August 20, 2025 • 47 mins
This week’s episode of the No Doubt About It Podcast is packed with stories you won’t hear broken down anywhere else.
🔥 Second Amendment Victory
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period to buy a firearm—even if you’ve already passed a background check. The court ruled it unconstitutional. Mark explains why far-left lawmakers in Santa Fe keep pushing laws they know won’t stand—and why a media that never holds them accountable fuels even more bad laws. You’ll even hear a state senator caught on tape admitting their gun laws are unconstitutional.
🏙️ Albuquerque Mayor’s Race
The fundraising numbers are in, and Krysty shows why it’s now officially a three-horse race. Who’s got the momentum? We break it down.
🚛 Trucking Tragedy
We dive into the heartbreaking story of a Florida family killed by a big-rig driver who never should have been on the road. Shockingly, he was pulled over in New Mexico before the accident—but wasn’t stopped. Mark and Krysty reveal the alarming gaps that put innocent lives at risk.
🌍 Trump & the Ukraine War
Trump is working to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but his opponents refuse to give him credit—even as lives hang in the balance. We’ll explain why.
🏛️ The Smithsonian Goes Woke
Trump wants to stop the politicization of America’s museums. Are exhibits really slanted? We’ve got the receipts, and the answer is yes.
👉 Don’t miss this episode—it’s one of our most important yet.
Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Well, welcome to Wednesday.
I cannot hear myself, honey.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
You can't at all, huh .
Speaker 2 (00:19):
No, so could you.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I could hear myself, you want to go up a little bit
more.
There you go yeah, maybe Ithink that's it.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
So, Mark, we just we've had some technical
difficulties on this show today.
So could you?
I could hear myself you want togo up a little bit more.
There you go.
Yeah, maybe I think that's it.
So, mark, we just we've hadsome technical difficulties on
this show today.
Have we ever?
We recorded the entire showalready with Ella, so it was, it
was professionally produced,let's put it that way Sort of
Sort of.
(00:45):
And then we recognize that since, due to an update on our system
, it recorded no audio, so nowit is in the.
We're stretching on.
A little later in the eveningElla has to peace out, so now
it's back to just you and Idoing this tonight.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Yes, and we'll.
We'll shorten up some of this.
For example, I'm not going todo a full situational rundown on
what you're going to hear here,but trust me, it'll be good.
We have a massive courtdecision that has come through
that affects the state of NewMexico, so we're going to get
into details on that and it's uh, it's crazy, uh, but it is
interesting, and so we'll get tothat.
(01:15):
And we're going to talk about abunch of different stuff as
well.
Do you remember what some ofthese things are?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I do.
We're going to talk about Trumpwith his meeting with Putin and
Zelensky, yeah, and kind ofjust the fact that you know, are
the media ever going to giveany props at all to Trump for
his efforts or not?
We're definitely talking aboutthat.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
And then we'll also talk about the mayor's race.
We're going to hit that too,and the money in the mayor's
race and things of that nature.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
But first, of course which we appreciate on the last
show, which we're talking aboutthe shortage of doctors in New
Mexico and kind of thegaslighting that's going behind
it, based on, you know, aneditorial that was in the
Albuquerque Journal last week,just trying to blindside us and
try to fool us into thinking youknow what's actually happening.
Well, dane Colson wrote in andsaid Mark is exactly right, we
run an independent medicalclinic here in New Mexico.
(02:07):
The issue is clearly the trialattorneys sucking the lifeblood
out of the state.
We have the second highestmedical malpractice insurance
rate in the country.
Doctors on the East Coast payless than we do.
As long as they run the statelegislator, the problem will
persist.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Meaning lawyers Right .
Speaker 2 (02:24):
The problem will persist.
Do we really expect them topass laws and craft policy that
will curtail the financial goldmine they have created for
themselves?
Look at how many of our repsenators are attorneys in this
field and they are in thepowerful posts in state
government where the issue iscontrolled.
They have captured the state.
It's that simple.
(02:45):
Now they just lie and deflectabout the cause of the doctor
shortage.
It's difficult and sickening towatch the abuse.
It's unjust and immoral.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
And we talk about this all the time, and it is
simply that you have a situationwhere it's not just lawyers
going and taking advantage ofpeople in this state, it is your
health care which ends up inthe tank because of it.
We don't have enough doctors.
You end up waiting six, eight,nine months because of this and
nothing seems to change.
(03:14):
And what was so offensive to usand the reason we did the whole
last show at the beginning ofit all about this was because
Brian Egoff, the former Speakerof the House, also a lawyer,
went and wrote this whole screedin the Albuquerque Journal
talking about how the realproblem in this state is that
you have corporate intereststhat are keeping people from
getting good health care, wheneveryone knows that's not true,
(03:36):
and so that's why we stood upand talked about it.
So hopefully you will checkthat out.
It is definitely worth hearing.
So very cool.
Thanks for the email, though itwas perfectly stated by someone
who lives it every single day.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Yeah, and make sure, if you want to send in more
comments, to like and subscribe.
Those are the email, those arethe comments that we actually
get directed to us to read.
So please make sure you likeand subscribe on our YouTube
channel and if you want to dropus an email, you can do that at
info, at no doubt about it,podcastcom.
Okay, let's move on to this.
Um appeal that came down, uh,basically in the ninth hour
today, on tuesday.
(04:08):
Yes, it was.
This was on tuesday yeah,absolutely so.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
A lot of you remember back in 2024 and actually the
vote happened, I think, in 2023in the state legislature.
There is a seven day waitingperiod for law-abiding citizens
to wait for themselves to get afirearm.
Okay, so you pass thebackground check right away,
you're fine, but you've got towait another seven days.
That was passed through thelegislature and at the time,
everybody's like how in theworld is this constitutional?
(04:33):
Well, it turns out that itwasn't actually constitutional.
There was a lawsuit filed bySamuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott,
okay, and this worked its wayup and through the chain and
eventually we got a decision,and it happened on Tuesday.
And, for those of you who didnot want to see that seven day
waiting period continue, it hasbeen overturned.
(04:54):
And here is the key paragraph.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
We disagree and reverse and remand cooling off
periods infringe on the secondamendment by preventing the
lawful acquisition of firearms.
Cooling off periods do not fitinto any historically grounded
exceptions to the right to keepand bear arms and burden conduct
within the Second Amendmentscope.
In this preliminary posture weconclude that the New Mexico
(05:17):
Waiting Period Act is likely anunconstitutional burden on the
Second Amendment rights of itscitizens.
We also conclude the otherpreliminary injunction factors
are met and that plaintiffs areentitled to an injunction Okay
so here's the thing about thisdecision that is so important
and we've talked about thisbefore.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
The New Mexico State Legislature does this all the
time, and if you actually watchlegislative hearings, you will
be shocked at what comes up.
And I'll tell you, you have asenator, especially on the
Judiciary Committee, and that isSenator Joe Cervantes.
