you first andwe're going to put up a radar

(12:06):
and, ava, let's run this loop afew times but what I want to
show you is what happened here,and what you have is see those
storms coming down from theNorth, okay, and they're blowing
up, blowing up as they'recoming down.
You got some severethunderstorms there.
Rain rates are very, very highout of those storms, okay.
Now, in those particular storms, okay, as they slide their way
down, they're going down overthe mountains here.

(12:28):
So, where you're seeing thosereds and oranges if we can even
pause it, say right, there, okay, now, notice where all the
heaviest rain is.
You look at the heaviest rainand you say it's not over
Ruedoso.
Ruedoso is on the right side ofyour screen there.
Do you see it?
It's in the lighter rain.
Right, you're going.
What's the problem here?
Right, where those storms aregoing, that is where the
headwaters of the Rio Ruidoso is, that's over the high terrain

(12:51):
of the Sacramento Mountains andthat's also over the area that
has been just charred, okay, andso what you have in that area
is the combination of the heavyrain, the canyon and burn scars,
so that everything funnels downfrom west to east, off the
mountains, directly into town,and so this is one of the most

(13:14):
dangerous setups you can have inRudoso, because the canyon
which the Rio Rudoso rolls down,it just gets filled with this
water and mud and sludge thatcomes flying into town.
So where those storms hit wasdevastating.

Speaker 3 (13:32):
Well and just you know we're going to continue to
reach out.
I know a lot of people rightnow they're still looking for
loved ones, are looking fortheir.
You know they're just trying tokind of recover today a little
bit, but as we get moreinformation about how we can
help the folks of Rio Doso,we'll be happy to share that
information out.
If you're listening to us fromRio Doso and you know that
directly, please drop us anemail and or write a comment on

(13:54):
our YouTube channel and we willhelp spread the word about that
in our next show, because it isgoing to be vitally important
Again, just like when the firescame, is how do we help these
folks out?

Speaker 2 (14:03):
Right, and the scariest part of this, though,
is when you look at that radarand you see those are.
Those are garden variety storms.
Those are not crazy.
Yeah, three inches of rain inthat area.
Okay, which for New Mexico?
Many of you know, in mountaincommunities, we get three inches
of rain, with a thunderstorm,regularly.
It's not all the time, and itdefinitely can lead to minor
flooding, but because thesituation in Rudos is so

(14:26):
different, what's so scary aboutit is I talked to one of my
friends there today, and sheoperates car wash there, and
she's like what's going tohappen today?
I didn't have an answer forbecause these are pop up
thunderstorms that work theirway down.
Yesterday was not a super wetday.
Across New Mexico, most areasdidn't see a ton of rain.
Yesterday was not a super wetday.
Across New Mexico, most areasdidn't see a ton of rain, but

(14:46):
that's what makes this so scaryfor so many people there who
look at it and go.
I don't know what's going tohappen.
What if this happens againtoday?
And if you're in Rudoso, you'veliterally seen scenes like that
three, four times, with floodingin the past year, not to
mention the devastating fires.
It's just, and I wish I had abetter answer about what to do.
Other than you know, beprepared for these things and

(15:08):
know where the storms are.
In relation to the Sacramentomountains, it matters to you.
If those storms are bubbling upto your West, that matters.
It doesn't mean it's going tohappen every time like this, but
it does mean the chances go upthe more action you get over
Sierra Blanca and around alongthe headwaters of the Rio.

Speaker 3 (15:23):
Yeah, you know, and on X yesterday there was also
some reporting of some of thosewaters like lots of rains right
where we had just drove throughthe day before, where Mora and
Guadalupita.
They were getting some risingwaters there with the rain
they're also having.
I mean Mora has burned scarsfrom the Herma Cal Fire.

Speaker 2 (15:41):
Oh, Herma's Peak Cal Fire.
No question, mora's a greatexample of another one of those.
It's even worse, though, inRudoso, because the canyon setup
is worse.
Got it Okay.
So you get a little more of awide flow out at a Mora, but
still even Mora.
If you put three inches of snowor, excuse me, three inches of
rain on those burn scars in Mora, you will wash out between mora

(16:06):
and guadalupita.
That's right.
That'll be a massive issue.
Yeah, it'll be a huge issue.
So, again, this is something welive with here.
This is something that is notnew to the state of new mexico,
and again, it's not.
This is not driven by climatechange.
These storms, they're not,they're not, and so that's why I
want to get to this latestposer okay because the person.

Speaker 3 (16:21):
even he's not even the latest.
No, he's been a poser for along time.
He's been around for a longtime.

Speaker 2 (16:24):
He has and he has absolutely no training in
meteorology.
He has no training inclimatology, but he calls
himself the science guy and it'sBill Nye.
What's wrong, eva?
Go ahead, go ahead, yeah.

Speaker 9 (16:41):
I just wanted to say that this kind of bumps me out
as someone who ingested copiousamounts of Bill Nye related
content in my youth.
It was the go to for sciencerelated news.
Growing up Like it would be, itwas a huge deal if you got to
go in after recess and watchBill Nye.
It was like the best thing ever.

Speaker 3 (16:58):
It's almost like he's a character, like he's almost
like an actor.

Speaker 9 (17:01):
Well right, like our Mr Rogers a little bit.

Speaker 2 (17:03):
No, I understand, and I think that that's right, and
I think this is why I think whathe says here and who he is is
so dangerous, because he's souninformed.
He has no idea what he'stalking about and when CNN
platforms him and Dana Bash putshim on her show and says, gee,
tell us, tell us what we can do,what can we do to avoid having

(17:25):
this happen again, right, he'stalking about the Texas floods.
Okay, now we gave you in thelast episode five things that
happened that led to the massiveloss of life.
We laid all of those out so youcan go check those out.
But it was a rare weathersituation and a combination of a
weather situation combined withtopography, combined with the
time of day, meaning at night,combined with a holiday weekend.

(17:48):
There's a bunch of differentstuff, right, and there's real
meteorological reasons that thishappened.
Okay, bill Nye doesn't knowabout any of those.
We had one of our viewersmention that, talking about an
MCV.
Bill Nye wouldn't know what anMCV was if his life depended on
it.
He wouldn't know that, as anMCV backs into a decaying

(18:08):
tropical system, it leads to avery dangerous situation and on
top of that, when you havecanyons and Hills in the Hill
country that enhance all of this.
That's the cause.
Okay, he didn't know any ofthat.
What he knows is politics.
What he knows is people whosupport him tell him to say
things that are ludicrous, andyoung kids like Ava, who grew up

(18:31):
on him, listen to him and theyhear him say what we're about to
play, think oh, okay, if momdidn't drive an SUV, we wouldn't
have these floods.
What an ignorant clown.
So let's just listen to whatthis poser has to say.

Speaker 5 (18:48):
You can't just float your way out of it.
It knocks everything over.
Everybody knows.
You pick up a bucket of water,you know how heavy it is and you
get a lot of water going thatfast.
So what are we going to doabout it is the ancient question
, and it would be to stopburning fossil fuels when you're
in a hole, stop digging and soon.
But the fossil fuel industryhas been very successful in

(19:12):
getting organizations like theUS Congress to think that it's
really not happening.

