Episode 208: The Ronchetti Girls Take Over: A Father-Daughter Political Deep Dive

🎙️ In This Episode:

✅ Praise Across Party Lines
Mark crosses the political aisle to applaud Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham for requiring drug-addicted mothers to get treatment before they can bring newborn babies home.
Mark doesn’t hold back on her CYFD failures but says: this decision is the right one — and we should say so.

✅ Trump, Epstein & MAGA Frustrations
Ava and Mark dive into why the Trump administration wants to move on from the Epstein case, even though many supporters are angry.
Ava reads Trump’s own post, and they debate: Should this be a deal-breaker for MAGA voters? Mark shares why it isn’t for him.

✅ The Cracks in the Economy

• Housing prices are out of control — Mark explains why this is where the economy is showing real weakness.
• Why are interest rates still so high? Could Jerome Powell’s reluctance to cut rates cost him his job? Ava puts Mark in the hot seat.

✅ Americans & Climate Change: The New Polling
New data shows most Americans aren’t nearly as scared of climate change as the media wants you to believe.
Mark explains why the left’s extreme climate rhetoric is backfiring.

✅ CNN’s Absurd Question to Tom Homan
CNN asked Border Czar Tom Homan one of the most ridiculous questions ever — and Mark and Ava react to how Homan handled it better than they would have!

✅ Ella Joins for Lifestyle Talk

• Buc-ee’s in Colorado?! Ella leads the debate: Is the massive gas-station-meets-theme-park chain too big for tiny Palmer Lake, Colorado?
• Plus, trail cam highlights from Angel Fire, and… Mr. Met takes a tumble (you have to see this).

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 2 (00:06):
A very special edition of the no Doubt About it
podcast.
My co-host, Christy ShaneO'Quinn Ronchetti, is not here.

Speaker 3 (00:16):
She's unavailable.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
And so her daughters are leading the charge and
filling in for her.
Now, ella has left the music upa little high, but we're still
doing a solid job.
Ella, thanks very much.
You're behind the producingduties right now, and then you
and Ava are going to switchhalfway through the show, is
that correct?

Speaker 3 (00:36):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Okay, so you guys are going to join and Ava's going
to do kind of the news segmentand Ella's going to do some of
the lighter fare Okay newssegment and Ella's going to do
some of the lighter fare.

Speaker 3 (00:47):
Okay, is that going to work?
Okay?

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Okay, ava, you ready for this?
Sounds great.
I'm excited.
Okay, you know, you know yourmom's style.
How do you guys differ, ava?
How's your style going to bedifferent than?

Speaker 3 (00:55):
mom's.
I think I'm better at readingout loud.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Oh, you think so.
You think you're a smootherreader of the quotes.
Yes, interesting, yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
And I actually actually did look at the rundown
more than five seconds beforewe started shooting the show.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
So initially you think that you're more of a prep
hound than your mom, I did alittle bit of external research.

Speaker 3 (01:14):
I think you're going to be surprised.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
Okay, well, no, I'm excited to see this.
Ella, you versus your mom,different style.

Speaker 3 (01:21):
See, I am very similar in the fact that the
rundown has been looked at justfive minutes beforehand.
Okay, that's good.

Speaker 1 (01:26):
Okay.

Speaker 5 (01:28):
I don't know I don't know, we'll see how it shakes
out.
I have a different opinion.
We'll see how it goes.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yeah, we'll see how it shakes out.
And yeah, scout, oh boy Scoutand Maverick are fired up over
something.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
Oh my gosh goodness, what is he?
What are we?

Speaker 2 (01:41):
gonna do.
I don't know what he's barkingat.
It's crazy, this dog.
Well, mom is out of town.
Uh, so she's in coloradovisiting her mother and family.
Yes, and so we are here holdingdown the fort, so we'll see if
we can get through this withoutmaverick melting down on us all
right okay, is that good?
all right, I want to start witha story today, actually, because
on this show, all the time andyou guys both know this we rip

(02:05):
into leadership in this countryespecially, and even in this
state, but especially in thiscountry, we rip into leadership
that just takes the other sidebecause their political opponent
does, and most often it happenswith Trump right.
Whatever Trump supports, thevast majority of democratic
leaders just oppose itAbsolutely.
They don't think about it, theydon't use any logic toward it,

(02:26):
they just say, oh, it's Trumpsupports, I oppose.
It's a terrible place to be.
You end up on the 20% of 80, 20issues all the time.
And that's what is exactlyhappening with the democratic
party right now is they've gotthis issue, so they need to
adjust that, and some some aredoing it, but many are not are
not well, I want to start with astory that led the sunday

(02:46):
edition of the albuquerquejournal.
Governor's directive, michelleluhan grisham's directive for
drug exposed babies draws mixedreaction.
I want to start this show bysaying good for you, governor
luhan grisham.
She is doing the right thingyeah okay.
So, ava, I want you to start toexplain exactly what's going on
with this story a little bit,and then we'll talk about why we

(03:07):
think the governor in thisparticular case deserves some
credit.

Speaker 3 (03:10):
Sure, so it says.
Lujan Grisham's directive lastweek bars hospitals from sending
home high-risk newborns exposedto fentanyl or methamphetamine
or with fetal alcohol disorder.
Instead, they will be placed inthe custody of the state's
Children, youth and FamiliesDepartment for 72 hours and
ultimately a judge will decidetheir placement.
If the infant goes home, astate health worker will conduct

(03:31):
a safety monitoring and familyservices will be provided.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Okay.
So, starting right off the topthere, first of all, the fact
that this is not already themodus operandi of our state
youth and use and family.
I can't believe that, like Ican't believe we're sending kids
home, but but for anybody who'sreally dived in and looked at
what's going on with cyfd, it isa problematic organization, it
is devastated and I think thisgovernor has not done a good job

(03:58):
with cyfd.
However, this is about choices,right, right.
Every government choice.
There are two different sides,or every leader makes a choice.
They have one of two differentthings they can do, or maybe a
few different choices here, andno one choice is perfect.
Every single choice that aleader makes has consequences,

(04:19):
ok, but the fact of the matteris right now, especially with
what we're looking at, this isthe right decision to step in
and not allow families to takehome vulnerable children when
they are drug addicted.
I mean, this is just a nobrainer here, and so the
governor's comment on this isillustrative of the right
approach here.
So let's just go ahead andlisten to what she says and what

(04:42):
her quote is on this, abe.

Speaker 3 (04:43):
We are shifting the presumption that with voluntary
supports that the family is safe, lujan Grisham told the journal
last week this is the reversethat the family is not safe
until they get into behavioralhealth care, until they get into
treatment, until they dosomething different.
In a state with more than twicethe rate of newborns exposed to
drugs than the national average, the conventional wisdom of
keeping families together at anycost is a bridge too far.

(05:05):
Lujan Grisham Okay, exactly.

Speaker 2 (05:12):
So, again, this is a pretty simple deal, which is
this whole thought process thatkeep the family together.
Keep the family together, which, by the way, this governor has
sided with way too many times.

Speaker 3 (05:23):
Yeah, this is kind of interesting that she says we
are shifting the presumptionthat with voluntary supports
that the family is safe.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (05:28):
As if anybody thinks that if you provide a family who
just had a baby, who's gotopioids in its system, with
voluntary support, they can seekout if they want to.
Right, that's enough.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
Yep, it's not right, I mean.
So this is more of a pragmaticapproach versus a dogmatic
approach which, up to this point, it was well, you got to keep
the family together no matterwhat.
No matter what.
No, you don't.
Your number one approach, andyour number one North star,
should be how do you care forthat vulnerable child?
How do you do it?
I don't care if it meansbreaking up the family

(05:59):
temporarily or permanently, ifit means you're doing the right
thing by that child.
And everybody wants the familyto end up back together.
There's no doubt and there's noquestion we would like to see
that.
However, that cannot be thenumber one priority.
So let's keep on going withthis, and a couple more numbers
on this too.