He is somebody who knows theConstitution and knows what is
in direct violation of theConstitution.
(05:57):
He's a Democrat, he's not evena Republican, and oftentimes
you'll sit here and listen tohim say, yeah, this is not going
to pass muster, it's not goingto pass muster, it's not going
to survive, and this issomething he talks about
regularly because he hates tosee this sort of thing happen.
So the seven-day waiting periodis a great example of that.
It's another law that they passwhich has no chance to survive,
(06:19):
and yet pass it anyway.
And if you go watch some ofthese legislative sessions, you
will be shocked to see the lackof knowledge that our
legislators have of theConstitution, Because what ends
up happening here is they takelaws from other states and what
you get are you get theseactivists that come to our
legislators and say here, here,try to introduce this.
(06:41):
It was written in a differentstate but just try to get it
passed to New Mexico.
I watched it happen last year.
I watched it happen.
I watched it happen injudiciary and then you saw
Cervantes say you can't do that.
That's in violation of the NewMexico Civil Rights Act.
And all of a sudden thelegislator who put it up was
embarrassed and she should havebeen, because she just took a
bill from someone who offered itup and had no clue that it was
(07:06):
in direct violation.
So you see these things happenin this state and you go.
We can't let this sort of thingcontinue.
But yet it does.
And every year there's anassault weapons ban that comes
up in the state of New Mexico,which is not an assault weapons
ban.
I mean, it includes alldifferent sorts of firearms that
women use for self-protectionand those would be banned.
It's completelyunconstitutional.
(07:27):
They send it up every year andthey see it happen time after
time.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Yeah, and you wonder, like, do people just do some of
these legislators just not haveaccess to the New Mexico
constitution or to ourconstitution, like they don't
care?
I mean, yeah, I think that'sjust a disservice.
If you're going to be votedinto something, I mean at the
very least you could run itthrough a software program that
would tell you is this inconflict with the US or the New
(07:52):
Mexico Constitution?
Speaker 3 (07:53):
They're hoping for.
A favorable judge is my guess,or a panel of favorable judges.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
So you're telling me that you think that half the
time these people just do thisand they actually are completely
oblivious.
Or you think they'reknowledgeable and they know that
this bill that they've writtenor copied or whatever have
submitted you think that theyknow it's in direct conflict
with the Constitution.
Here's what I think.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
I think they have been able to operate in an
environment where they don't getcalled out and humiliated for
being incompetent at their job.
We don't have a media that hasthe wherewithal or the bandwidth
anymore to go after people andsay, oh my gosh, this
representative presented thisthing that was in direct
violation to the New Mexicoconstitution.
(08:34):
Like there is, there's no shameanymore.
There's no shame becausethere's no consequences, don't
have consequences, and they goand can propose anything as
ludicrous, as ludicrous as itmay be, and they don't ever get
pushed back and they don't.
They don't get called onto thecarpet for it by their own
voters or by the media.
They'll just keep doing it andthere'll be shameless in doing
(08:54):
it, and so the ignorance is inthe shamelessness or the
shamelessness is in theignorance right, which,
whichever is how it goes, it'sstill how it works.
It's incredible.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Well, we should find maybe the best hits, the
greatest hits of some of thesemeetings and we'll clip them
before their next election.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
No, that's no, here's what the problem with that is
is that you got to sit throughthem and I'm telling you it is
like fingernails on a chalkboard.
You watch some of these things.
Now we have some greatlegislators.
We do some some really smartpeople there are there are
plenty of them in it and somefrom both parties that are smart
.
They really are, and I'm notsaying everybody's like this,
but I'm saying that there isthis thought that there is no
(09:34):
accountability and there's noreal sense of pride to say I am
not going to present somethingthat is not honorable to the
people I represent, and theyjust let it happen time after
time.
So one thing we talked aboutabout three weeks ago was there
was actually a New Mexico statesenator who was honest about the
(09:54):
gun bills that come up in frontof our legislature.
She actually had the temerityto sit in a committee meeting
basically a remote committeemeeting.
They go around the state andthey have these little committee
meetings and she stood up andsaid something that was
hilarious because it was dead onhonest.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
And she is a Democrat , by the way.
Let's keep that in mind as well.
So it wasn't like this was aRepublican that was calling this
stuff out?
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Oh, absolutely, it was Senator Cedillo Lopez.
And here is what she had to say.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
I really appreciate the gun law update and I don't
know how to say this exactly,but we always introduce these
unconstitutional bills.
Well, actually, I don't agreewith that.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
So I'm sorry, I don't agree with that.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
So I'm sorry.
Well, I the reason.
I again.
We have different experiencesin the Senate and the House, but
at least that comes beforecommittees that I'm on.
We get these bills and it'slike they're so obviously
unconstitutional.
Of course I'm not on judiciary,so anyway I'm like, oh my God.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Yes, yes, you are, yes, you are Senator.
You're like, oh my gosh, yeah,and it's so true.
I mean, this just lines outexactly what we're talking about
.
So that's why, when the sevenday waiting period comes up in
front of the 10th circuit,they're like are you crazy?
This is not, you can't do this.
But this is part of a broaderpattern that our legislature
(11:25):
engages in, which is they go out, they pass laws.
Either they take laws fromother states and try to reuse
them, or they take laws that arepoorly written and clearly
unconstitutional.
And they would do well tolisten to people like Senator
Cedillo Lopez or Senator evenCervantes down south and just
stop putting these things upthat infringe on people's second
(11:47):
amendment rights.
We're a very high gun ownershipstate because we have a lot of
people that hunt and we have alot of people that use them for
self-protection, and they do solegally, and most often the laws
in which they are trying topass affect those people more
than anybody else.
We're not passing laws that areramping up penalties on those
who have guns illegally.
We should absolutely be doingthat.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Right Agreed and which we've talked about a lot.
So, okay, well, good, so goodnews on that.
As far as that law, I'm notgoing all the way through.
Let's move on.
Though.
Let's talk a little bit aboutthe Albuquerque mayor's race.
There was a article that cameout in the journal that was
really talking about where allthe candidates now stand as far
as their fundraising dollars.
So it's interesting.
If you kind of take a look atthis, you'll see that Mayor
(12:31):
Keller obviously is dominatingthe space, because he has been
able to receive a bulk of hismoney coming from the public
funds, the public campaign funds, which you know.
In a nutshell, just so as areminder for those folks you he
had to get somewhere aroundthirty eight hundred signatures,
along with a five dollarcontribution, to be able to get
(12:55):
that public financing, and hewas able to do that and secure
that.
So that's why he has so muchmoney.
He's got a roughly a littleover $757,000 now in his coffer,
which is quite a bit comparedto Louie Sanchez and Daniel
Chavez as well, who basicallyhave about 150,000 and $100,000
in their campaign.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Yeah, so, okay.
So a few things on this thatare interesting.
First of all, keller's numbersand the way this works is this
because Keller got thesignatures that Christie's
talking about and the $5donations, he basically gets 750
K.