Speaker 8 (19:17):
Well, and the first six months of the Trump
administration, we've seen anend to some of the federal
efforts on not just fossil fuelbut other efforts that had been
in place government-wide topromote alternative energy.

Speaker 2 (19:35):
I mean, who's dumber between these two?
So it's infuriating to watch,because the reality of the
situation is.
I can promise you this withevery fiber of my being you
could stop burning every singlefossil fuel tomorrow and, by the
way, many more people will dieand suffer because of it.

(19:56):
But he doesn't know thatbecause he's bought and paid for
, so that doesn't matter.
But, setting that aside, youcould stop burning every fossil
fuel tomorrow and you wouldstill get thunderstorms that
would lead to flooding, thatwould lead to massive flooding
along the Guadalupe River inTexas from the now until the end

(20:16):
of the planet Earth.
But his disingenuous garbage andhis politically motivated crap
is believed by too many people.
He should be drummed out ofpublic life and humiliation
because he's a charlatan, a fooland doesn't know what he's
talking about.
I mean, it's just that simple,and anybody, cnn or Dana Bash,

(20:39):
who again does everything shecan to push a political
narrative, should be ashamed ofthemselves.
And so please don't listen tothis guy because he has no idea
what he's talking about.
I mean, this was caused by veryspecific meteorological reasons
that have nothing to do withmom driving an Armada or mom

(20:59):
driving a Tahoe.
It's just ridiculous and, by theway, he is so uninformed that
he believes you could just stopburning fossil fuels, like,
literally, the state of NewMexico would cease to exist.
I mean, and not only that,every middle income and low
income family you couldn't gowhere you need to go.

(21:20):
You couldn't drive a car, youcouldn't have a hospital that
runs on power.
We rely on natural gas for mostof the how we generate power
for our hospitals.
Clown, like what do you thinkthis is?
He's just such a fool and I'msorry to be so nasty toward him
personally nasty, but he'sdisgusting to me.
He's disgusting.

Speaker 3 (21:40):
Well, because it's hard, because he's not a truth
teller, and then he gets all thelimelight to talk about this
stuff and you manipulate kids,you manipulate the parents, you
manipulate the system, and it'sjust, it's infuriating.
Okay, so one thing that's kindof buzzing about, and it's been
buzzing about for quite a whileon X.
Okay, so first of all, explainbriefly cloud seeding, because

(22:00):
cloud seeding has been going onsince the 40s.
By the way, if people don'tknow that, it was introduced in
the 1940s I think 46, somethinglike that.
And so can you briefly explainwhat cloud seeding is for those
people who don't know what it is?

Speaker 2 (22:12):
Yeah, so cloud seeding is the introduction of
what they call condensationnuclei into the atmosphere.
Okay, what's condensationnuclei?
It's a little particle, oftensalt, or, in this particular
case, they spread silver iodidein the atmosphere.
What it does is it providesthis little speck right, and
then moisture basically adheresto that little speck, forms a

(22:33):
raindrop and it falls out.
So effectively, what it can dois increase some rainfall across
areas that need it.
We've tried it here in NewMexico to some degree with some
limited success.
There's been Colorado's triedit, utah's tried it, they've
tried it during the winter toget more snow, and so it is
something that I think, onbalance, is something pretty

(22:54):
good, which I think we need totry to do to get some more
moisture.
So you know again.
But you have fools likeMarjorie Taylor Greene who come
out and say, oh my gosh, this isgeoengineering, you can't do
this or whatever.
Oh, give me a break.

Speaker 3 (23:07):
She has no idea, and then it led to the Texas flight.

Speaker 2 (23:09):
Right Now, by the way .
Yeah, so I guess NBC talkedabout this.
Yeah, nbc, gotti Schwartz.

Speaker 7 (23:13):
Yeah, he gets into this, so I want posts or videos
connecting cloud seeding to whatis happening in Texas.
And then earlier tonight theCEO of a weather modification
company confirmed that planes inTexas did release silver iodine
into the atmosphere two daysbefore the floods.
But he also explained why hesays scientifically it does not

(23:36):
mean that the two events areconnected.

Speaker 6 (23:39):
Watch this.
We're talking about like subcentimeter amounts of
precipitation, be it in snow orrain, from every event, which in
aggregate, can mean hundreds ofacre feet, which is very
consequential for farmers andecosystems, but cannot come
close to causing flooding untoitself.

Speaker 7 (23:58):
NBC News climate reporter Chase Kane joins us now
.
Chase, any conspiracy alwaysstarts with a thread of truth
here Can you explain the science?
What is cloud seeding first off, and how is it being used in
Texas?

Speaker 10 (24:14):
Yeah.
So cloud seeding is really thisidea for farmers of like, hey,
there's some moisture up therein the clouds?

Speaker 7 (24:19):
We can get it out of the clouds.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
Yeah, and he does a decent job explaining it, by the
way.
And and Gotti Schwartz wasn'tsaying, by the way, he's a guy
who used to work here in NewMexico he's he's not saying you
know, this is happening and itdidn't.
That had absolutely nothing todo with what happened here.
And anyone who tells you cloudseeding leads to massive
flooding and it's going to, it'snot true.

(24:42):
It's just not true.
And I think that we are lookingat doing more and more cloud
seeding.
Had we won the governor's race,we would have invested, you know
, effort and time into cloudseeding, because it's important
and I think we need to wring outas much moisture as we possibly
can.
But it does not, and that'swhat he the CEO of of that cloud
seeding company didn't do agreat job explaining that,

(25:04):
because the way he kind ofexplained it was well, yes, if
you get it in mass, it's a hugeamounts of water.
It's not, though, in any onearea.
It again could give you anextra little bit of rain each
time, or a little bit of snoweach time, but in aggregate,
meaning once you add it alltogether, it could add some
additional moisture.
When anybody tells you thatcloud seeding is basically

(25:24):
massive weather modification.
It's not true and it's anoverreaction.
So be careful on some of thesethings.

Speaker 3 (25:30):
Right definitely conspiracy.
It's, definitely, it's a prettybig conspiracy on X, for
example Right yeah, I mean, justrealize that it's been used.

Speaker 2 (25:39):
Or on the edges to try to increase a little bit of
moisture.
It's something that has beentried here in New Mexico, again
with limited success.
Colorado has tried it.
So again, just don't buy allthis.

Speaker 3 (25:49):
It's been around for 80 years, by the way.
It's been around for 80 years,so it's not like some new thing
where the government's tryingto-.

Speaker 2 (25:55):
Yeah, the government's trying to flood us
all out of what no, they're not.

Speaker 3 (25:58):
That's not what's happening.

Speaker 2 (25:58):
They're not.