Speaker 3 (06:16):
The state had the third highest rate in the US of
substance exposed newborns in2022, 14.7 per 1,000.

Speaker 2 (06:24):
That's a lot, it's almost triple the national
average, by the way.

Speaker 3 (06:28):
Compared to a national rate of 5.4, according
to the most recent federal dataavailable, 5.4 is high too, I
think.

Speaker 2 (06:34):
Well, when you look at our number, it's not.
But yeah, keep going.

Speaker 3 (06:38):
The governor's new policy could cover some 390
high-risk substance-exposednewborns a year in New Mexico.
That's a massive number.

Speaker 2 (06:47):
Think about that number 390 children that would
have been sent back into adangerous environment with drug
abuse will now at least have achance.
And again, it's not going to beperfect and I know the CYFD
numbers are bad, I get all that,but at least you have a layer
here where they're trying tomake an effort to say we're not
going to do that to thesevulnerable children.

(07:07):
But of course, the approachwe've always taken in this state
, and far too often activists inthis state have said, put kids
back in dangerous situations.
And what you're about to hearand what Ava's about to read is
a comment that very much linesup with the thought process of
sanctuary cities.
What is the argument that TimKeller makes about the sanctuary

(07:28):
cities in the city ofAlbuquerque?
That if you're not a sanctuarycity and you don't provide,
basically, pushback against thefederal government, nobody will
report crimes.
That's garbage.
It's just not true, right.
And so this is a similarargument from someone else who
doesn't want to see thisimplemented.
Just listen to this.

Speaker 3 (07:46):
Some child welfare advocates worry that the new
approach will discourage motherswith substance use problems
from seeking care at a hospitalbecause they fear losing custody
of their children.
They also contend thatseparating a mother and baby
could traumatize both.
I feel like quote I feel likethis approach reinforces a
punitive model of care, saidMicah Bitsini, policy manager
for Bold Futures, a nonprofitthat works with addicted women.

(08:08):
Quote it risks deepening cyclesof family separation and
criminalization.
They know it means beinginvestigated and losing their
child.

Speaker 2 (08:16):
OK, look, this is ridiculous.
You don't go dumping a kid backinto a dangerous situation
because you don't want to offendmom, and you know what.
There may be a couple ofmothers who decide they're not
going to go to the hospital orhave their child.
There might be they're notgoing to be 390 of them, I
guarantee you that.
So you're going to do more goodthan you're going to do harm.
And yes, it is a punitive caremodel.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
It is because it has to be drugs while pregnant, it's
.
That's not something that'slike morally gray or ambiguous.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
Exactly, and you can't open that door to harm a
child because you're trying tocreate or preserve a bond that
has already been broken by thedrug use in the first place.

Speaker 3 (08:56):
I think what we've been attempting to do for so
long is like absolve these womenof responsibility, because
addiction obviously is verydifficult, especially when
you're addicted to something asheavy as fentanyl.
But it doesn't absolve yourresponsibility.
You're not, you didn't do.
It's not that you didn't doanything wrong when you've been
doing drugs while pregnant, andI think that it's silly to act
like these women.
I'm not gonna say there shouldbe punished, but that there

(09:17):
shouldn't be consequences.

Speaker 2 (09:19):
Right, it's right, there are consequences to the
drug use.
There are consequences to thedrug use.
Those consequences are you loseyour child, right?
And now?
How long do you lose your child?
Guess who that's up to?
It's up to you.
It's up to you.
And if we can provide you withthe treatment, then you can get
back on track with that child.
Everybody wants to see that.
But if you think the defaultposition should be you get the
child, no matter what you'redoing, no, yeah, for far too

(09:46):
long in this state, we'veignored children like that.
We've put them back intodangerous situations and we've
said well, what can we do?
Well, we have a weaklegislature far too often.
Now they're starting, hopefully, to get off their
you-know-whats to deal with this.
The governor is dealing with it.
She deserves credit for that.
Now, she also deserves creditfor a whole slew of problems
that we have that she hadn'tgotten us out of, and CYFT
happens to be one of them.
But when someone does somethingright and they make the right

(10:09):
decision, back them, stand upfor them and say you know what,
thank you for doing this.
Keep down the road where wehave a realistic model.
Not, oh, it's punitive.
Who cares?
Yeah, it's punitive Guess whatLife's punitive Grow up right,
and so, again, the right thingto do.
I wanted to start with thatjust because I think right now,

(10:29):
as a national model goes, toooften we have this I'm on my
political side, and it doesn'tmatter what the issue is, I'm
staying on my political side.
No, when the right thinghappens from the other side, you
compliment it, you try to helpit, you try to make it better,
yep, so that's what we're goingto do, all right, all right.
So, speaking of another one ofthese issues, now I want to go
to a national issue here and Igot a little thing.
Now we're not going to spend alot of time on this, mainly

(10:52):
because I don't care that muchReally.
Yeah, I'll let you guys weighin on this and say what you.
The whole Epstein thing.
Okay, you've got a lot ofinfluencers on the right who are
very upset with the Epsteinsituation Because you have Pam
Bondi, who is.
I will say, I think Pam Bondiis not covering herself in glory

(11:14):
in the job that she is doing.
I don't think she's doing agreat job at all, and especially
because I think her number onegoal far too often is to get on
Fox News and start talking.
Ok, most, I mean.
I can't think of an examplehonestly Republican or Democrat
of a a leader in her position,especially in the job she's

(11:39):
doing, that needs to get on TVall the time.
By nature of your job, youshouldn't be commenting.
You shouldn't be commenting.
You have other things to do.
These are court cases.
In many cases, this is mattersof law.
Constantly getting on TV onJesse Waters and just trying to
talk, talk, talk.
If that's what you want to do,go be a talk show host.

Speaker 3 (12:01):
Yeah, it's not effective and it's weird.

Speaker 2 (12:04):
However, despite the fact that she's popped off about
the Epstein stuff and I haveall this stuff and we're going
to release it, and then shesuddenly says I'm not releasing
anything, which is a terribleway to operate.
She's like Lucy with thefootball.
Well, all these MAGAinfluencers are Linus going up
there, or or Charlie going upthere trying to kick the ball
and ended up on their butt everytime.
So boink, boink.

(12:24):
And so the question is whatdoes Trump think of all this?
Well, he's issued a statementbasically backing Pam Bondi.

Speaker 3 (12:31):
What's going on with my boys and, in some cases, gals
?
They're all going afterAttorney General Pam Bondi,
who's doing a fantastic job.
We're on one team, maga, and Idon't like what's happening.
We have a perfectadministration, the talk of the
world and selfish people aretrying to hurt it all over a guy
who never dies, jeffrey Epstein, whole bunch of other stuff and
then let's keep it that way andnot waste time and energy on

(12:52):
Jeffrey Epstein, somebody thatnobody cares about.
Thank you for your attention tothis matter.

Speaker 2 (12:56):
Okay.
So here's the thing.
I understand people's angerover the Epstein thing.
I do understand it.
I just don't share theirinterest.
I don't see this as the big.
When I voted, I didn't vote onthis.
When I voted for Trump, Ididn't vote on this.
I get it.

(13:18):
You don't want people gettingaway with this sort of thing,
but I think there is this veryreal now cavern between, or
cleave between, trump and someof his hardcore base.

Speaker 3 (13:31):
So well, yeah, because I and I'm not like super
invested in the Epstein filesin such that I really want to
see them released because ofwhat they are.
I want to see them releasedbecause he ran on it, and he ran
on it with like a pretty biglike he didn't briefly mention
it.
They talked about it a lot thathe was gonna um, release the
epstein files.
And it's not that Iparticularly care what's in them

(13:52):
, it's that I care that hefulfills his campaign promises,
but he has done that.

Speaker 2 (13:56):
on that, on that front, I few presidents in my
lifetime and again my favoritepresident of my lifetime is re,
I've made that clear but fewpresidents of my lifetime have
laid out a series of policyobjectives and then, in the
first six months, ticked themoff in the way.
Whether you like Trump or notand whether you agree with those
, you know.
Whatever the list of to do's is, he has checked off a lot of

(14:20):
them.