Everybody else.
Okay, now Keller can't raiseany more money into that right
in, right through his campaign.
Okay, he can't do that, but hecan raise money into a pack and
(13:35):
use that as well, okay.
So now the pack can't directlybe run by Keller.
It's got to be run by peoplewho want to help them but they
can't have direct contact withthe campaign.
You know how that all goes.
So basically he's got 750K andthe reason that Keller supported
, I think and a lot of theseincumbents support public
financing is because it's anincumbent protection project.
(13:57):
It is that the most well-knowncandidate oftentimes can get
that 3,500, 3,700 number withthose $5 donations and that
immediately gives Keller amassive financial advantage
right out of the chute here.
Okay, but there are things thatyou can glean from this and I
think number one you'll see hisopponents close in on that money
(14:18):
amount as we go through thenext few months, meaning Darren
White will end up raisingprobably four or $500,000.
He's not going to raise 700,probably would be my guess.
He'll raise somewhere in thefour to $500,000 range, if I, if
I had to guess.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
And so I just feel like it's going to come down to
Darren White, louis Sanchez andobviously Keller in a runoff.
That's what I think is going toend up happening.
It's going to come down to oneof those two and and Keller in a
runoff.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Yeah, that's true and I think that's probably true.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
I think those that's my, that's my guess.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
I will say that the numbers aren't real.
But there's not a ton offundraising going on here.
I was honestly surprised atthese numbers.
I thought the numbers would bea little stronger.
Uh, across the board.
I thought you know, keller, youcan't really tell no-transcript
(15:12):
absentee starts on October 7th.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Early voting starts on October 18th for this race.
So it is coming right aroundthe corner.
I would just say that whoeveryour candidate of choice is, you
probably don't want to wasteany more time in the fact of if
you can give them some support.
It's valuable to tap in and beable to do that.
But you know, I just think it'sa.
I liked showing this articlebecause I think you look at the
(15:35):
article and you think, oh,Keller's in the lead.
There's no way he's going tocatch up, which, financially,
that's true, he does have a lotof money.
I just doubt the actual supportis there as much as it is for
some of these other twocandidates.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
And again, that's why we bring up the fact that the
public financing is theincumbent protection fund,
because it absolutely favors anincumbent every time.
So now he gets a massivefinancial advantage.
Why?
Because he's more well-knownand everybody's.
He's got that.
He's got the whole campaigninfrastructure in place from two
prior races that he's alreadywon, so.
So that's why he supports thesethings, and it's very difficult
(16:12):
, unless you're reallywell-known, to be able to go get
3,800 signatures or 3,700 orwhatever it is, in the city of
Albuquerque along with a $5donation.
It's harder than it looks Reallyhard to do and he knows that
and so when they supported that.
There's no question, thathappens all the time.
And and these public financethings, everybody says, oh,
public financing is the way youshould go and you know, get
(16:35):
money out of politics.
It doesn't get money out ofpolitics at all.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, youcan still run a pack through
this as well.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Yeah, it seems.
I mean, honestly, they voted toeven up the dose or whatever
you want to call it up thepercentage amount that you can
be given as a mayoral candidatefor public financing.
That was voted, I believe, in21 or 22.
They upped that rate.
So I think it's justinteresting.
I hope that people don't justsay, okay, look at the amount of
(17:02):
money that Keller has has hasin his coffers and assumes that
that's done Right.
I hope that you sit there andevaluate has he been a good
mayor for our city?
Yeah, and if he has not been agood mayor.
Here's the one thing.
We need to vote differently.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Well, yeah, but I was talking.
I agree with you totally.
But I was talking to a friendof mine this afternoon and he
said you know, here's the oneproblem Keller has.
And this is the problem.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Wait, I'm sorry the one there's like one.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Well, no, there's a million, but fair point.
So he said this is a bigproblem Keller has.
When you have a hundred percentname ID and everybody has an
opinion of you, all the money inthe world is not going to
change it.
Okay, so that's.
What's interesting is that youcan spend all the money in the
world, but everybody has alreadysolidified their opinion on Tim
Keller and the vast majority ofthem don't like him.
(17:49):
Okay, so the extra money while,while great and again it's
700,000, let's not go crazy hereYou're not gonna get that far
on $700,000 in a big campaignand buying TV ads in the biggest
TV market in the state.
You're not.
It's not gonna last that long.
So I will say this advantage onmoney with him a is not, is not
that important.
And then B, when everybodyknows how what they think of you
(18:12):
already some ad about you withsoft music talking about how
great you're doing when theylook out their window and see
there are massive problems goingto be tough to get by.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Okay, I agree with you, mark, but I have to play
devil's advocate on this,because I I will come back to
this over and over again, andit's one of the biggest reasons
we do this show is I still thinkpeople have a hard time
correlating crime, homelessness,you know, lack of whatever lack
of jobs, staying here in thecity due to leadership, because
you talk to people and they,they will like be like well,
(18:43):
this isn't the mayor's fault andthis isn't the you know
whatever.
And I'm just thinking well,whose fault?
Speaker 3 (18:48):
is it?
I disagree, I think I thinkyou're, I think you've got
plenty of voters that don'tcorrelate our leadership with
bad decisions.
Ok, that's fine, I agree, thereare those people, just not most
of them, and in fact if youlook at his numbers, he's upside
down by 20 points.
I mean, I'm sorry but that's aproblem.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
I get it.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
And I hope that you know people that are upside down
20 points do not win elections.
I'm not saying he's going tolose, I don't know.
You know what I mean, like Idon't know, but I'm saying
people that are upside down 20points don't win you don't
Listen.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
I hope you are correct, because I do think this
city needs some real change.
I really believe that we needsome change desperately.
So, obviously, get your moneyinto the people that you want to
support.
For this race Again, earlyvoting starts in October.
We're going to find out whenthe debate is, because I think
that's going to be fascinating.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Yeah, well, you're going to watch, just a feeding
frenzy.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Oh, it's going to be interesting, so of course,
course, we'll be sitting therewith our popcorn, because we
live for those kinds of things.
So we'll keep you posted onthat, but anyway, so that was
our take on that.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
Okay, I want to talk to you about a little different
issue here, and it's one thatdoes affect New Mexico, and
we're part of the story yetagain, and it's a tragic story.
There is a truck driver namedHarjinder Singh.
Okay, he was driving an 18wheeler in Florida on August
(20:11):
12th.
Okay, he was in the right lanegoing down the interstate and
inexplicably took a left-handturn to whip a U-turn in the
middle of the interstate.
Okay, so think about this.
Think about when you go to passsomebody and you're in the
left-hand lane on an interstateand imagine a 18 wheeler just
cutting straight in front of you, cutting you off, giving you no
(20:33):
chance to stop and trying topull a U-turn.
It's something that, no, nobodyof any sort of competence who
understands road travel in theUnited States would ever do.
Right, you would never beexpecting that, never.