Speaker 3 (25:59):
Okay, so let's talk a little bit.
What we've talked about is thiswhole the Chinese buying up
farmland.
How dangerous can that be, youknow, especially buying things
close to other military bases,for example, buying up
businesses in the country.
What does that look like?
Why should we be concerned?
It's been going on for severalyears I mean decades at this

(26:20):
point.
People have been covering it.
Several years I mean decades atthis point, people have been
covering it.
So let's, let's hear a littlebit about this, because the
agricultural secretary, BrookeRollins, came out yesterday
making quite an announcementabout this is going to happen.
No more, no more.

Speaker 1 (26:34):
We announced the USDA's National Farm Security
Action Plan.
This plan includes seven keyaction items, and there's a lot
of people here that I want youto hear from, so I'm not going
to go one by one, but just veryquickly.
It's on our website, the presshas gotten a preview of it and
we can ask some questions oncewe finish the main program.
But very quickly, and perhapsthe most important, the first of

(26:57):
the seven is securing andprotecting American farmland
ownership.
Actively engaging at everylevel of government to take
swift legislative and executiveaction to ban the purchase of
American farmland by Chinesenationals and other foreign
adversaries.
Standing on the shoulders ofgreat governors three of whom
are standing behind me, who havealready been leading the way on

(27:19):
this issue and, at the federalgovernment level, working to do
everything within our ability,including presidential
authorities, to claw back whathas already been purchased by
China and other foreignadversaries.
Additionally, working with theSecretary of the Treasury, along
with our Defense Department, onmemorandums to ensure that,

(27:42):
moving forward, there is a muchmore intentional look at who is
buying what in this country andfrom where they are in the world
.

Speaker 3 (27:52):
And remember we talked about, like when we were
talking about the you know, thetariffs with China, things of
that nature, and you weretalking about this specifically,
like I can't go to China andbuy up buildings or land or a
house, I can't buy anything.
As an.
American, we don't get theright to go to China and buy up
any of their property or landRight, so why has it been able
to happen here for so long?

Speaker 2 (28:13):
So this is what will be interesting.
You know the Trumpadministration will be able to
do some executive orders to somedegree, but they're going to
need Congress's help to rollwhen they talk about clawing
back.
They're going to need Congressto pass a law.
They're going to need that andit's going to be interesting to
see.
This is another one of those 90, 10 issues, 80, 20 issues where

(28:33):
we're going to have a veryinteresting discussion back and
forth and the Democrats can'tlook at Trump and be like no, no
, no, we're going to continue tolet the Chinese own as much
land in the United States theywant.
I don't know what they're goingto do, but I hope they just say
you know what.
Let's come together on this,make a deal, let's pass the law
and move on.
Like, if you're on thedemocratic party and I'm giving
them advice, they don't need myadvice.

(28:53):
No, they actually do?
So I don't think they do clearlythey don't but but the best
thing for them to do would belike all right, let's figure it
out, let's get it passed and getthis thing by, because if you
come out on the other side ofTrump on this and saying, oh no,
we're going to, we're going tostand in and speak for the
Chinese here, it's crazy, I mean, it is absolutely nuts.
And so Brooke Rollins went onLaura Ingram on Tuesday night

(29:17):
and she explained this a littlebit further and went into some
more detail about this littlebit further and went into some
more detail about this, and whatthey're going to show here on
this map when she's talking ishow many states the chinese own
significant farmland in, andit's a lot all of government
approach.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
What does that mean?
Well, what that means is thatif we're going to really ban
china from buying our farmlandor any foreign adversaries, it's
got to be the states have tolean in.
The federal government has tostep up, we've got to have got
to be the states have to lean inthe federal government has to
step up.
We've got to have executiveorders out of the White House.
A law needs to be passed.
A lot of bills have been filed,but it hasn't moved.

Speaker 8 (29:51):
I don't know that America really understands, or
at least our elected officialshow is this allowed, though
China owns Smithfield Foods, oneof the largest food processing
plants in the United States,land near military bases?
I've covered this for 20 years.

Speaker 1 (30:03):
Well, it's now all changes.
Today, I mean today, we, forthe first time, are saying no
more Banning the sale of Chinafarmland, working with the
states, getting the bills passedthrough Congress, having an
executive order, but also, laura, looking at how to potentially
claw some of that back.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
So it absolutely has to happen, right, and she
mentions that you have to haveCongress pass some of this stuff
.
But you think about our foodsupply and how much of it.
They have a hand in the factthat we let this happen as a
country and our leaders fellasleep and decided that, oh, let
the Chinese take what they want.
I mean, are you kidding?

Speaker 3 (30:37):
I'm just wondering if there wasn't enough
coordination between the statesor the governments of each state
to know that this was actuallyhappening at the level and the
amount that it's been happening.

Speaker 2 (30:45):
Yeah, I don't know either, but there's no reason
that the federal governmentshouldn't have known about this
and stepped in and Congressshouldn't have stepped in a long
time ago to be able to say thiscannot happen.
So the clawback is aninteresting point.
You know she's trying to laythe groundwork for a law which
says basically to the Chinesegovernment or to anybody from
China who owns some of theseinterests, you're going to have

(31:06):
to sell them and you're going tosell them to an American, like
sorry, you're going to have toplay by the rules that we have
to play by in your country.
We don't get to show up and ownmassive amounts of Chinese
farmland next to some of theirbiggest military bases.
We don't get to do that.
We don't get to control theChinese food supply.

Speaker 3 (31:23):
We don't get to buy a factory over there.

Speaker 2 (31:29):
No, and they get full visibility into what you're
doing in China, like.
They get very, very clearvisibility.
It's how they get a lot oftheir information.
It's how they get a lot oftheir intellectual property, by
the way.
They rip it off Because whenwe're producing in China, they
way Right.
They rip it off because whenwe're producing in China, they
get a good look at it, right,and so this has to change.
I can't imagine being on theother side of this.

Speaker 3 (31:51):
I don't, I don't think there is another side of
this.

Speaker 2 (31:53):
Listen, we've thought that for a long time on several
of these issues, and yet sopeople are still arguing it.

Speaker 3 (31:56):
You know it's.
I'm not going to put that muchfaith on the other side, because
this is a Trump initiative andI guarantee you it's going to
become a no, no, no, no.
Trump said it.
So it's the you know.
Let's get our speaking pointsout.

Speaker 2 (32:06):
Let's get the Chinese back in here.

Speaker 3 (32:07):
It's going to be like we're America, we're for
everybody owning part of ourgreat country.
This land is my land.
This land is your land I mean.

Speaker 2 (32:18):
I'm not saying it's the Chinese land.

Speaker 3 (32:19):
I guess.
So I mean, I'm telling you, Ithink that's what's getting
ready to happen.

Speaker 2 (32:22):
So you think the broad message from the left will
be that anybody from Chinashould be able to own what they
want.

Speaker 3 (32:30):
Oh anybody, from anywhere, should be able to own
what they want.

Speaker 2 (32:32):
It's the American dream.

Speaker 3 (32:33):
It's the American dream.
It's a capitalist society.
You asked for the capitalistsociety, you fought for a
capitalist society, so here yougo.
Why would we want to tellanybody that they can't do it?
That's the argument.

Speaker 2 (32:43):
That's what I'm going to say.