Speaker 3 (14:21):
True, but in a lot of the campaign promises that
politicians make that they don'tfulfill.
They don't fulfill them becausethey can't get support for it A
lot of the time.
This is not one of those issuesthat you have to like petition
Congress for and sign into law.
This is something that you canjust do.
He can absolutely just releasethe Epstein files and I don't
really know what's keeping himfrom it?

Speaker 2 (14:40):
I would agree.
I don't know either and again,remember Joe Biden had access to
them.

Speaker 3 (14:44):
Right.
So we know, if Trump was inthem, they would have been
released.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
But really, is there a list?
Maybe there's no list at all.
Maybe you have this guy whoaccumulated a tremendous amount
of disgusting material.
He had a lot of unsaid dealswith very powerful people that
he had them over a barrel andgot what he wanted.
Got it, got money out of them,got what he wanted out of them.

(15:11):
But maybe you just don't have alot of this interconnected
tissue in a nice book that youcan just hand in front of
somebody and say here's all thedetails.

Speaker 3 (15:16):
And so you think that if there was no like concise
list or piece of information torelease, uh, the Biden
administration wouldn't havesaid that you'd think they'd lie
about it to keep it well, Idon't know what they were doing
most of the time, right?

Speaker 2 (15:28):
yeah, I don't know what.
They didn't talk about much ofanything, true?

Speaker 3 (15:32):
so I don't really know what they were even up, but
why not release what you have,even if it's not what people are
expecting and they might argueto you.

Speaker 2 (15:38):
We basically have, which is the travel logs, which
is some information and somenames, but but not any deals,
because those deals didn't exist.
They didn't write them out inthis thing where Epstein's like
well, bill Clinton, for example,for what you've done, I want X,
y and Z or who you know,whoever, the Donald, anybody
that you could say they don'thave a whole list.

Speaker 3 (16:00):
Why don't they say that?
They're just saying when peoplebring up the Epstein vows
they're like oh that, that, thatwho even cares about Epstein
anymore.
Anyway, that's not a goodanswer to the question because
it sounds like they'reobfuscating.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
Right.
But and then I agree, and Ithink I think president Trump,
in this particular case, istrying to just move people on
and I think he's not totallyaccounting for the fact that you
have a good portion of his basethat really does care about
that.
So we'll see what he ends updoing with it.
You've got the Dan Bonginothing, who, dan, spent a lot of
his radio career talking aboutwhat a big deal this is, and now
he won't talk about it.
Well, no, he's mad.

(16:35):
There's real information outthere now that he's thinking
about leaving the administrationjust because he's like this
isn't right.
So who knows?
Now Kash Patel has kind of saidthere's really not that much
here, so we'll see what ends uphappening.
Kash has kind of gone back andforth, but we'll see how things
go.
I'm not going to spend a ton oftime on it just because I just
don't share that level ofinterest that other people do.

(16:58):
I think there are much moreimportant issues, but it is a
horrendous situation.
So I get the frustration andit'll be interesting to see
where it plays out.
All right, I want to get to amuch bigger issue to me, okay,
and that is the economy.
Now I want to talk about twodifferent things in this one the
economy itself, and then two ifwe're going to see cracks in
this economy, where are theylikely to come?
Okay, so let's start with anarticle in the wall street

(17:20):
journal, and this came out a dayor so ago and it's kind of
interesting stuff with theheadline Economists see lower
recession risk and stronger jobgrowth.
Okay, so kind of the takeawayfrom this is that the economy is
actually in pretty decent shapeas we go.
The poll quotes are interesting.

Speaker 3 (17:37):
The economic fallout from President Trump's policies
may prove less dire than feared.
Oh okay, economists expectEconomists, economists.

Speaker 2 (17:46):
How about economists, economists, and you get on your
mom for the reading of thequotes.

Speaker 3 (17:52):
I just had a brief lapse.
Okay, economists expectstronger growth and job creation
, lower risk of recession andcooler inflation than they did
three months ago, according tothe Wall Street Journal's
quarterly survey of professionalforecasters.
Okay, on average, they put theprobability of recession in the
next 12 months at 33%, down from45% in April, but higher than

(18:13):
January's 22%.
Okay, despite numerousheadwinds, the US economy is
proving stubbornly resilient,said Chad Moutre, chief
economist at the NationalRestaurant Association.
Consumers are continuing tospend, but the mood has clearly
shifted from bold to careful.
The survey gathered responsesfrom 69 economists at outfits
ranging from Wall Street banksto universities to small

(18:36):
consulting firms from July 3rdthrough 8th.
Not every forecaster answeredevery question.
The improved outlook followsthree months of generally
encouraging economic data.
Job growth averaged 150,000 inthe past three months, better
than projected in April, and theunemployment rate dipped to 4.1
in June from 4.2% in May,staying within the range of its

(18:57):
past year.

Speaker 2 (18:57):
Okay.
So overall, I think there'sbeen this big kind of push of oh
my gosh, the tariffs are goingto destroy the economy and
everything else.
That has not happened Now.
Admittedly, trump has kind ofadjusted them as we go and
there's sort of a moving target.
So there is still some concernwith that.
Right, when you look at theeconomy and you say, ok, what is
going to happen with withCanada, for example, who's not
doing enough on fentanyl, by theway?

(19:18):
And so the president is like,yeah, you're going to have to do
more on fentanyl or we're goingto raise tariffs on you.
Get it done, we'll see if ithappens.
Mexico similar scenario.
But let's set that aside,knowing that, I think you're
going to see Trump keep hisfinger on the pulse of the
economy in relation to tariffsenough that it's not going to
crack the economy.
Ok, but what is going to crackthe economy?

(19:39):
I think we're starting to seeit right now, and it is real
estate.
And if you go and look rightnow and Florida is a good
example you're starting to seemarkets in Florida start to
crack.

Speaker 3 (19:49):
Which is really interesting to me.
I wouldn't think it would be inFlorida.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
Well, florida was so red hot right Going out of COVID
and you saw things just explodethat they sort of went on this
rocket ship ride, and so that'spart of the reason why.
But even if you look in NewMexico and we keep a very close
eye because we do things in themountains and we do building
projects in the mountains we'rewatching those listings and
they're going up.
They're going up a lot.

(20:12):
A lot more listings come on themarket, which is not great
timing for us as we're in themiddle of building a brand new
house that we're going to put onthe market.
But anyway, that is what it is.
It's a great house, by the way.
So you're going to want to dothat.
We'll talk more about it as weget closer, but it's something
you really want to be a part of.
But I will say, you start tosee those numbers increase here
and you say why is thishappening?
Why are we starting to see thehousing market start to crack a

(20:36):
little bit?
And I think it's.
I know that prices went up awhole lot over the past five
years and they really haven'tcratered yet by any stretch.
But I think what's starting tohappen here is interest rates
are an issue and Trump gets that.
Here's what he said earlierlast week about Jerome Powell,
the head of the Fed, and what'sgoing on with interest rates.

Speaker 7 (20:56):
I think he's doing a terrible job.
I think we should be.
No, I think we should be threepoints lower interest rate.
He's costing our country a lotof money.
We should be number one andwe're not, and that's because of
Jerome Powell.
In terms of interest, we arenumber one.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
Okay.
So, just so you know, and manyof you know this, if you were to
go right now to try to financea new home, okay, you're going
to pay about seven plus percent.
Okay, just to give you an idea,there's an open book on this
house that we live in, right, wepay less than half that.
Okay, so that you know again,you can't just magically move
those numbers down.