You would never be expecting it, right?
He does it.
Okay, a minivan full of afamily runs right into the
bottom of it and they all dieand it's devastating.
(20:57):
Well, mr Singh came to thiscountry illegally in 2018.
He then went and applied forhis CDL in California and
Washington State.
We'll get into that, but let'sjust say he did not get the kind
of results that would justifygiving him a CDL which, chris,
you'll have those numbers in onesecond.
(21:18):
But here is what this lookedlike as he was driving.
And he goes, just makes theU-turn right here and then there
goes the minivan right in.
It's beyond.
It's not irresponsible.
It's having no business beingon the road with a CDL, driving
an 18 wheeler just cuttingacross an interstate and this
poor family had no chance yeah,absolutely no chance to survive.
(21:43):
He's just clueless, like totallyclueless, and so we want to
show you what the issues were,and this is from the US
Department of Transportation,with some details on how did
this guy get a CDL and couldthis have been stopped?
(22:03):
And yes, it could have beenstopped.
In fact, it should have beenstopped in the state of New
Mexico.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
And Christy has that it says.
During FMCSA's interview withthe driver, investigators
administrated an Englishlanguage proficiency or an ELP
assessment in accordance withFMCSA guidance.
The driver failed thatassessment, providing correct
responses to just two of 12verbal questions and only
accurately identifying one offour highway traffic signs.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
I'll say one quick thing before you keep going.
Remember what we're talkingabout here.
Somebody who can't speak thelanguage and can't read our
signs is driving a semi.
You have to have a specialqualification to do this, okay.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Okay, so this is the preliminary findings that
they've found so far.
On July 15th of 2023,washington State issued the
driver a regular, full-termcommercial driver's license.
And, basically, asylum seekersor individuals without legal
status are not eligible for thistype of license.
And again, we have informed you, this man was here illegally,
so who knows why he was issuedthis CDL.
(23:11):
Then again, on July 23rd, 2024,california issued the driver a
limited turn term CDL license.
Again now FMCSA isinvestigating the issuance of
this license to determinewhether it was issued in
accordance with federalregulations.
I'm assuming they're going tofind out it was not.
And then on, on July 3rd just amere a little over a month ago,
(23:33):
2025, the New Mexico StatePolice conducted a roadside
inspection of the driver.
Who this guy was driving on ourhighways on July 3rd, speeding,
speeding.
The state police pulled himover, issued him a speeding
ticket, but there's noindication that this English
language assessment test wasadministered this ELP.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
Okay and that, by law , has to be done.
Okay, that started in June ofthis year.
The federal law is listen, ifyou've got somebody who you
suspect can't either read theroad signs or can't speak
English well enough to be ableto be a functional driver, it's
like you know, there are certainplaces in this world I couldn't
drive right Cause I don't.
I don't know.
(24:13):
I don't know the road signs, Idon't know what side of the road
to be on, I don't have any clueRight.
And so, especially in a semiright in our our state police,
who I think do an incredible job, but, for whatever reason, miss
the boat here, because if theyhad looked at this and said,
wait a minute, we need to assessthe CLP, they would have
(24:41):
stopped him.
He never would have gotten toFlorida and wiped that family
out.
And the reason we bring up thisstory is, first off, because it
does affect the state of NewMexico and we're part of the
story.
But even bigger issue in all ofthis is the fact that this is
happening more and more.
We're starting to hear aboutthese more and more across the
country, where people aredriving with a CDL that
shouldn't have a CDL and theycan't function.
(25:02):
And we've lived through fouryears of don't worry about the
border, everything's fine, noproblem at all, don't worry
about it, it matters.
This, all matters.
And you can't drive thesetrucks without the proper
training and you have to be ableto speak the language and read
the signs.
It's not racist to say that.
And you see, when you, when yougo and you compromise people's
(25:25):
safety in service to what?
Some agenda, some woke agendathat nobody understands the
benefit of.
It's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Yeah, very dire consequences on top of all of
this.
So I mean the Secretary, seanDuffy.
He tweeted the same thing thathe's talking about.
This cannot happen again.
He's talking about FMCSA islaunching an investigation into
both the driver and the WhiteHawk carrier, who is the
business owner of the semi, andbasically he just goes into
exactly what we just talkedabout the big findings here of
(25:57):
this man being issued licensesin two different states and then
pulled over in the state of NewMexico and not given this ESL
test.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Yeah, and he says states must follow the rules.
Right, if they had, this drivernever would have been behind
the wheel and press.
His lives would not have beenlost.
The failures here aredespicable.
Non-enforcement and radicalimmigration policies have turned
the trucking industry into alawless frontier, resulting in
the unqualified driversimproperly acquiring licenses to
operate 40 ton vehicles.
(26:28):
I mean, this is a danger toanybody on the roads.
If you've been on I-40 in thisstate, you know it.
You know how dangerous it canbe because you have so many big
rigs and you depend on those bigrigs to know the rules of the
road, because most of the timethey do.
They're the ones who know thembetter than anybody, right, but
(26:52):
it's just devastating when theydon't because, when they don't
people die, and it's not themever.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Yeah, and they sit there and go.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
They get a little little bump and that's it.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah, you, just, you just think about your children
who are out there driving.
Of course I do that.
I don't even let our kids driveon I-40 and they think I'm a
helicopter parent, but it'sthere's so many.
I am a helicopter parent, butthere's so many semis on that
road anyway, and I feel like,until you have some more
experience driving on thehighway, uh, you get enough
hours under your belt, so tospeak.
Uh, I don't even like to driveon 40, if I'm being honest, I'm
(27:23):
not the.
And in this whole, you knowhe's trying to broker this peace
deal, right.
So are the media behind him?
Do they get fired up?
Are they like go Trump, let'send this war, let's save some
(27:44):
lives?
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Well, forget the media.
We've talked about this sameissue a million times, which is,
if Trump's on one side, themedia and in the far left will
take the other side every, everysingle time, so it doesn't
matter.
So now Trump, literally doingmore than I think any other
president would do or definitelyhas done to this point uh,
trying to bring this war to anend Now, even if you don't think
(28:05):
he's going to be successful, oreven if you know you hate Trump
, you still got to say, okay, Ihope it works, I hope he's
successful, because there areliterally thousands of people
it's not an exaggeration.
Thousands of people are dyingevery week.
Nobody wants that Nobody.
So you start to see thereaction from the media and from
(28:25):
the White House on this,because I think you don't
necessarily see that samethought process.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Right.
So let's just take a quick lookat Caroline Leavitt.
She basically just lets themedia have it for for how
they've been covering thesituation when it comes to Trump
.
Speaker 7 (28:41):
Of this entire process, much of the left-wing
media has been actively rootingagainst the president of the
United States in the pursuit ofpeace.
The media relentlessly attackedpresident Trump and claimed he
suffered a quote major defeatfor not immediately emerging
with a final agreement, eventhough he said, heading into
that meeting, this was a meetingto listen and to understand how
(29:02):
to move the ball forward.