Speaker 3 (32:45):
Okay, I'm going to put my money on it right now.
So if I if that doesn't happen,I will be floored, Then that
tells me that we've that.
The Trump administration, thisagricultural, the secretary, has
really done a good job ofexplaining the issue and why
this has to change.
Because if you don't get to thewhy of it and really explain
the why to people, they may justthink oh, you're just being

(33:07):
racial and you're being likenativist what's the word
Nativist?

Speaker 2 (33:11):
Nativist.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
And how dare you, how dare you not make this?
Like you know, I can see themsaying that Wow, which is
utterly ridiculous, but so isthe fact that they're fighting
to keep illegal, violentoffenders in our country, and on
Medicaid.
I mean, I'm sorry, but they'relike hey, let them all come to
our country, we'll support them,we'll give them phones.
How dare you think that theyhave to be deported?

(33:33):
How is this going to be anydifferent in their eyes?

Speaker 2 (33:35):
Oh my gosh, counselor , counselor, you are making a
vicious case.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
I'm making the case that, like I don't know, 8% of
the country are going to put.
They're going to stand by thatand they're building their
democratic party behind that.
What do you think the New Yorkmayor is going to do?
I think that new, that guythat's up for New York mayor,
what's his name?
Again, Mondani.
Yeah, Mondani.
He's going to tell the Chinesesorry, you can't have any.
Take the land, it's fine, LikeI'm not even kidding you.

(34:01):
This is this, is this partythat has lost their minds, and I
do not believe in all of myheart of hearts that it is the
bulk of the democratic party.
I believe these are the extremeside that really believe in
this like really warped sense ofallowing but you think they're
going to set the tone on this.
I think you're going to hearfrom the loudest people in the
crowds.
That's what you do.

(34:22):
Are you kidding me?
Do you think that our statereps are going to be against any
of this?

Speaker 2 (34:26):
I don't, I, I don't know Our state reps?

Speaker 3 (34:28):
sorry, not our state reps, but those that are
national, our federal reps.
You think they're going to sayanything about this?
You think they're going tostand up for what Trump wants on
this?
Are you kidding me?

Speaker 2 (34:43):
Like if you think that's getting ready to happen.
I don't know.
I have some land to sell you.
You're killing me on this.
I don't know You're you'reripping me to shreds.

Speaker 3 (34:47):
I'm not ripping you to shreds.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I just I had the argument, no,I.

Speaker 2 (34:52):
I.
You may well be right.
I just think that it's it's.
It's an untenable andridiculous argument.
Do I think they could go makeit?
They've made some horrendousarguments.

Speaker 3 (34:59):
They're going to put it under the banner of this land
is my land, this land is yourland.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
No, no way.

Speaker 3 (35:04):
Yes, way, oh, my gosh Okay.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
Ava go ahead.

Speaker 9 (35:06):
You had something, Ava, I was going to say I think
they're going to spin it likeTrump's trying to ban Chinese
people from owning land in theUnited States yes, and then
they're going to be like Nextit's going to be black people
not being allowed to go out inpublic.
They're going to turn it intolike they're going to think he's

(35:29):
doing it to be likespecifically with the desire to
be racist towards Chinese people.
They're like he just doesn'twant Chinese people to be able
to live in America anymore.
That's what they're doing.
Next they're going to deportChinese Americans.

Speaker 3 (35:45):
That's what they're doing.
Okay, they're gonna deportchinese americans.
That's what they're gonna do.
Well, I mean, honestly, youhave conversations with people
that buy into a lot of thisstuff, which we do.
Have conversations with a lotof people that don't agree with
you and me on policy issues alot right because they listen to
this other crazy side to somedegree and buy into it, right.
And then you're like has any ofthat actually happened, that
you're like that you're sofearful of it.
You know we get thosediscussions about oh well, now
my Medicaid's going to get cut,and we're just like, okay, here
we go.
Which is to the point where I'mlike, okay, well, when your

(36:07):
Medicaid gets cut, show me yourcheck.

Speaker 2 (36:09):
And I'll and we'll make up the difference.

Speaker 3 (36:11):
We'll make up the difference for you.
How about that?

Speaker 9 (36:19):
I can seriously see the headline is going to be like
the fight for Asian own theirown land.
Okay, okay, okay, all right,okay, look this is.

Speaker 2 (36:23):
You guys are fantastic.
You were making a great point.

Speaker 9 (36:26):
No, no, no.
I mean what's?

Speaker 2 (36:27):
fantastic is the fact that you're looking at this and
you're making a, a salient casefor for what may well happen.
I don't.

Speaker 3 (36:39):
I can't believe it would.
Hey, national security actuallymatters and we need to make
sure that we're doing our duediligence to make sure that we
don't just open ourselves up toterrorists or to a country who
vastly wants to take over us andtake over the America.
I mean, that's what they wantto do.
There's been no secret.

Speaker 2 (36:53):
They want to replace us?

Speaker 9 (36:54):
Yeah, that's not something Ilhan Omar would ever
say, like that's not he's evergoing to agree with.
Well, yeah, I don't care abouther.

Speaker 2 (37:00):
I mean, what I care about is the you know, do you
have this?
Would you have people in theyou know kind of, in this kind
of center left of the DemocraticParty, say this crazy, we can't
, we cannot back this.

Speaker 3 (37:12):
This is not how many of those people voted for the
big beautiful bill.
I'm just curious.

Speaker 2 (37:17):
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
That's different.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is different Becausethey all gave the same.

Speaker 3 (37:21):
Oh, stop it's different oh please, Mark.
They gave the same speakingpoints.
No, no, no.

Speaker 2 (37:25):
You now see, that's the problem is, you went too far
.
I did go too far, because youtalked about basically oh,
please, no, no, no.

Speaker 3 (37:37):
You're, it also had tax cuts for everybody.

Speaker 2 (37:40):
Yeah, democrats are always like yeah, give me more
tax cuts, what?

Speaker 3 (37:44):
Okay, so I'm sorry.
Did Harris not come out and sayI will do no tax on tips as
well?
Did she not jump on that?

Speaker 2 (37:50):
bandwagon too.
Okay, but that's different.
Hold on.

Speaker 3 (37:52):
So this big beautiful bill, it had no tax on tips.
I understand what it meant andDemocrats for the reason to vote
against it.

Speaker 2 (38:08):
And so the fact that no Democrats supported Trump's
budget bill does not surprise me.
No Republicans weren't jumpingon board with Obama's budget
bill or Biden's budget bill, sothat's that happens all the time
.

Speaker 7 (38:19):
But this is different .

Speaker 2 (38:21):
This is different because you do have a true
threat to national security.
You do have a threat to thefood supply.
You do have multiple occasionswhere Chinese nationals have
brought in either material orsomething that could be at least
a factor in creating problemsfor our food production, like

(38:41):
they've been arrested for doingit, creating problems for our,
our food production, likethey've been arrested for doing
it.
So so, therefore, I I thinkit's a really tough case to make
that you come out and say letthe chinese keep owning you know
food supply and in farmland andland near our military
installation.