(21:35):
Okay, three points would behuge.
I mean, that would overheat theeconomy likely if you just went
and cut three points off theinterest rates.
But the point being in all ofthis and Trump wouldn't even
advocate that You'd have to stepit down as you go.
But I think the point on this isfor a long time we've been up
at 7%, 8%, and now, at one time,because Biden overheated the

(21:56):
economy so much, you had toraise those rates, you had to
back the economy so much, youhad to raise those rates, you
had to back the economy down,you had to pull the reins back.
Well, clearly now we don't needthat.
So what we need is thoseinterest rates to start to come
down, and in fact, the CEO ofAstoria Group, james Fishback,
was listening to him and hetalked a little bit about what
needs to happen with interestrates as well.

Speaker 7 (22:18):
But we've got no rate cut in the immediate future.
Got to wait till September.
Is that?
What is that?
What's happening?

Speaker 6 (22:24):
You know we got to separate.
My job is to separate what theFed should do and what the Fed
will do.
President Trump is right.
It is disgraceful that Powellis keeping rates this high
despite economic data thatsuggests everything to the
contrary that rates should belowered to at least three
percent.
That's what the Fed's neutralrate was restated as yesterday
afternoon.
Likely, we won't probably seeanything until September, but

(22:45):
that is to the disappointment ofmany workers families who want
to see relief on their mortgagesand credit card bills.

Speaker 2 (22:51):
James Fishback.
Thank you very much for joiningus.
So that's I mean.
So again and again.
This just doesn't even justaffect housing too.
It does affect everything.
Every way that you get money,you know that that number
continues to stay artificiallyhigh according to Trump, and I
would agree I think it's toohigh right now.
So we'll see what ends upshaking out with that.
But but if there's an area ofthe economy to watch for it's
housing and you go go on Zillowand go look at the number of

(23:15):
houses that are coming on in anyparticular area Now in our area
here in Albuquerque it's prettystable, but you go to areas
even around the city, you'reseeing those numbers jump up.
Areas around the countrythey're jumping up as well.

Speaker 3 (23:29):
Right.
I know there've been rumorsthat Trump could fire Powell
over this Right.
He said he won't.

Speaker 2 (23:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (23:35):
But the guy who wants his job said he might.
Kevin Hassett.

Speaker 2 (23:39):
Kevin Hassett has gone on the past couple of weeks
and said you know, basicallyyou know, if it were me I
wouldn't be doing what Jerome'sdoing.

Speaker 3 (23:45):
If I was doing this, I'd be doing a much better job.

Speaker 2 (23:47):
I mean I'd be cutting interest rates and I would be
getting back into those lowerinterest rates.

Speaker 3 (23:50):
It's like that Shangela's bit where he's like
he cried.
I wouldn't have cried if it wasme.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
I wouldn would have done it differently it's like
that um yeah yeah, so I don'tknow no I think in in he is the
name that has been mentioned,has it?
Although you know there's.
There are a few other namesfloating out there as well, but
I think has it's one of the guysthat's been talked about.
We'll see what ends uphappening.
The president it's tough forthe president to get rid of the
fed chair it is.

Speaker 3 (24:16):
He can do it, but it's difficult it's not great,
it great.

Speaker 2 (24:18):
It's not a great thing, and I think it would.

Speaker 3 (24:20):
I think it would make people really angry actually.

Speaker 2 (24:23):
Well, we'll see, I mean.
But I think if you're Trump andyou're looking at this and
you're going, look guy, ifyou're not going to cut interest
rates anytime soon and you'rejust going to keep them
artificially high for no goodreason, then I think Trump's
willing to take that hit.
You know cause it?
Cause the economy's healthcould well depend on it.
This is a drag on the economy,I think those higher rates.
And again, some of this getsback to what's going on with

(24:44):
trade and tariffs and everythingelse.
So we'll see.
All right, we're going to turnback to weather.

Speaker 3 (24:48):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
Now the Texas Hill Country continues to have issues
.
Another round of flooding today, on Sunday, and this is what it
looked like and this is the.
I mean, this is just anightmare.
More of the rivers in the hillcountry are leading to the hill
country and out of the hillcountry flooding.

Speaker 3 (25:05):
Still the Guadalupe River.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
This is not the Guadalupe, but yes, the
Guadalupe is going up in andflow as well.
It's not what it was in pastdays, especially a few weeks ago
, but this is still massiveflooding issues in this area of
the country.
So this brings up the point andit's something that CNN decided
to tackle.
They were wondering do peopleconnect this with climate change
?
And we've made the point veryclearly on this show.

(25:28):
This is not a result of climatechange.
It's just not.
And you got to go back to thepast shows and I explained that
in the past two shows in greatdetail.
But CNN decided to ask somequestions to figure out with all
the flooding, are people stillconcerned significantly with
climate change?

Speaker 8 (25:45):
Are Americans afraid of climate change?
And the answer is Americansaren't afraid of climate change.
Climate activists have notsuccessfully made the case to
the American people.
I want you to take a look here.
Greatly worried about climatechange.
We have data going all the wayback since 1989.
Look at that.
It was 35 percent, 2000, 40percent, 2020, 46 percent and

(26:07):
2025, 40 percent, which is theexact same percentage as back in
2000.
Despite all of these horribleweather events, the percentage
of Americans who are greatlyworried about climate change has
stayed pretty gosh darnconsistent, which kind of
boggles the mind a little bit,Granted everything that we see
on our television screens, ourcomputer screens the hurricanes,

(26:27):
tornadoes, the flooding, butyet greatly worried about
climate change 40% in 2025, theexact same percentage as back in
2000.
So why?
Why it's because people are notworried that it's necessarily
going to affect them.
That's what's going on here.
You'll be a natural disastervictim often or sometimes
worried.
Look at this In 2006, it was38%.

(26:48):
Look at where we are now, in2025.
It's 32%.
38% to 32%.
The number's actually gone down.
The number's gone down in termsof the percentage of Americans
who were Okay.

Speaker 2 (26:59):
So here's what I would argue on this.
Here's the reason why you havea problem here, and instead of
having a realistic approachwhere you say to people look,
you know, my approach on thiswhole thing has always been
energy.
We need as much energy aspossible.
Demonizing oil and gas andfossil fuels is ridiculous.
You can't survive without themand what we need to do is make

(27:20):
sure we have enough energy goingforward here.
Now, if you want to focus onother types of energy all the
above, even nuclear, which we'vetalked about on this show all
the time nuclear is critical forus to eventually reach the
levels of energy that we'regoing to need.
It's not just going to be oiland gas.
We won't have enough, you know.
You're just going to needmassive amounts of energy in
this world going forward here.
But one of the arguments Iwould make is that when you do

(27:43):
the chicken little, the sky isfalling.
We're destroying the planetevery day.
Eventually, people just stopbelieving you.

Speaker 3 (27:50):
In 10 years, in seven years, in 30 years, the world's
going to be uninhabitable.
That's something that I grew upwith a lot, because I remember
I was a gifted kid and I wouldgo to my gifted classes and we
did a whole year on like polarbears and all they talked about
was like by the time you're 25,there's going to be no more
polar bears.

Speaker 2 (28:10):
And, by the way, what are those numbers doing now?

Speaker 3 (28:11):
Polar bear populations have gone up
significantly in the past 10years.

Speaker 2 (28:17):
Okay, so let's just hold there and I'll let you
finish your thought.
Let's listen to Bernie Sandersrunning for president five years
ago.
Here's what Bernie said aboutclimate change.

Speaker 9 (28:27):
These workers is that the scientists are telling us
that if we don't act incrediblyboldly within the next six,
seven years, there will beirreparable damage done, not
just to Nevada, not just toVermont or Massachusetts, but to
the entire world.
Joe said it right this is anexistential threat.

(28:49):
You know what that means, chuck?
That means we're fighting forthe future of this planet, and
the Green New Deal that Isupport, by the way, will create
up to 20 million good payingjobs as we move our energy
system away from fossil fuel toenergy efficiency and

(29:09):
sustainable energy.

Speaker 3 (29:11):
Ok, so what plan did he exactly have in mind with the
Green New Deal?
That would create 20 millionnew jobs, jobs.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Not only that, what it would do to your energy
prices is crazy.
It would destroy the budget ofevery low income and middle
income family in the UnitedStates.
So it's ludicrous.