The so-called experts in theforeign policy establishment,
whose record is nothing butendless wars, trillions of
wasted taxpayer dollars and deadAmericans, have the nerve to
try and lecture President Trump,who has solved seven global
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
So I think she's just she's kind of laying it out
there a little bit.
So, yeah, which I mean.
Okay, now in response, likeyou're wondering, maybe you've
missed something.
You didn't see some of themedia coming after with some of
these attacks, so we pulled thisother clip for you.
This is a global affairsanalyst from CNN and she is just
(29:43):
, you know, she's just shockedthat that Trump is actually
going to talk to both Zelenskyand Putin to try to put this
deal together.
Like she doesn't understand.
Speaker 6 (29:48):
He feels he's got to check in with Putin right away
and that just as this meeting istaking place, we get news that
Putin is saying by the way, noNATO troops on the ground in
Ukraine.
That is unacceptable.
Still feels like Trump needsPutin's approval in a way.
That's got to be verydisturbing to Zelensky sitting
(30:11):
there, but of course, Zelenskywas a good actor.
He's playing it cool.
He's not biting on any of thequestions he got and hopefully
what's going to happen isthey're going to go into this
meeting with European officialsand the Europeans are saying we
need to put these troops on theground inside Ukraine and it's
(30:34):
not Vladimir Putin's business.
Speaker 3 (30:37):
OK, look, I admit I am not the world's foremost
foreign policy negotiator, butI'm pretty sure that Trump does
need Putin's approval.
He's a principal in theconflict.
You don't get to just wag yourfinger and tell him the deal and
(31:00):
move on.
That's the most ignorant thingI've ever heard.
Just like Zelensky is aprinciple in the deal.
You gotta bring them bothtogether.
Now, if all you care aboutKimberly is politics, then you
can just wag your finger atPutin, do a dog and pony show in
the Oval Office and then, whenit doesn't work, say you tried.
(31:23):
That may be what KimberlyDozier does.
That isn't what Trump is doingby all accounts.
He cares deeply about bringingthis war to an end.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Yeah, I mean, the war has been going on now for
almost the better.
Almost four years is wherewe're at now.
So I think he's been prettyclear that he wants peace in
this situation.
He doesn't feel like it was awar that was started under his
watch.
He claims it would not havehappened under his watch if he
had been president, and now allhe wants to do is make it end
Right.
So there's going to have to besome deals that are made on that
Now.
What's interesting is that hisapproval rating is surging after
(31:56):
this Putin summit.
So this is a Newsweek articlewe pulled for you guys and it
says according to polling byInsider Advantage, 54 percent of
voters said they now approvedof the president, while 44
percent disapproved.
So it's, he's climbed up evenin just the last couple of weeks
, because they polled in July.
(32:16):
This is a new poll for just now.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
Look, I think voters look at this and say, yeah, he's
trying, good job, nice work.
But it just makes the commentsfrom Dozier that much more
ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Well, and also, I think you have to keep in mind
that the majority of the countrywant this war to end.
They just want it to be done.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Right, agreed, but that's what I'm saying.
When the hate for Trumpoutstrips the need to save lives
, it just is so ludicrous.
And so you just watch it and itjust doesn't make any sense.
And so it is just alwayswhatever Trump's doing, you're
on the opposite side.
So if Trump's trying to bringwar to an end, you're like, well
, we don't want to bring this toan end.
It makes no sense.
(32:55):
And so and you saw the samething, and we have new numbers
in on what's going on in DC, andit was the same deal there
where it's like how do youobject to bringing in the
national guard and bringing downcrime in DC?
It's ridiculous, it's a stupidstatement to say that you do it
to call him a dictator fortrying to end all this right and
(33:16):
to try to clean up the nation'sCapitol.
Well, now the DC police unionhas put out the numbers what's
going on with crime?
Speaker 2 (33:23):
And so this is just in the last seven days from
seven days, right.
So this is a very short snippetof time.
Robbery is down 46%, 80 W'sdown 6%.
Carjacking down 83%.
Car theft 21%.
Violent crime is down 22%.
Property crime is down 6%.
All crimes are down 8%.
So all the crimes havedecreased since the National
(33:45):
Guard has been hitting thestreets.
So you know, I think it's is it.
Is it the change that can takeplace forever?
No, nobody's claiming that.
Right, it's a, it's a.
Hey, listen, this is the frontdoor to our country.
He took a step to say listen,we're 500 police officers short
in Washington DC.
We're not going to get thatanytime soon.
So we need to take some stepsto start getting our city
(34:06):
cleaned up.
And I just think it'sinteresting when you hear people
that are criticizing that, evenback here, you know, with our
governor putting out theadditional support for
Albuquerque and Espanola, andpeople are on both sides saying
you know what good is this goingto do?
It's going to do no good.
It's not going to do it.
Who knows If it's done properly, it should deter crime.
(34:28):
You should have more eyes outthere watching what's happening.
You should be freeing up someof these police officers.
Now does that happen?
I don't know.
We're still following up onthat and as soon as we know more
, we will be happy to share itwith you guys.
But to see that these numbersare working in DC, I think let's
let him do this.
Let's see how.
I mean, we need something to beworking.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
Oh no, it's just no, it's again.
It's another one of these 80 20issues.
It is an 80 20 issue, by theway.
It's another one of these 80 20issues that absolutely you know
you run to the other sidebecause you hate Trump and he's
doing the right thing.
So as long as he keeps stakingout his territory on the 80,
none of this doesn't work.
You know now, it doesn't meanthat the midterms are going to
(35:07):
go his way and everything else.
They may well, not, becausethat's a really steep hill, but
overall I think it makes a tonof sense.
So we'll see.
We'll see how it shakes out OK.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
So some changes happening, if Trump would.
If Trump stays on board on this, he would like to see some
changes done at the Smithsonian.
So there's a couple of exhibitsthat we have pulled to talk
about in specific where there'skind of a revisionist history,
like there is just kind of adifferent telling of maybe what
some of these important times inour history were all about.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Well.
So when I watched the newsstory on this and I'd see all
the you know, you'd seeeverybody just up in arms.
Trump is going after theSmithsonian Like he's trying to
change history.
Is he or or or is he doingsomething different?
So we decided to kind of searcharound a little bit and figure
out what kind of stuff are wetalking about, where you look at
the exhibit and you go okay, Igot a problem with this, or why
(36:00):
do you have a problem with it?
Or do you have a problem withit?
Well, there's a couple ofdifferent examples.
Number one if you check out thetitle nine exhibits at the
Smithsonian, it is amazing.
So I want you to just read thisNow.
Many of you know Title IX waspassed in 1972 to allow women
more access to sports okay,especially at the collegiate
(36:20):
level, where they didn't havethe same sort of access that men
did, and so this Title IX did avery good job of that.
But listen to how it isdescribed in the Smithsonian
exhibit on Title IX.