Speaker 3 (38:53):
so it's a really hard case to make no, and I'm
telling you and we'll move onafter this, but still mark,
these are the same people thatwe're talking about right now,
that are not in favor.
In the big beautiful bill, ithad budget to make sure that we
kept deporting people that arehere illegally, that are violent
offenders, and they wereagainst that as well.

Speaker 2 (39:12):
But it's all the same bill you can't.
If you find one piece of thebill you like, you don't support
it.
Can you let?

Speaker 7 (39:16):
me say what I want to say, sir.

Speaker 2 (39:17):
You've already said it, sir.

Speaker 3 (39:18):
No I have not said it yet.
I'm saying these folks there isno more.
I'm sorry.
You have a terrorist cell thatcomes into here across the
border.
Okay, you have people that areviolent offenders that have come
and are in our country, floodedour country in the last three
years, and you have a party orpart of a party that is like
they should be allowed to stayhere.
We shouldn't deport them.

(39:39):
That's not who we are.
We're Americans, we're the landof immigration, yada, yada.
How is that any different whenit comes to the Chinese owning
land here?
Give, me a break.
They're going to have the sameargument that they have they're
against deporting illegalimmigrants that are violent
offenders.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
I understand Well, some are.

Speaker 3 (39:57):
I'm not saying all of them.
I'm not saying all of themsaying all of them.

Speaker 2 (40:03):
No, no, you've made that clear.
I'm just saying that that inthis particular case, chinese
owning owning land and owningproperty in this country again,
these are chinese nationalists.
These are not citizens of theunited states I understand so
but, ava makes a good point, youmake a good point, I we'll see
what happens.
I I mean well.

Speaker 3 (40:16):
I just hope that they do a good job of explaining why
this is dangerous, what therisks are for the American
people.
If they, I hope that theminister to Trump administration
and whoever he puts in chargeof this so if it's Rollins or
whoever they need to make surethat messaging is crystal clear.
It doesn't matter how crystalclear it is.

Speaker 2 (40:31):
No, it does actually.
So I will say this.
I will say that's why Idisagree with you guys on this
little portion of it.
We always make the point andwe're going to talk about it in
the subsequent stories here in asecond.
We always make the point thatthe side that has the cleanest
argument usually ends up withpublic support on their side.
Right, just, it's a cleanargument.
So the argument right now overthe big beautiful bill with
Medicaid is that the cleanargument is you're cutting

(40:55):
Medicaid, therefore you're goingto kick people off Medicaid's
going to hurt them.
That that overall message haspenetrated.
It has.
We're going to show you numbersthat show that it's penetrated,
because the Republican pointhas been more convoluted On this
one.
I think the cleaner point isthat the Chinese government is
buying up land in the UnitedStates of America.
It puts us all at risk.
They have to be out with that.
We can't let them do it.

(41:15):
They don't let us do it.
We're not going to let them doit.
Done argument than well, youhave some people that live here
that are Chinese and they havedual citizenship and they should
be able to do it.
Nope, that, that's an argumentthat is too difficult to make.
I think it'll be a cleanerargument on the side of kicking
the Chinese government out ofbuying land here, and so,
therefore, I think it's going toend up being an issue that's
not going to stick around verylong.

(41:35):
I think they're going to get abill passed with bipartisan
support.

Speaker 3 (41:47):
Oh, I can't wait to put money down on this, because
if that was so, if it was socrystal clear, how come
everybody freaked out abouttariffs so bad?
And we're, like you know,trump's basically saying let's
make this.
No, saying the same exactargument.
You just said we have to pay atariff when we sell our products
in their, in these othercountries.
Why should they not have to paya tariff?
I'll tell you why that doesn'twork no, and he said it should
be even steven, or it should be,we should even the playing
field a little bit and peoplefreaked out.

Speaker 2 (42:04):
Do you know why?

Speaker 3 (42:05):
Because the stock market?

Speaker 2 (42:06):
No, why?
Because it costs more money, ifyou go.
We import much more from Chinathan they do from us.
So therefore, when we startimporting everything from China
and we put a 50% tariff on it,the cost to Americans skyrockets
.
So that's a terrible example.

Speaker 3 (42:22):
But I'm just telling you, people are freaking out
about tariffs, right, and youthink it affects their
pocketbook, like when Trump sayswe're going to crank up tariffs
on everybody.

Speaker 2 (42:30):
They're like Whoa.

Speaker 3 (42:35):
Whoa, what's going to happen to my Walmart?

Speaker 2 (42:37):
prices.
They're going to go up, okay.
So let's figure out the bet.
I'm still waiting for my chair.
By the way, with my okay, youget a brand, I get.

Speaker 3 (42:41):
I don't know.
What do you want?
Um gosh like you want a, a a acase of a and W sugar-free uh
root beer.

Speaker 2 (42:49):
No, I go buy that myself.
I don't need you getting me myNW.
It's down there, it's full,we're set.

Speaker 3 (42:55):
Okay, you figure out what you're okay.
What it's going to be If dadwins we get another dog.

Speaker 9 (43:00):
Okay, done, done.

Speaker 2 (43:01):
All right, how long till we have the bill?
What are we saying?

Speaker 3 (43:04):
End of the Well, you're saying end of Trump's
administration.

Speaker 9 (43:06):
Basically, oh, no, no , no, before that, right so
we'll say before the It'll bebefore Christmas, won't it?

Speaker 2 (43:09):
I don't know, so let's try.
Maybe I doubt it lose.
We're getting another dog.
Yes, all right, so let's moveon.

(43:29):
Who takes care of the dog?
Oh, no, it isn't, it's not.
Oh, stop it.
All right.
Okay, all right, all right.
So let's get back toimmigration for a minute,
because I I do want to touch onthis, because the trump
administration it's interesting,you know again, the cleaner
argument on immigration ispeople that are here illegally,
and especially those ofcommitted crimes, need to be
deported.
Open borders hurt this country.
It's work.
That's a cleaner argument thantrying to twist yourself in
knots and saying all the otherstuff that Trump's opponents

(43:51):
were trying to say.
So what we see now is most ofthe country supports removing
people here that are illegal,that came here illegally, okay,
and that does include those whohave not committed crime.
Listen to Harry Enten on this.

Speaker 10 (44:05):
Deporting all immigrants who are here
illegally 55% of the New YorkTimes Marquette 64%.
Cbs News 57%.
Abc News with a slightlydifferent question 56%.
So what you're seeingessentially here is a very clear
indication that a majority ofAmericans, in fact, when they're
asked this blunt question,which I believe gets at the
underlying feelings, do in factwant to deport all immigrants

(44:27):
who are here illegally.
There's no arguing with thesedifferent numbers, because
they're all essentially the sameacross four different pollsters
.

Speaker 2 (44:34):
OK, ok, so that's where they are right now.
And then you start to look at.
Some numbers come out that say,all right is, is what's
happening here in the country?
Is it translating into morejobs for people that are
Americans that were born here?
Ok, is it actually working?
Fox had numbers out today.

Speaker 6 (44:55):
President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration
seems to be showing up in thejobs data.
It's a point that the WhiteHouse is making.
Here's what they said about thelatest jobs report.
It shows that American-bornworkers have accounted for all
of the job gains since PresidentTrump took office and wages
continue to rise.
So here are the numbers thatthey're talking about.