Speaker 3 (29:28):
And the way we make our money here in New Mexico
especially.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
The Green New Deal does.
We don't have to get into allof this, but it's a massive
government control.
What they want is governmentcontrol over everything.
Right, they want to be able totell you here's the car you're
going to drive, here's where youcan go, here's how often you
can go.
And it's something that peopleare not going to accept.
And the problem with theargument is when you go and lay
it out, like Bernie does.
Right, this is a, this is afact that you cannot believe.
If we do not address this issue, then we are going to die as a

(29:53):
society and you eventually justgo.
What are you talking?

Speaker 3 (29:56):
about that's not happening.
I think after 30 years of beingtold you had 10 years left,
people get really well, no, Iagree, and another thing I think
that was mentioned in the inthe news clip was that, uh, the
guy said people are less likelyto believe in climate change
because they're less likely tobelieve it will happen to them
personally.
And that's because for so longwe didn't just say we're going

(30:17):
to lose all the polar bears, ourice caps are melting.
We did say you yourself aregoing to struggle, climate
change is going to affect youpersonally.
And then it it didn't.
So of course people believethat I don't know.

Speaker 2 (30:27):
Well, no, and I think you've also seen some of this
capture in the weather communityand the respect that it's like.
Well, we've got a heat warninghere.
It's up to 86.
I mean, oh my goodness, it'snever been 86.

Speaker 3 (30:37):
Oh wait, it has been 500 times, except for the past
100 years in a row.
Okay, great.

Speaker 2 (30:40):
Yeah, have the number of 100 days increased in your
time?
No, I actually haven't.
Okay, well then.
So you start coming up with allthese things and these hyped up
reasons, and the flooding lastweek's a great example.
It is, oh my gosh, this isclimate change.
This is what climate changelooks like.
No, this is what topographylooks like, and this is what you
know soils look like, and thisis what flooding that has

(31:01):
happened in you know, millenniaafter millennia in that area.
This is what it looks like.
So you just get that point whereit is.
It is ridiculous, and so it isnot working, and so a different
approach would be hey, look,we've got massive energy needs
coming forward here, especiallywith AI beginning to assert
itself more and more, and youhave to do everything possible
to get more sources of energyonline here.

(31:23):
And too often, people that haveadvocated for this stuff they
want control of your life, butthey don't want to give you the
flexibility to continue to beable to access the type of
energy needed to keep yourfamily safe and to keep your
budget in line, and becausethey're so off on this, they
continue to be less and lesseffective, and I think those
numbers will continue to go down.

Speaker 3 (31:42):
It's also not really up.
I mean it kind of is as thesupreme world power, up to the
United States to handle climatechange, but we are not the
country that produces the mostWell, I don't think our idea
should be to handle climatechange, because I don't think
you can do it.

Speaker 2 (31:54):
So, because you don't have exactly what you're
talking about.
You don't have control overIndia and you don't have control
over China, and you don't havecontrol over these countries
that continue to belch out anunbelievable amount of pollution
Forget CO2, actual pollutiontoo and so what you really need
to be able to do is make surethat we're on the forefront of
having the most energy possible,make it as clean, as efficient

(32:15):
as possible.
Remember the Middle East stuff?
When I was growing up, theMiddle East Ava meant like we
cared about what happened in theMiddle East in a massive way.
It's not that we don't now, butthat's what we got the majority
of our oil, right.
We don't anymore, right, right.
So we don't have the samebuy-in.
We have more flexibility in theMiddle East than we used to
because we produce our energy inAmerica, right, right.

(32:35):
That's hugely important.
So, as we go forward, you knowthat source of energy, I think
will be nuclear in one form oranother.
Probably, I'm hoping, it'sfusion, but we'll see what ends
up happening with it.

Speaker 3 (32:46):
But we've got to invest in that to make sure that
we're the leader in those areaslike fusion development, and if
we are weformed about itbecause of Chernobyl and because
of Fukushima, that they thinkthat every time you put up a
nuclear power plant you'rerunning the risk of turning
everyone in a hundred mileradius into diseased mutants.

(33:08):
Right, if there's even theslightest mistake.
And that's just not true Likeit doesn't.
It baffles me that the leftisn't prouclear energy.

Speaker 2 (33:17):
I think some are, but there's a good portion that
still are not because it giveslight to the lie, which is that
they want actual energy.
They don't.
They want control over theenergy that you use and they
want to use government to getthat, versus saying we're going
to give you endless amounts ofenergy at a very cheap price.
If they started doing that andexploring things and ways to do

(33:38):
that, it'd be incredible, butit's got to be a moonshot.
That's got to happen in yourlifetime.
Can't wait for that.
Actually, it's gonna be huge.
Okay, what else we got?
What's your last story, by theway, before I'm replacing you
with ella?

Speaker 3 (33:48):
wait, we're not covering we're not.

Speaker 2 (33:50):
We're not covering what the borders are oh, yeah,
we are.
Yeah, we are okay.
You're right, you got twostories left, yes, okay.
So, uh, year today we had theassassination attempt on
president Trump and this is whatit looked and sounded like on
that day in the field inPennsylvania.
And those second round of shots, the second round of shots that

(34:19):
went off there, that wasobviously the snipers taking out
the gunman.

Speaker 3 (34:24):
Thomas Crooks.

Speaker 2 (34:24):
Yep, thomas Crooks, which we still don't know.
Squat about Thomas Crooks, andwe do know now that there were
obviously massive problems withthe Secret Service and
everything that they didn't docorrectly that has started to
come out.
It's unbelievable that he gotaccess to the roof.
That he did.
It's unreal.
What's also unreal, though,though, as you look back at

(34:46):
those headlines right after allthis went down, I mean just on
the back and grabbed a few ofthem here.
Secret service rushes trump offstage after he falls at rally.
I mean, are you kidding me?
Trump injured an incident atpennsylvania rally.
Trump removed from the stage bysecret service after loud
noises startles like he's like,yeah, like a dog.
Yeah, it's like he got scaredlike my dog and ran into the
corner in the in the closet.

(35:07):
Uh, secret service rushes totrump off stage after popping
noises heard.
I mean, are you kidding me,secret service?
Trump safe after being rushedoff pennsylvania stage after
gunshot like sounds.
Secret service says trump'ssafe after.
So they already knew he'd beenshot in the ear and that was
their headline.
And finally, trump escortedaway after loud noises at a

(35:30):
pennsylvania rally.

Speaker 3 (35:33):
I just I.
I remember this day vividlybecause I was asleep, I was
taking a nap yeah and ella cameinto my room.
She goes.
Trump got shot and I got up andI ran downstairs to go see what
had happened and I justcouldn't like I, this is like.
This is the most insane thingI've ever seen.
That people, that people havethis level of like political,
yeah affiliation that they won'treport honestly when, like an

(35:55):
objective thing, happens to uh,uh, an official running for for
president yeah because theydon't like him.
So they refuse to reporthonestly that he's been shot in
the ear.
That is wild to me.

Speaker 2 (36:07):
It's wild and it is, you know it is bad for the
country because, again, justlike you need to grill every
president, right?
Every president needs to begrilled.
When your guy's in there, youdon't grill, and no matter what
the other guy does, if you don'tlike him, you throw him on the
grill.
You know it's crazy.

Speaker 3 (36:23):
It doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't seem like a goodstrategy and clearly it's not
because they're losing theirbase so quickly.
I just don't understand it.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
It's a matter of fact .
This is something we're goingto do on Wednesday.
I'm going to give you somenumbers.
Now that you reminded votersand party affiliation, you
should see the amount of erosionin the democratic party in the
past 10 years.
Democrats used to have a ninepoint registration advantage in
the country.
Okay, they're now negative two.

Speaker 3 (36:50):
Oh, my Republicans are up 43 in 10 years and years.