Again, this is in 1972.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Okay, so it says.
This exhibition marks the 50thanniversary of Title IX, federal
legislation championed byCongresswoman Patsy Mink and
signed into law by PresidentRichard Nixon in 1972.
The act unintentionally boostedlongstanding efforts to open
male-dominated arenas of sports.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
Not unintentionally, but okay, keep on going.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Okay, yeah, even as Title IX protections have been
expanded over the years, mostrecently under the Biden
administration, athletescontinue to face sexism, racism,
transphobia and other forms ofbigotry.
The stories of athletes beforeand after Title IX are part of a
larger narrative of thestruggle for equality in the
United States.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Okay, and then here is one of the pictures that
comes with this.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
Yeah, and if you can look into this.
I mean, if you're not looking,you should get on our YouTube
channel and check this out.
It just has nothing to do withTitle IX.
I mean, this was not even anissue in 1972, when we were
trying to make it an evenplaying field or at least give
the opportunity for women toparticipate in a sport.
(37:44):
The way it was explained to metoo, back when I was in high
school, is if there was a sportthat was provided for a male
team, there needed to be asimilar sport offered for women.
Speaker 3 (37:55):
So good examples football for men, field hockey
for women, Right.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
So things, things of that nature baseball for men,
softball for women, that allthat kind of thing.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
Right, so it had nothing to do with sexism, I
mean with racism or all thesegender all the trans movement of
, of trying to trying to takethings and really usher in men
into women's sports.
That's what Biden's efforttried to do, Right?
Speaker 2 (38:20):
I mean, there's no question which actually is
stripping the rights of titlenine.
Exactly, it goes the oppositeway, it does the opposite thing.
So just looking at this quicklittle fact check that was put
together, it says here you seeNixon 1972, signing this Title
IX right, which is to expandopportunities for women.
And then it goes into and thisjust really shows the impact.
So you had less than 10 percentof females, by the way.
(38:42):
Before Title IX, less than 10percent of females were in
sports.
Today we have 43 percent ofwomen participating in
collegiate sports, and so it'sjust like they're just again
it's blurring these lines.
It's trying to strip away whatthe original context of this law
was about, why it wasestablished a civil rights law
(39:04):
for women.
That, basically, is beingmorphed into something twisted
and not what it was actuallyintended to be.
And so I have zero problem withTrump or whoever coming in and
saying let's get this thingstraight, because you have kids
that go in there on school fieldtrips, you have people that go.
I mean, we were just at theSmithsonian two weeks ago.
Right, we love the Smithsonian.
(39:24):
But what you hope is, when yourkids are reading all the
displays, that they're not beingmisaligned or misinformed about
what actually took place.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
Okay, well, let's, let's take a different subject.
Let's go to Cuba.
Okay, let's, let's do this.
This is the.
This is one of the uh, centralAmerican displays, and I want
you to just read this now.
For many of you, it doesn'ttake a genius and again, not a
genius over here, but I do knowthat that most of the outflow of
(39:56):
of what happened in Cuba wasthe result of people seeking a
better life because of theleadership of one person.
But I want you to go ahead andread this.
See if that one person's namecomes up in Cuba that ruled with
an iron fist for decades andcaused mass immigration to the
United States, and rightfully so.
So we'll see if that person'sname is mentioned and see, know,
(40:20):
was it maybe the United States'fault that there were issues in
Cuba?
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Okay, well, it starts here with seeking democracy and
safety.
Civil wars, oppressivegovernments and natural
disasters pushed millions ofpeople to migrate from Latin
America and the Caribbean to theUnited States.
Throughout the 1900s, theUnited States supported foreign
governments that favored USbusinesses and fought communism
foreign governments that favoredUS businesses and fought
(40:46):
communism.
Sometimes, us foreign policycontributed to the violence and
corruption driving people tomigrate.
The United States backednumerous dictators, including
Cuba's Batista and the DominicanRepublic's Rafael Trujillo.
Cuban, dominican and many otherLatino communities still feel
the effects of war andrevolution.
Their stories reveal the humancost of immigration and the
(41:08):
contradictions of US foreignpolicy.
Speaker 3 (41:11):
Okay, this is idiotic , right.
I mean, they literally blamethe United States for this Right
and they never mentioned.
They mentioned Bautista, whichwas a mistake by the United
States, no question.
But the real issue here, youthink it could have been Fidel
Castro.
Do you think we would mentionthat at all?
That if you go to most Cubanswho immigrated from Cuba to the
(41:34):
United States over the past Idon't know 50 years, that would
be the main factor as to why.
And yet this is what you see inthe Smithsonian.
So again, what you've seen is,over decades, groups like this,
you know, or organizations likethis, have gone and put their
own spin on history, which is nohistory at all, and so, at a
(41:56):
certain point, holding them toaccount and saying wait a minute
, if you're going to takefederal dollars, you're not
going to lie about this countryand you're not going to run the
country down and say things thatjust clearly aren't true.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
I know.
I think what's so shockingabout this is that exactly what
you're saying is like it'sfederal money that builds these
museums.
Again, this is the gateway toour country.
Hundreds of thousands ofvisitors go to the Smithsonian
because it's free.
It's all these museums aroundthis big area called the mall if
you haven't been to DC and youcan walk into these museums.
Our kids love them, we lovethem and it's like this big
(42:28):
education on all different kindsof topics.
And if this is the gateway intoour country, kind of part of
our proud part of being anAmerican, and we're just not
even telling the truth about ourown history and kind of bashing
ourselves in the process, I'mlost and I don't even know how
the curators of this put thisstuff together.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
Well, I agree, and we're not saying that you don't
tell the ugly history of theUnited States.
Absolutely, absolutely, youshould.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
We should absolutely talk about some of the ugliest
slavery, for instance.
I've never thought that shouldbe sugarcoated, no Whatsoever.
It absolutely is part of ourhistory and should be absolutely
talked about.
But stuff like this, whereyou're either twisting the story
of, like Title IX, you'rechanging the course of what that
was even established to be,yeah, leaving Castro out of the
(43:15):
Cuban migration Come on, give mea break.
Yeah, I mean I wasn't, you know, obviously alive during the
Kennedys and the and the, thesituation with Castro.
Then they, I mean that's thatwas happening in the sixties
when they were fighting that guy.
So I mean it's been around fora long time and I can't believe
it's a mismark on on this.
But I I think we should end onuh, the fun little clip from uh
(43:39):
Ronnie D.
You want to end with Ronnie D.
I think we should end withRonnie D.
I think, we should leave thesepeople on a little positive,
just a little funny quip.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
Well, people wonder and we obviously were fortunate
enough to spend a little timewith Ronnie D in the campaign
and when you run into peopleacross the country they're like
you know, how does he do it?
How does he do such a good jobin Florida?
And I think he finally answeredthat question and it's a little
(44:06):
bit more, a little bit simplerthan you may think.