(45:16):
Foreign-born employment hasfallen by 543,000 since January,
when President Trump tookoffice.
Native-born or US-born jobshave increased by more than 2
million since the month Trumpstarted his second term.

Speaker 2 (45:31):
Okay.
So for Trump, those numberswork okay.
However, I think this isinteresting because we're going
to start running into aninteresting thing here, and
that's going to be that you haveobviously continuing to try to
deport people that havecommitted crimes either here or
in their home country.
That is something that the vastmajority of Americans agree on,
even more than what Harry Antonsaid.

(45:52):
That number is 80%.
Roughly Get them out right.
That's what makes some of theapproach on the left crazy, like
going out and defending AbregoGarcia like he's the second
coming, second coming of thepope, right it's crazy right,
doesn't make any sense.
But.
But as you start to look atthis, there's going to be a
balancing act within maga.

(46:12):
That's going to be a problemand that is going to be this
kind of hardened purist view ofget everybody out of the country
that is here illegally versusthe reality on the ground, which
is that and I'm not talkingabout, you know, certain jobs
that Americans won't do orwhatever I'm talking about just
normal, everyday jobs that wedon't have enough people to do,

(46:33):
just for you know you go to howmany stores and you have, you
know, help wanted signs.
You go and try to get somethingbuilt, or or whatever it is,
across the country.

Speaker 3 (46:43):
Well, take away Medicaid, people might be
getting back to work.
I'm just saying you know, as wewere watching, some of that
happen right now too.

Speaker 2 (46:48):
Maybe, I mean maybe that makes some difference, but
probably not enough, right?
And so there is a balance and Ithink you're starting to see
the president's going to realize, like, how do I do this?
How do I keep people that arehere doing jobs that we really
need to do and are working hard?
How do we find a way to getthem to continue to work but yet

(47:11):
not incentivize coming to thiscountry illegally?

Speaker 3 (47:14):
And his own basis is really upset about it and is
going to be upset about it,right, I think this is going to
be a really tricky one for Trump, but he is actually talking
about it because in his cabinetmeeting it was brought up to him
like hey, what are we doinghere, especially in the
agricultural market, where wehave a large dependency on some
of the folks that are workingthese farms that are here
illegally quote illegally, right, how do we, you know, do we do

(47:38):
work visas?
What are we going to do?

Speaker 11 (47:39):
So Trump was directly asked about that and
here's what he had to say inthis cabinet meeting If they go
out in a nice way and go back totheir country, we're going to
work with them right from thebeginning on trying to get them
back in legally.
Is that right?
So it gives you real incentive.
Otherwise they never come back.
They'll never be allowed once acertain period of time goes by,
which is probably going to be60 days.

(48:01):
We're also going to work withfarmers that if they have strong
recommendations for their farms, for certain people, we're
going to let them stay in for awhile and work with the farmers
and then come back and gothrough a process, a legal
process.
But we have to take care of ourfarmers and hotels and various

(48:21):
places where they need thepeople and we're going to be
working with you very carefullyon that.
So a farmer will come in with aletter concerning certain
people saying they're great,they're working hard.
We're going to slow it down alittle bit for them and then
we're going to ultimately bringthem back.
They'll go out, they're goingto come back as legal workers.

Speaker 2 (48:42):
OK, I don't know what that really means.
I don't either.

Speaker 3 (48:45):
I mean it's interesting Like workers, okay,
I don't know, what that reallymeans.
I don't either, I mean it'sinteresting, like they're going
to go out, they're going to comeback.
Is he really going to do that?
Or is it going to be more likehey, they have a letter of
reference from their boss, yeah,and again, we'll extend them
the work visa.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
So so we have.
We have the skilled visaprogram, the H-1B and then the
H-1A agricultural, so we've gota bunch of different visa
programs those have to like theyhave to be working on ramping
that up and to make sure thatyou have a documentation system
that makes some sense and thentrying to find a way to do it.
But just listen right there, Ifyou just listen to the
president, it's like they don't.

(49:17):
This is going to be tricky.

Speaker 3 (49:20):
It's going to be sticky.
It's a sticky issue because Ithink when they came out and
they said, you know his wholecampaign running on, we're
getting the violent offendersout of here, we're getting the
murderers and the rapists I mean, I can see his, I can hear his
words over and over and over.
That's who he was coming after.

Speaker 2 (49:41):
He wasn't really talking about deporting people
who have jobs here and who areputting in the effort to help
our American societies, like hereally didn't talk about it.
If they don't, so theirargument would be if we don't at
all touch any of that there'sstill a massive incentive for
people to come into this countryillegally.

Speaker 3 (49:52):
Yeah, it's true, but it's such a it's such a broken
system.
How do you repair that in thethree years he's got left?

Speaker 2 (49:57):
They're going to have to ramp up the visa program.
I think the visa program isgoing to have to be much more
robust and and really tackle.
You know how that has to bedealt with.
So I don't know, we'll see whathappens, but I mean I don't know
I, but every president facesthis, by the way which is your
base starts to fracture becausethe realities, the harsh

(50:17):
realities of governing, run intothe realities of the promises
you made on the campaign trail.
Trump's done a pretty good jobof keeping his campaign promises
, there's no question he didn'tjust promise Friday pizza for
everybody no no, you can wearjeans on Tuesdays.

Speaker 3 (50:32):
He offered a lot.
He promised a lot more thanthat.
I'm going to say, though, it'snot in our story and we're not
going to go into great detail onit, but I do think another
roadblock this whole Epsteinfile stuff that's a disaster for
him, and the fact that hisresponse in that cabinet meeting
was like are we still going tobe sitting here talking about
the Epstein file?
Like, are we still talkingabout?

Speaker 2 (50:47):
this guy.

Speaker 3 (50:48):
And I'm like I am because the guy's a major
dirtbag and if you think thatEpstein worked alone and was
just interested in having youknow relations with nearly legal
people, for the sake of himself, give me a break.
I mean that this feels like acoverup.
It feels weird.
I don't like it.

(51:08):
I think there it smells.
I don't think it does him anyservice to not tell the truth on
this.

Speaker 2 (51:16):
Well, I'm not so sure he's not telling the truth.
I think you have a lot ofpeople like Sant, like like
Bondi and like cash Patel, whopopped off when they were just
pundits and didn't know.

Speaker 3 (51:28):
They had no idea.
I'm sorry.
You don't have to be Bondi orKash Patel to know that Epstein
was not doing this for the sakeof just himself.

Speaker 2 (51:37):
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
That's not what they're saying,though they were saying there's
no client list.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
They said that this is just about him and that he
just liked relations with nearlylegal people legal girls Right,
Give me a break, right, Iunderstand that.

Speaker 2 (51:50):
But but my point on them is, before they knew
anything, they assumed exactlywhat you're assuming, right?
They assume.

Speaker 3 (51:57):
I think it's a safe assumption.