Speaker 2 (36:53):
It's collapsed, totally collapsed, and it's and
it's reasons like I'm part ofthat.

Speaker 3 (36:57):
I registered to vote a couple of days ago.
Nice work.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
Congratulations, all right.
One more thing, and this is oneof those issues that leads to a
collapse, and that is that TomHoman's went out and made the
rounds on the Sunday morningshows here.
Dana Bash, the phrasing of thisquestion is just classic, so I
want you to just listen to thisand how Homan's answers.
He actually is prettyrestrained, given the ludicrous
nature of what Dana Bash isabout to say.

Speaker 4 (37:21):
He actually is pretty restrained, given the ludicrous
nature of what Dan Abash isabout to say.
Let's turn to the raids thisweek on two cannabis farms in
California.
Ice says more than 200undocumented immigrants were
detained.
The United Farmers WorkersUnion says multiple workers were
critically injured.
One 57-year-old, jaime AlanisGarcia, died after falling 30

(37:44):
feet from a greenhouse roofwhile fleeing ICE agents.
That's according to his family.
What's your reaction to that?
Somebody losing their liferunning from ICE?

Speaker 5 (37:56):
It's sad, it's unfortunate.
He was in ICE custody and ICEdid not have hands on this
person, but it's alwaysunfortunate when there's deaths.
I mean, no one wants to seepeople die and they were doing
the job.
They were serving criminalarrest warrants.
I mean the criminal searchwarrants and I see the media

(38:17):
saying it was an ICE raid.
No, they were serving criminalsearch warrants as part of a
criminal investigation involvedwith child trafficking, child
labor.
I think it was a total of 11children that were found on that
farm and now they're beinginterviewed, forensics
interviews find out, you know,are they victims of trafficking?
If so, who is the subject ofthat trafficking?

(38:38):
And let's hold some peopleaccountable.
So it's unfortunate whenanybody dies.

Speaker 2 (38:43):
Okay, what a ludicrous statement by her.
I'm sorry, if you run from thepolice and you go off a 30 foot
building and die, that's you'vedone that.

Speaker 3 (38:55):
That's your fault.
It's called don't run frompolice.
You're legally working at acannabis farm that was employing
children and again, we don'tworry from police working at a
cannabis farm that was employingchildren and again, we don't
worry about that, right?

Speaker 2 (39:02):
I mean you, literally .
I think they ended up beingcloser to 14 children that they
found.
They're trying to figure outhow this is all working.
But this is my point on takingludicrous stances on all these
things and to say, instead ofsaying, why in the world are
there kids being forced to workat these cannabis farms, you,
you're not asking that question.

Speaker 3 (39:20):
Right and didn't they report it initially?
Or some people said it was astrawberry farm.

Speaker 2 (39:25):
I don't know, but either way it still is.
When you look at it.
At the end of the day, you'regoing and taking kids, forcing
them into labor and be like youknow we've got to have this
forced labor.
It's the way it has to go.
No, that's why you startcollapsing and don't get support
from people because ofapproaches like this and people
like Dana bash on quote yourside who are questioning why
police or why ice officers aredoing their job and siding with

(39:50):
a guy who was running from ice,and then you're supposed to be
like, oh my goodness, it's ofcourse it's horrible.
Nobody wants anyone to die, butthat's ridiculous.
That's my point on this.
Is that that that's why youstart to collapse and support?

Speaker 3 (40:01):
One thing that I had an argument with somebody a
couple months ago I was ateacher at my school actually
who said well, what about when?
If we, if all theseundocumented workers, leave the
United States, who's going topick our crops?
Because they do it for such areduced price?
And I just found that to belike so and I couldn't believe

(40:22):
that he said that, because it'slike, who's going to pick our
crops for $2 an hour, except forthe illegal immigrants?

Speaker 2 (40:27):
Who's going to mow my lawn and clean my house.
Give me a break.

Speaker 3 (40:30):
Have you seen that clip of that woman on the Today
Show or the View where she'slike if we kick all the Latinos
out of this country, who's goingto be cleaning your toilet,
Donald?
Trump.
It's awful.
It's an awful approach.
Your argument for immigrationcan't be well.
We need people to do the workthat we don't want to do for
barely any money.
That's wrong.
That's the wrong opinion tohave.

Speaker 2 (40:49):
Oh no, I agree, I agree, and I think it just shows
this kind of this whole thoughtof let's have these people that
we view as lesser thans do this, and it's an awful approach.

Speaker 3 (40:58):
And call it civil rights and call it support and
call it kindness.

Speaker 2 (41:01):
Yeah, it's a joke, and so, and really, what we do
need, though and we do need amore robust visa program, and we
do need a registration program,and we, you know again, along
with people being sent back totheir home countries, especially
those who have committed crimes, we need to make sure that
we're creating an environmenthere where people are held
accountable for what they'vedone and then give people an

(41:21):
opportunity the right way tobecome American citizens, just
like literally every othercountry in the world.
In the world.
That's right, all right, you'reout, you're done All right,
it's been wonderful, thank youfor having me.
Nice work, you did a good job.
Ella, come on in here, let'sget going, and you guys.
By the way, I'm already likingthe way this is setting up
Colorado for a couple more weeks, just to have you guys continue

(41:43):
to do great work.
Els, thanks for joining me.
Go ahead and throw the headseton.
I don't think it works.
Oh no, it works like a charm.
It works beautifully.
I've got a couple stories.
Yours are going to be a bitlighter, on the lighter side.
That's okay with me.
Yeah, because you talked to meabout that.
You kind of wanted some funstuff.
Yeah, okay, all right, I'mready.
Okay, good, um, so we have beento the first time, I think, in

(42:12):
our lives.
We went to a Bucky's right,it's in Johnstown, colorado.

Speaker 3 (42:17):
I have no idea where it is.

Speaker 2 (42:18):
Yeah, it's just uh, south of Fort Collins, right,
cause we go to Fort Collins,cause that's where mom's
family's from, so we go thereall the time and we went to our
first Bucky's.
What did you think of Bucky's?

Speaker 3 (42:28):
I actually.
So I've seen so much stuffabout Bucky's online so I was
like, oh, this is gonna be great, this is gonna be awesome and
it was really cool.
Like it's a massive gas station, it has everything.
I think it had a barbecue inthe middle of the gas station,
like in the right middle,there's a whole oh, it's a
massive.
It's massive and there's abunch of shirts and everything
like that, so I thought it was.
I thought it was cool.

Speaker 2 (42:49):
Okay.
So now what's happening isthere's only one Bucky's in
Colorado.
They're trying to put anotherone in Palmer Lake, which is
just North of Colorado Springs.
We passed through there toowhen we go up to Colorado.
Okay, and they're trying to putone there.
Well, things are blowing up onthat.
Okay, it's becoming a battle ofall battles, it says.
Emotions have boiled over inPalm Point Lake.

(43:09):
It's a population of 2,500.
Since the Texas Bay Buc-ee'schange featured, of course, they
feature.
Their grinning beaver mascottargeted the underdeveloped land
along I-25 for a new outlet, a74,000 square foot store with 60
gas pumps and parking fornearly 800 cars open 24 hours a

(43:31):
day.
Some residents display a heavethe beave sign in their front
yards.
They have a powerful ally,billionaire media mogul John
Malone, who's a big timeRepublican donor.
I can tell you that forexperience, america's second
largest private landowner, hisnearby Greenland Ranch, is one
of the largest stretches of openland between Denver and

(43:51):
Colorado Springs.
This would really ruin it forpeople driving between the
metros wanting to see a little.
Old West said Malone, 84, in aZoom interview from one of his
summer homes in Ireland.
Goodness gracious, that's kindof nice and it says a couple
things here.
Number one so Buc-ee's wasfounded by Arch Beaver Applin
III in 1982.

(44:13):
They have 50 locations, okay,and again, the closest one is
100 miles to the north, inJohnstown.
Here, and basically what youget in a Buc-ee's if you haven't
been there you get a massivestore that has a ton of
barbecued brisket Like at anyone time how many brisket
sandwiches you think they hadthere as we walked up 150.