Speaker 1 (44:11):
Don't.
Well, I mean people ask me likeoh, you know, florida, you guys
are leading this.
You just how you do it?
I was like you know, asgovernor of Florida, I get this
great cheat code.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
All I got to do is look to New York, illinois,
california, and then do theopposite.
He drops the mic, he does thewave, he does the wave about?
He does the drop the mic andsee you later.
I think that was a great.
It was a very well statedanswer.
Speaker 3 (44:37):
Yeah, well, he loves it he does love it and I think
you know it's so funny when youwatch it and when he ran for
president it's hard Cause it's a.
You know, I think so much ofrunning and succeeding in some
of these things, and even insmaller races too, is being
comfortable in what you're doing, and I think what you found
with DeSantis was it was gettingcomfortable in the national
(44:58):
stage was a little tougher thanit was on the local, like in
Florida.
He's got it wired because heknows, he knows what he's doing
and he gets in there and he's ina comfortable environment where
he's just like yeah, I knowevery decision he makes seems to
be one that is simple.
It seems a simple choice.
And when you're doing when,when things are going your way
and you're doing a good job, Ithink the decision seems simple.
(45:20):
And when it's not working,every decision you struggle with
right.
I mean, you're just like, oh myGod and you know this in our
own lives where you know you'reon a roll and you're like even
the big decision seems simple,right.
And then there are those otherthings along the way where
you're like, oh, you know what,I, you know they just get
difficult and you and youstruggle with him.
(45:40):
So he just seems to me thatwhen he's in that Florida mode
he's like man, every, everythingmakes sense.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
Yeah, he's got it down.
That was.
It's a good role for him.
He's he's a good governor.
He's done a good job.
Well, thanks you guys forspending some time with us.
We appreciate it.
Remember to like, subscribe,make comments.
If you want to support ourpodcast, you can do that a
couple different ways.
You can make some donationsthat's how we survive on this
podcast so you can make those onour email, on our website,
which isNoDoubtAboutItPodcastcom.
(46:07):
Please sign up for our emailtoo.
I promise we won't sell yourinformation.
We don't spam you.
It's just the way that we makesure that you still get all of
our shows, because some of theplatforms, if they don't like
what we talk about, they kind ofhide them from you.
So if you want to make surethat you don't miss a show, sign
up for our emails.
(46:27):
That's the only thing thatwe'll email you about is a news
that directly impacts Mark and Ipersonally, or things about
this show.
That's it.
That's all we do.
So thanks so much for spendingtime with us.
We appreciate it.
Have a great rest of your weekand we will see you back here on
Sunday.
Speaker 5 (46:37):
You've been listening to the no Doubt About it
podcast.
You've been listening to the noDoubt 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
(47:00):
production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
There is no doubt about it.
Well, welcome to Wednesday.
I cannot hear myself, honey.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
You can't at all, huh .
Speaker 2 (00:19):
No, so could you.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I could hear myself, you want to go up a little bit
more.
There you go yeah, maybe Ithink that's it.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
So, Mark, we just we've had some technical
difficulties on this show today.
So could you?
I could hear myself you want togo up a little bit more.
There you go.
Yeah, maybe I think that's it.
So, mark, we just we've hadsome technical difficulties on
this show today.
Have we ever?
We recorded the entire showalready with Ella, so it was, it
was professionally produced,let's put it that way Sort of
Sort of.
(00:45):
And then we recognize that since, due to an update on our system
, it recorded no audio, so nowit is in the.
We're stretching on.
A little later in the eveningElla has to peace out, so now
it's back to just you and Idoing this tonight.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Yes, and we'll.
We'll shorten up some of this.
For example, I'm not going todo a full situational rundown on
what you're going to hear here,but trust me, it'll be good.
We have a massive courtdecision that has come through
that affects the state of NewMexico, so we're going to get
into details on that and it's uh, it's crazy, uh, but it is
interesting, and so we'll get tothat.
(01:15):
And we're going to talk about abunch of different stuff as
well.
Do you remember what some ofthese things are?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I do.
We're going to talk about Trumpwith his meeting with Putin and
Zelensky, yeah, and kind ofjust the fact that you know, are
the media ever going to giveany props at all to Trump for
his efforts or not?
We're definitely talking aboutthat.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
And then we'll also talk about the mayor's race.
We're going to hit that too,and the money in the mayor's
race and things of that nature.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
But first, of course which we appreciate on the last
show, which we're talking aboutthe shortage of doctors in New
Mexico and kind of thegaslighting that's going behind
it, based on, you know, aneditorial that was in the
Albuquerque Journal last week,just trying to blindside us and
try to fool us into thinking youknow what's actually happening.
Well, dane Colson wrote in andsaid Mark is exactly right, we
run an independent medicalclinic here in New Mexico.
(02:07):
The issue is clearly the trialattorneys sucking the lifeblood
out of the state.
We have the second highestmedical malpractice insurance
rate in the country.
Doctors on the East Coast payless than we do.
As long as they run the statelegislator, the problem will
persist.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Meaning lawyers Right .
Speaker 2 (02:24):
The problem will persist.
Do we really expect them topass laws and craft policy that
will curtail the financial goldmine they have created for
themselves?
Look at how many of our repsenators are attorneys in this
field and they are in thepowerful posts in state
government where the issue iscontrolled.
They have captured the state.
It's that simple.
(02:45):
Now they just lie and deflectabout the cause of the doctor
shortage.
It's difficult and sickening towatch the abuse.
It's unjust and immoral.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
And we talk about this all the time, and it is
simply that you have a situationwhere it's not just lawyers
going and taking advantage ofpeople in this state, it is your
health care which ends up inthe tank because of it.
We don't have enough doctors.
You end up waiting six, eight,nine months because of this and
nothing seems to change.
(03:14):
And what was so offensive to usand the reason we did the whole
last show at the beginning ofit all about this was because
Brian Egoff, the former Speakerof the House, also a lawyer,
went and wrote this whole screedin the Albuquerque Journal
talking about how the realproblem in this state is that
you have corporate intereststhat are keeping people from
getting good health care, wheneveryone knows that's not true,
(03:36):
and so that's why we stood upand talked about it.
So hopefully you will checkthat out.
It is definitely worth hearing.
So very cool.
Thanks for the email, though itwas perfectly stated by someone
who lives it every single day.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Yeah, and make sure, if you want to send in more
comments, to like and subscribe.
Those are the email, those arethe comments that we actually
get directed to us to read.
So please make sure you likeand subscribe on our YouTube
channel and if you want to dropus an email, you can do that at
info, at no doubt about it,podcastcom.
Okay, let's move on to this.
Um appeal that came down, uh,basically in the ninth hour
today, on tuesday.
(04:08):
Yes, it was.
This was on tuesday yeah,absolutely so.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
A lot of you remember back in 2024 and actually the
vote happened, I think, in 2023in the state legislature.
There is a seven day waitingperiod for law-abiding citizens
to wait for themselves to get afirearm.