Speaker 2 (51:58):
OK.
And then, now that they get inthere, they look at it and they
say, yeah, if we had something,believe me, we would bring it
out.
We're not.
I'm not saying I think it's badfor them, but but again, these
are realities of not knowingwhat you're talking about.
So you pop off, because you getto pop off and you're a
candidate or you're just apundit, right.
And then you get in there andyou're like, oh, now could this
be some terrible stuff andthey're covering it all up.

(52:20):
That's possible.

Speaker 3 (52:21):
Okay, here, okay, so here's an example of that.
So he also said I'm going torelease the JFK files and the
MLK files.
He was going to do all of it.
Right, they released the JFKfiles.
From my understanding, there'sjust very limited new
information in those files thathadn't already been released.
Okay, but he did release themall.
So then the noise kind of goesaway when you're Trump now and
saying, oh, just kidding,there's no list and we're not

(52:42):
going to release anything else,and it was just really bad
videos that nobody should seethe light of day of.
And I can understand that partof it, I respect that part of it
.
I don't respect the fact thatthey come out guns, a blazing,
saying we're going to have allthis information, we're going to
put it out for the generalpublic.
Now they're not going to do itand they think that he just
released a statement.
They say it one or two timesand the American public are

(53:02):
going to say, okay, we're notgoing to ask about it again.
And his response is are westill talking about Epstein?

Speaker 2 (53:06):
I'm like it's.

Speaker 3 (53:07):
Wednesday.
You announced this on Monday.
Of course, we're going to keeptalking about it.

Speaker 2 (53:11):
Okay.
Well, that's fine and all, butI would say the bigger issue
here is Bondi stepping on it.
She's the one who's beenincompetent in this.
They brought in all theseRepublican influencers to the
white house and they hand themall these folders oh, here's
some Epstein stuff.
There was nothing new, right?
There was nothing new in thosethings.
Those those influencers cameout, held them up like idiots
and then they were made to lookstupid.

(53:31):
And now Pam Bondi goes on Foxand she says oh no, I have it on
my desk, I have it on my deskNow.
She's like no, nothing to seehere.
Her incompetence made thisworse.
The way she handled it.
I don't think she's incompetent, but she handled this in an
incompetent way, and so that'swhy you have all these problems
is because she got out over herskis.
She did, she handled it poorly.

Speaker 3 (53:49):
Okay, so you're telling me that there's nothing
here to see.

Speaker 2 (53:52):
You believe there's nothing here to see.
I don't know if there is or not, I don't know.
How would I know?

Speaker 3 (53:55):
I don't think that we know, and I think that's the
problem.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
No, but you're hearing they're telling you no
and you're not believing it.
I think I'm sorry, I just Imean Do you think Dan Bongino,
who spent five years talkingabout this, suddenly now just is
like going to clam up and goingto just take the deep state
line.

Speaker 3 (54:11):
Well, I think I don't know.
Do you believe in him?
I don't know.
There could be something moreto it that we're not allowed to
know about All right conspiracy.
No, I'm not a conspiracy theory.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
I, I don't disagree with what you're saying.
I'm just saying I never saidthat.

Speaker 3 (54:23):
I thought that Epstein didn't commit suicide.
Okay, I've never joined thatbandwagon.
I'm like I'm sure the guy didoff himself again.
Does the guy commit suicide Ifall they have on him is that he
he's a kinky guy?
That is really inappropriateand a dirt bag?
I don't think he goes andcommit suicide because of that.

Speaker 2 (54:40):
I don't know happening who knows?
I don't know.
I'm just saying I think there'smore to it and I think I know I
get it.

Speaker 3 (54:47):
I get what you're saying.
I just think it's.
I think it's ridiculous oftrump to think that we're not
going to keep asking for it andfor his response to be are we
still talking about this dirtbagguy?
Yeah, uh, it turns out we'vetalked about this guy for five
years.
We thought we were getting someanswers.
You, basically, are sayingthere's nothing here to see and
we're supposed to be like oh, Ilike I, just no, I.

Speaker 2 (55:05):
I.
I like your again.
I like your approach.
Today, I think you're throwing95 mile an hour fastballs.
I like it, I.
I think this particular one isI don't know whatever, I don't
care about epstein, so but but Iget your point, I and I care
about cover-ups.

Speaker 3 (55:17):
That's what I care about yeah, you know again I.

Speaker 2 (55:19):
But not everything is a cover-up.
Sometimes you just get in there, look at the information you're
You're like, oh okay, well, no,that's fine.
I understand what you're saying.
I don't.

Speaker 3 (55:25):
I don't disagree.
I don't think you're even wrong.
Are we going to talk about UFOsnext, cause you're going to
tell me there's none of thoseeither.
There's not All right A quick,all right.

Speaker 2 (55:38):
So we're going to switch to this Medicaid stuff
real quickly.
I just want to get to a coupleof quick graphs.
Okay, here is the Medicaidspending from 1975 to 2023.
This is all tied into.
Are we going to cut Medicaid oris Medicaid spending going to
go down?
Okay, only in Washington DC isis what I'm about to show you a
cut in spending.
Okay, so you can see, from 75,2023, we have increased Medicaid

(55:59):
spending immeasurably.
It keeps going up, it keepsskyrocketing.
Okay, so, now that we pass abig, beautiful bill, what's the
difference in Medicaid spending?
When are we cutting it?
So, cause it's going to be cutright?
That's what I heard.

Speaker 3 (56:10):
Oh, that's what I've read.
You know that's what themessage is that's out there is
be careful, Kids aren't going toget to eat anymore.

Speaker 2 (56:16):
Okay.
So here's a little graph thenext 10 years $750 billion.
Okay, Now, with the bigbeautiful bill, does it still go
up?
Yes.
Does Medicaid spending increaseevery year?
Yes.
Is there an actual cut inMedicaid spending?
No, there is not.

(56:36):
And if you ask anyone toactually tell you if there's a
cut in spending, the answer isno.
And, by the way, cut in therate of increase.
Where does that come in?
That comes in trying to add awork requirement that if you are
able-bodied and can do it, youshould work.

Speaker 3 (56:51):
That's what it says or be trying to get a job.
Be proving that you're tryingto get a job.
Yes.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
Or which is Bill Clinton's idea, by the way.
And not only that, but also ifyou are not entitled to these
benefits, you don't get to getthem All right.
So in other words, people thatare here illegally.
Again, another incentive rightto come to the country illegally
is you can get free health care, basically, and this says no,

(57:14):
you can't do that, so we'regoing to try to get some savings
there.
So, anyway, just the overallpoint in this is there's not
going to be a cut in Medicaidspending.
There's not going to be.
It's not going to happen, andso that's ridiculous.
But what it does show you isthat any sort of trying to
either make the system moreefficient or bring some savings
into the system is always metwith a cry of you're cutting

(57:36):
everything.
So look at the polling numbersright now and I'll tell you how
you know the Republicans didn'tdo a great job with this.
First of all, here it is theYouGov poll over July 4th
weekend.
Percent who think Trumpadministration's budget will
increase or decrease.
Medicaid Okay.
Medicaid funding Okay.
Us adult citizens 67 to 6.
Think it will be decreasing?