Speaker 3 (44:32):
At least, yeah, per hour, at least.

Speaker 2 (44:35):
Oh, they just churn out.

Speaker 3 (44:36):
They put them out like more than one a minute.

Speaker 2 (44:38):
Oh they do barbecue chicken, they do, I mean, they
do rips, they do, I mean they dorips.
They do everything.
And one of the things they dois fudge too.
They're huge on the fudge front.
Okay, yeah, I know, I know youdon't like it else.

Speaker 3 (44:49):
Bucky's is the largest gas station in the world
, by the way.
The one in Luling, texas, has120 gas pumps and it's 80,000
square feet.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
Okay, so that shows you.
So they're a.
In return, palmer Lake canexpect at least a million
dollars annually and new salestax revenue a 30 percent boost
in what the town usually sees ina year.
So you've got the trustees andthe politicians were like, yeah,
we want the money.

(45:16):
And then you got a bunch ofcitizens who are like, no, we
don't want the money.
And then the citizens areteaming up with John Malone,
who's this massive landownerwho's like, yeah, I don't want
this.
John Malone is kind of theconservative.
Ted Turner you guys may notknow Ted Turner, but Ted Turner
he owns ranches all over thecountry, a couple here in New
Mexico, and John Malone owns abunch of property here in New

(45:39):
Mexico.
But Ted Turner was a man of theleft and John Malone's a man of
the right, but either way.
So they're teaming up.
We don't know what's going tohappen.
So if it's up to you, buc-ee'sin Palmer Lake or no.

Speaker 3 (45:54):
I mean, I think a couple things.
I think it's a cool gas station.
I think the money benefit onthat would be good, but I also
think there's a chance thatsmall businesses would have a
harder time over there.
But I also think there's achance that small businesses
would have a harder time overthere.
One of the arguments because ifthere's a Bucky's you know
you're not going to go to thethe nearby gas station, that's
over the person selling fudge attheir own little shop.

(46:15):
Yeah, it's like convenient whenit's all in one place, like
you're not going to go get lunch, like you can get it all right
there.

Speaker 2 (46:19):
So Walmartization of gas stations, right yeah.

Speaker 3 (46:22):
So there's a chance that it would it would really
like do a lot of harm to smallbusinesses.
So in that way I would probablysay no.
So you're going now.
I would say no.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
Yeah, I'm going to agree with you on the no,
because I was not.
Bucky's was interesting thefirst time you walk in, but I
gotta be honest, I don't lovethem.
I don't, I don't know, I justdidn't love it.
Ava, yes or no on the PalmerLake?

Speaker 3 (46:49):
See, I really wanted to like Bucky's, I really did,
but it just didn't live up to myexpectations.
It really did kind of feel likea Walmart opened a gas station
and a barbecue and I think thathonestly, if Bucky's was like
out of this world, good, if thebarbecue was like life changing
I'd be like, I'm sorry, smallbusinesses.

Speaker 2 (47:06):
You're going to have to go.
Bucky's wins.

Speaker 3 (47:07):
Yeah, this is too good, it's mediocre, and I think
that it's mediocre isn't goodenough to squash small
businesses into dust.
I would not say that the foodwas mediocre.

Speaker 6 (47:17):
You think it's better .

Speaker 3 (47:18):
I thought the food was good.
I liked the gas station, Like Idon't have a problem with
anything in the gas station.

Speaker 2 (47:23):
You don't eat meat, though.
What did you eat?
Turkey?
Oh, you had a turkey barbecue.
Turkey, yeah, okay.

Speaker 3 (47:27):
Because I don't eat beef or pork, but I just ate a
turkey sandwich and I thought itwas really good and like they
had all the snacks I wanted andthey made those I thought they
were under on drinks.
Okay, had like a coupledifferent flavors of everything.
They didn't have that much yeahbut they had those like chips
that they made homemade thoseare delicious.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
Those were really good and they were in a bag.

Speaker 3 (47:49):
They were solid, so I thought the food was solid okay
, okay, all right, I'm with you,all right.

Speaker 2 (47:52):
So, uh, you see you're, you're chronically
online wow, yeah, okay so didyou see what we're about to show
?

Speaker 3 (48:00):
uh, no, you've not seen this video.
I I have not.

Speaker 2 (48:02):
Okay, so, um, there was the Charlie Kirk turning
point event this past week.
He goes and gets a massivelineup of conservative speakers,
or sort of conservative.
Some are not, and so whatever,either way, it's a huge event.
And so there's a guy driving bythis event and he just couldn't
help himself, so he had to getout and start challenging people

(48:23):
to fight him.
I think rule number one a fightclub is know how to fight.

Speaker 3 (48:27):
Yeah, okay, number one, a fight club was.
We don't talk about fight.

Speaker 2 (48:30):
Well, the real rule number one is you don't even get
to fight club if you don't knowhow to fight.
So let's just use that andlet's just watch this guy.
We'll kind of commentate as wego and he pops out of his car
and he decides to start walking.
Bring the sound down slow.
Yeah, he's going, yeah, so he'schallenging him.

Speaker 3 (48:50):
And he's like 40.
Oh, yeah, yeah yeah, at least.
He's not like mid-20s yeah no,no, Watch this though.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
Oh look, he tries to throw a cheap, kind of a weird
slap.
Yeah he's trying to slap.
And then here is the cop,brings him back, got him in kind
of an armbar headlock and thenbrings him right down to the
turf right there and the cop isprobably twice his age oh,
absolutely that's I mean.

(49:15):
If you're, you're in the middleof a slap fight and then you
know a cop, who, who basicallyis like joe biden comes out of
the puts.
A cop.

Speaker 5 (49:23):
Timmy walls comes in.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
And I think walls is even a little younger than that
guy.
I gotta be honest.
And then that guy just comesand takes you downtown right in
front of everybody.

Speaker 3 (49:33):
Oh my gosh, it has to be embarrassing.
I also think you know you can'tstart a fight with slaps Like
you have to throw a punch.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
You've got to throw a punch, you're just going to get
wiped out so yeah, isn't that abarrier.

Speaker 3 (49:46):
Isn't he like trying to get people to fight him over
the barrier?

Speaker 2 (49:50):
Well, I think, yeah, you should always eat.
It's that classic thing whereeverybody's holding me back.
Yeah, you're lucky, these guysare holding me back and then
when?
They don't.
You're like oh man.
And then you start slappingpeople and then, yeah, it's not
good.
Okay, you want to go to somegame cam, I do.
Okay, what do you?
So, uh, this week on the gamecams, um, we found there are two

(50:10):
bears hanging around the area.
This guy everybody thinks blackbears are black turns out
plenty of them are sort of awhite cinnamon sort of color.
And then we have the second one.
He, this same guy.
Uh, I think this is him tooright, it's a different camera.
I wouldn't say that's same guy.
I think this is him too right,it's a different camera.

Speaker 3 (50:25):
I wouldn't say that's him.

Speaker 2 (50:26):
You don't think that's him.

Speaker 3 (50:28):
You think it is.
I think that's the same bear.
I do I think the fur is adifferent color on that one.
It might be, Ava.
Go back to the other one.

Speaker 2 (50:33):
Yeah, go back to the other one.

Speaker 3 (50:38):
It's a different camera, obviously, and patch
there in the middle.

Speaker 2 (50:40):
He's got a little bald patch on those back.
He's still got it, yeah he'sgot it there, yeah okay, okay,
so we, so we got the same guy.
So he's kind of hanging out.
I can't really tell what he'sdoing.
He's just kind of well, I justset this up sort of in a little
field, um, and so he's hangingout and so, but just goes to
show you.
A lot of times, you, you know,you just think you're seeing a
bear, and it's a black bear, andit's not always black.
Well then, this one is, this isalso looks like a you know,

(51:03):
kind of a young, two-year-oldbear maybe.
Yeah, he's just kind of walkingthrough middle of the night and
this is a big game trail.
I have it on a massive gametrail here, so there's a lot of
stuff here and he just kind ofcomes walking through.
But those two are similar ages.
I wonder if they're brothers orsomething.
But they don't hang outtogether anymore, because we
used to see video when they'dall hang out together.
Yeah, yeah yeah, I think it'stwo of those bears from a family

(51:24):
where mom's like, yeah, you'regone brother.

Speaker 3 (51:26):
Like get out, you're out, Get out, sir.
I think we need to start namingthe animals that we see, so you
can remember them.

Speaker 1 (51:30):
Can we put an air?

Speaker 3 (51:31):
tag on them.

Speaker 2 (51:32):
Yeah, I'm not going to do that.

Speaker 6 (51:36):
You don't think it's can just go grab a bear on our
own and collar it.

Speaker 3 (51:45):
I'm not saying we could do it, but I'm wondering
if it's legal.
I doubt it.

Speaker 2 (51:49):
There can be a law.

Speaker 3 (51:50):
It's like tracking wild animal ears.

Speaker 2 (51:52):
What do you think?
We take like a tranq dart, gethim in the throat, wait till he
s really well.

Speaker 3 (52:02):
It's a baby black bear.
It's not like it's a.

Speaker 2 (52:04):
It's not a baby kid, it's not an adult grizzly.
That thing's 300 pounds easy.
It's not a polar bear.
Well, it's not a polar bear,not even a coty.

Speaker 3 (52:09):
It's bigger than our dogs.
It's going to take you away.

Speaker 6 (52:10):
That's the size of Maverick.

Speaker 3 (52:19):
That'd be ours that is not Well, okay.
Well, I don't know, we'll see.
I'm wondering if you can airtag a bear.
It's a really good question.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
My guess is you probably can't.
I don't know why would you?
I've seen people air taggingsharks and stuff that doesn't
seem like it should be legal butit is.
You probably have to get somesort of permission, I would
think.

Speaker 3 (52:38):
I would hope.
I kind of feel like it's notlegal to, because people use
trackers and all that to huntthem, do they not?

Speaker 2 (52:44):
no well, no, no, you can't do that yeah, that's what
I'm saying for research, likethey do it for research projects
.
Bears, uh no, I don't knowabout bears, but yeah, I mean, I
think like a lot of times, uh,grizzlies, for example.
They'll tag a bunch ofgrizzlies, figure out what's
their range look like, how dothey do you know?
There's all different types ofpeople that are.
Do you know?
Know the answer?
Ava?

Speaker 3 (53:03):
Yeah, it's against the law.
You can do it through wildlife,like organizations, like if
it's your job, but you're neverallowed to use an air tag,
because air tags are consumerelectronics and you aren't?
You could go to jail or getfined a ton of money.

Speaker 2 (53:18):
It's like putting your set of beats on one of them
.
Just stick it on their head andbe like we're just gonna play
some music for him it's terrible.

Speaker 3 (53:24):
We're gonna put some shoes on his feet it's this new
nike shoe I got these jordans.
I want to see it, see how helikes it.

Speaker 2 (53:30):
Look bears like this is awful all right, uh, one more
we got.
Uh, I think we have a motherelk.
She comes in and she's biggoodness yeah she looks, she
looks healthy yeah, really good,yeah, so she's eating a little
grass.
It looks like they're on a goodtime.
Yeah, no, it's good.

Speaker 3 (53:47):
Do you think it's weird that your, your cameras,
don't have timestamps on them?

Speaker 2 (53:52):
I cut it out.
Oh yeah, I do.
You can put it on the bottom.
I just, I just don't.
I cut them out.
You don't know the morning, ohyeah, but I but I just don't
include them on the bottom ofthe thing.
I could leave them.
Should I put them in?

Speaker 3 (54:08):
again Cause then you can know what time it is.
It could be 10.
It could be four, yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:12):
Okay, I'll add them in.
All right, you want to see hislast clip?
Sure, ready for this?
Okay, this is at the concert.
Mr Met is the mascot for theNew York Mets.
Turn it up, ava.
Watch this, watch this.
They're singing.
Oh my gosh, oh my gosh.

Speaker 3 (54:32):
He just goes right off the stage.

Speaker 2 (54:35):
Ava show that again.

Speaker 3 (54:36):
Do you think he can see?
Very well, he just keepssinging.

Speaker 2 (54:39):
I don't think he can?

Speaker 3 (54:40):
I think it's definitely a problem with the
mask.
Yeah, he can't.
I think it's.

Speaker 2 (54:42):
yeah, it's definitely a problem with the mask.
Yeah, cause he's on a baseballfield.
There's no, there's no 10 footdrop off, so they just walk in.

Speaker 3 (54:50):
That's fantastic.
No, I think the thing that is.
Uh, have you ever put on amascot helmet?

Speaker 2 (54:57):
Yes, you know, how it's just.

Speaker 3 (54:58):
It's just the two eyeballs.

Speaker 2 (54:59):
I mean, like if you're going, to look down like
you can't see anything.
Not only that, the eyeballsusually are covered with like a
mesh.
So even that vision out of theeyeball- isn't great.

Speaker 3 (55:08):
You would think there'd be somebody there,
though, to like make sure hedoesn't.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
The guy in the red.
No one could react in time.

Speaker 3 (55:15):
I'm trying to remember their names, the band
members' names but he just keepsplaying.
I think his name's Andrew, theguy on the piano.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
Yeah, no, I couldn't care less.

Speaker 3 (55:22):
Let's go ahead and show that one more time.
One of the greatest folk bandsof all time is the.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
Lumineers, when you start saying folk band, you'll
lose me.
See, they just didn't realize.
And the woman with the fiddleis like oh, there he goes.
She couldn't do anything.

Speaker 3 (55:37):
Why is there no fence or something?

Speaker 2 (55:39):
I'm confused Because everybody can see normally, Ella
, I mean you can see the edge ofthe stage.

Speaker 3 (55:43):
Okay.
Do you ever think about whythere's nobody standing right
there?
I know it's not good for MrMatt.
There's nothing.

Speaker 2 (55:50):
I love how much confidence he has, right until
he goes off.

Speaker 3 (55:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (55:53):
Like he's like Captain Stud doing his thing and
then all of a sudden he's justgone.

Speaker 3 (55:57):
Yeah he's just gone.
Yeah, it's a bummer.

Speaker 2 (56:00):
So anything else you'd like to add?

Speaker 3 (56:01):
Um no, but I'm going to do the wrap up, cause I was
only here for like 10 minutes.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
Okay, no, that's fair .

Speaker 3 (56:05):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (56:06):
No, by the way, next time, if you'd like to add some
stories, I asked you guys to addsome stories.

Speaker 3 (56:09):
If you want to add some, I actually was going to
ask you to add the Trump yearago thing cause.

Speaker 2 (56:13):
I saw that today.
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 (56:19):
Yeah, also Yesterday, alexander Hamilton died.

Speaker 2 (56:21):
Okay, this is great Again.
We need to have you stopinterjecting, ava.
This is Ella's segment.
You jumped in too much.
You definitely are yourmother's daughter jumping in on
other people's segments.

Speaker 3 (56:30):
I didn't jump in on the segments.

Speaker 2 (56:31):
It's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me.

Speaker 3 (56:34):
Okay, everybody, I'm doing the wrap-up, so thank you
so much for joining us and we'llsee you later this week
Wednesday.
Wednesday Follow us onInstagram, go to our website.
Go to our websiteNoDoubtAboutItPodcastcom and
follow us and subscribe and turnon your notifications.

Speaker 1 (56:53):
See ya, 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.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon.
But in the meantime, you canfind us on Instagram and
Facebook at no Doubt About itPodcast.

Speaker 2 (57:12):
No doubt about it.

Speaker 1 (57:14):
The no Doubt About it Podcast is a Choose Adventure
Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
There is no doubt about it.