(57:58):
It's going to be decreasing.
Democrats every one of them islike, yeah, decreasing.
Independents 56 to 5%.
They say it's going to bedecreasing, even republicans and
republicans think it is.

Speaker 3 (58:09):
That's when you know you have not done a great job
with the numbers and andexplaining I would say, if I was
pulled by that, I would assumethat when they say decrease in
spending, it's those cutsagainst the fraud and abuse.
That's how I would haveanswered that too.
To be fair, I would say Ibelieve that funding the
budget's going to decrease for aMedicaid funding to to
eliminate those who are gettingit that shouldn't be getting it.

(58:31):
That's the way I wouldunderstand that polling
personally, if I was asked thatquestion.

Speaker 2 (58:34):
Right, okay, okay, and let's go to the next one,
then.
And the next one is and again,those numbers are are rough.
So the next one is this, whichis the overall bill.
Okay, it says how many of youbelieve that the Trump budget
will help or hurt them.
Okay, next one help or hurtthem.
There is adult citizens believeby about 18 points it's going

(58:57):
to hurt them.
Okay, democrats 74% to three.
Uh, independence 43% 20.
And then Republicans say it'llhelp them 49 to 10.
Okay, now, this one, I wouldsay, is less damaging for Trump
because, basically, they'regoing to have time to show to
show that it's going to workjust fine for you, Right?
So again, this stuff not a hugedeal.

Speaker 3 (59:17):
Like let the panic, let's, let's just let the slow
roll, and then figure out.

Speaker 2 (59:21):
oh wait a minute, this didn't hurt anybody.
It actually helped the economy.
So at least that's what thepresident's going to rely on for
the administration.
So we'll see.

Speaker 3 (59:29):
We'll see how it goes All right.
You guys have a little.
You and Ava have done a littlebit of a little fun ending to
today's show, because Ava likesto imitate Trump.

Speaker 9 (59:39):
She's an impersonator and I also love Shane Gillis.
I love that guy.

Speaker 2 (59:41):
Okay, so I was listening to the cabinet meeting
that Trump was having and Istarted listening to it and he
starts talking about this clockthat he saw in the State
Department and he loves thisclock.
So it brought me and as Ilistened to him, I'm like, you
know, it sounds to me like Trumpis listening to Shane Gillis,

(01:00:02):
do Trump?
So Trump is imitating Gillis.
Who's imitating Trump?
Okay, so the first one.
I want to start with ShaneGillis, right?

Speaker 9 (01:00:08):
I think we should start with the Trump one.

Speaker 2 (01:00:10):
You want to start with the Trump one.

Speaker 9 (01:00:11):
I think so, or do you think we should start with
Shane Gillis?

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
I don't know.
You want to start with the allright, let's do.
Let's do the Trump, let's dothe Trump clock.
So Trump's talking about.
Marco, he's.
So let's just listen to whatTrump says about this clock.

Speaker 11 (01:00:25):
Marco pointed it out , I was going to leave the clock
.
So, as president, you have thepower.
If I go into the StateDepartment or Department of
Commerce or Treasury, if I seeanything that I like, I'm
allowed to take it.
Do you believe this?
So I'm in Marco's, I see thisgorgeous clock grandfather clock

(01:00:45):
and there it is.
I said Marco, I had to read himthe rule and regulation.
I said, marco, I love thisclock.
Look at it, it's beautiful.
He said what clock?
I said the clock that's in theother room is incredible and

(01:01:05):
nobody gets to see it there.
Marco, I tried to talk him intoit first and it sort of worked,
and then I had to use a littlemore.
I said I'd love to take thatclock out and put it in the
cabinet room.
He said no, are you serious?
I said Marco, I have the rightto do it, Marco.
And he said all right, what thehell?
So that's his contribution tothe cabinet room.
Right to do it, marco?

(01:01:25):
He said all right, what thehell?
That's his contribution to theCapitol.
But it's, by the way, it's anincredible.

Speaker 2 (01:01:31):
Okay, so now you hear that he's Marco.
It's just Beautiful gluck.
So so then it made me thinkjust of Shane Gillis.
So so let's listen.
If you haven't heard thecomedian Shane Gillis, do Trump
he's the best at it, I thinkit's really good, and it isn't
necessarily trying to soundexactly like, but the affect is

(01:01:52):
is excellent, so let's listen tothat.

Speaker 11 (01:01:53):
The whole world.
Abu.
We could hear him crying.
I said Abu, don't cry, let metell you something.
Abu cried, he cried quite a bit.
I wouldn't have cried Cry baby,back daddy.
That's what we were all calling.
Abu cried, he cried quite a bit.
I wouldn't have cried Cry baby,back daddy.

Speaker 2 (01:02:08):
That's what we were all calling so.
So that's exactly what you,mark, I mean.
It was just hilarious.

Speaker 7 (01:02:14):
So anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:02:15):
Trump you can say, you can say a lot of things
about him.
He, he had.
He is pretty funny.

Speaker 3 (01:02:19):
Yeah, he definitely has some wit about him, some wit
about him.
I just think it's funny that hehad to explain to everybody
that he has the right to takewhatever he wants.
I'm like, I'm just going to belike, yeah, I'm going to tell my
friends, just so you know Ihave the right.
I'm going to come in your house, I'm going to take what you
want, like I okay whatever, butit is a cool clock, but it's
just a grandfather clock.
Like well, I mean, maybe we'llget a chance.
Headed to the.

Speaker 2 (01:02:42):
White House in the first week of August.
That's right.
So yeah, no, we'll see what wecan do.
We may have to ask if we cancheck it out East wing, west
wing.
Yeah, we'll see.
If it keeps good time.

Speaker 3 (01:02:51):
Let's see if we can get into that cabinet meeting
room to check out the clock andthen we'll report back to you.
We will.
Does the clock work or not?
Is it from the RevolutionaryWar?
It's a beautiful clock.
It's a beautiful clock.

Speaker 9 (01:03:03):
I can't do Trump.
Maybe I'll tell him I'll belike Donald.
This clock is not all.
It's clocked up.

Speaker 2 (01:03:07):
Yeah, Don't call him Donald by the way.
Please don't ever call himDonald ever.
Let's just not do that, Allright.

Speaker 3 (01:03:12):
Well, thanks again, you guys, for joining us.
We appreciate all of yoursupport.
Keep writing in.
We love it.
Tell people what we think is,you know, interesting to them,
so help us continue that message.
Mark sitting here going likethis to me and telling me to
wrap it up.
So, uh, thanks again forjoining us.
You guys have a great rest ofyour week.
We'll see you soon.

Speaker 4 (01:03:33):
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.
No doubt about it.
The no Doubt About it Podcastis a Choose Adventure Media

(01:03:59):
production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:01):
There is no doubt about it.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode 207: More Flooding Hits New Mexico...Why Bill Nye Is A Fool & The Fight To Stop China!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Episode 207: More Flooding Hits New Mexico...Why Bill Nye Is A Fool & The Fight To Stop China!

Stuff You Should Know