Okay, so you pass thebackground check right away,
you're fine, but you've got towait another seven days.
That was passed through thelegislature and at the time,
everybody's like how in theworld is this constitutional?
(04:33):
Well, it turns out that itwasn't actually constitutional.
There was a lawsuit filed bySamuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott,
okay, and this worked its wayup and through the chain and
eventually we got a decision,and it happened on Tuesday.
And, for those of you who didnot want to see that seven day
waiting period continue, it hasbeen overturned.
(04:54):
And here is the key paragraph.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
We disagree and reverse and remand cooling off
periods infringe on the secondamendment by preventing the
lawful acquisition of firearms.
Cooling off periods do not fitinto any historically grounded
exceptions to the right to keepand bear arms and burden conduct
within the Second Amendmentscope.
In this preliminary posture weconclude that the New Mexico
(05:17):
Waiting Period Act is likely anunconstitutional burden on the
Second Amendment rights of itscitizens.
We also conclude the otherpreliminary injunction factors
are met and that plaintiffs areentitled to an injunction Okay
so here's the thing about thisdecision that is so important
and we've talked about thisbefore.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
The New Mexico State Legislature does this all the
time, and if you actually watchlegislative hearings, you will
be shocked at what comes up.
And I'll tell you, you have asenator, especially on the
Judiciary Committee, and that isSenator Joe Cervantes.
He is somebody who knows theConstitution and knows what is
in direct violation of theConstitution.
(05:57):
He's a Democrat, he's not evena Republican, and oftentimes
you'll sit here and listen tohim say, yeah, this is not going
to pass muster, it's not goingto pass muster, it's not going
to survive, and this issomething he talks about
regularly because he hates tosee this sort of thing happen.
So the seven-day waiting periodis a great example of that.
It's another law that they passwhich has no chance to survive,
(06:19):
and yet pass it anyway.
And if you go watch some ofthese legislative sessions, you
will be shocked to see the lackof knowledge that our
legislators have of theConstitution, Because what ends
up happening here is they takelaws from other states and what
you get are you get theseactivists that come to our
legislators and say here, here,try to introduce this.
(06:41):
It was written in a differentstate but just try to get it
passed to New Mexico.
I watched it happen last year.
I watched it happen.
I watched it happen injudiciary and then you saw
Cervantes say you can't do that.
That's in violation of the NewMexico Civil Rights Act.
And all of a sudden thelegislator who put it up was
embarrassed and she should havebeen, because she just took a
bill from someone who offered itup and had no clue that it was
(07:06):
in direct violation.
So you see these things happenin this state and you go.
We can't let this sort of thingcontinue.
But yet it does.
And every year there's anassault weapons ban that comes
up in the state of New Mexico,which is not an assault weapons
ban.
I mean, it includes alldifferent sorts of firearms that
women use for self-protectionand those would be banned.
It's completelyunconstitutional.
(07:27):
They send it up every year andthey see it happen time after
time.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Yeah, and you wonder, like, do people just do some of
these legislators just not haveaccess to the New Mexico
constitution or to ourconstitution, like they don't
care?
I mean, yeah, I think that'sjust a disservice.
If you're going to be votedinto something, I mean at the
very least you could run itthrough a software program that
would tell you is this inconflict with the US or the New
(07:52):
Mexico Constitution?
Speaker 3 (07:53):
They're hoping for.
A favorable judge is my guess,or a panel of favorable judges.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
So you're telling me that you think that half the
time these people just do thisand they actually are completely
oblivious.
Or you think they'reknowledgeable and they know that
this bill that they've writtenor copied or whatever have
submitted you think that theyknow it's in direct conflict
with the Constitution.
Here's what I think.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
I think they have been able to operate in an
environment where they don't getcalled out and humiliated for
being incompetent at their job.
We don't have a media that hasthe wherewithal or the bandwidth
anymore to go after people andsay, oh my gosh, this
representative presented thisthing that was in direct
violation to the New Mexicoconstitution.
(08:34):
Like there is, there's no shameanymore.
There's no shame becausethere's no consequences, don't
have consequences, and they goand can propose anything as
ludicrous, as ludicrous as itmay be, and they don't ever get
pushed back and they don't.
They don't get called onto thecarpet for it by their own
voters or by the media.
They'll just keep doing it andthere'll be shameless in doing
(08:54):
it, and so the ignorance is inthe shamelessness or the
shamelessness is in theignorance right, which,
whichever is how it goes, it'sstill how it works.
It's incredible.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Well, we should find maybe the best hits, the
greatest hits of some of thesemeetings and we'll clip them
before their next election.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
No, that's no, here's what the problem with that is
is that you got to sit throughthem and I'm telling you it is
like fingernails on a chalkboard.
You watch some of these things.
Now we have some greatlegislators.
We do some some really smartpeople there are there are
plenty of them in it and somefrom both parties that are smart
.
They really are, and I'm notsaying everybody's like this,
but I'm saying that there isthis thought that there is no
(09:34):
accountability and there's noreal sense of pride to say I am
not going to present somethingthat is not honorable to the
people I represent, and theyjust let it happen time after
time.
So one thing we talked aboutabout three weeks ago was there
was actually a New Mexico statesenator who was honest about the
(09:54):
gun bills that come up in frontof our legislature.
She actually had the temerityto sit in a committee meeting
basically a remote committeemeeting.
They go around the state andthey have these little committee
meetings and she stood up andsaid something that was
hilarious because it was dead onhonest.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
And she is a Democrat , by the way.
Let's keep that in mind as well.
So it wasn't like this was aRepublican that was calling this
stuff out?
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Oh, absolutely, it was Senator Cedillo Lopez.
And here is what she had to say.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
I really appreciate the gun law update and I don't
know how to say this exactly,but we always introduce these
unconstitutional bills.
Well, actually, I don't agreewith that.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
So I'm sorry, I don't agree with that.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
So I'm sorry.
Well, I the reason.
I again.
We have different experiencesin the Senate and the House, but
at least that comes beforecommittees that I'm on.
We get these bills and it'slike they're so obviously
unconstitutional.
Of course I'm not on judiciary,so anyway I'm like, oh my God.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Yes, yes, you are, yes, you are Senator.
You're like, oh my gosh, yeah,and it's so true.
I mean, this just lines outexactly what we're talking about
.
So that's why, when the sevenday waiting period comes up in
front of the 10th circuit,they're like are you crazy?
This is not, you can't do this.
But this is part of a broaderpattern that our legislature
(11:25):
engages in, which is they go out, they pass laws.
Either they take laws fromother states and try to reuse
them, or they take laws that arepoorly written and clearly
unconstitutional.
And they would do well tolisten to people like Senator
Cedillo Lopez or Senator evenCervantes down south and just
stop putting these things upthat infringe on people's second
(11:47):
amendment rights.
We're a very high gun ownershipstate because we have a lot of
people that hunt and we have alot of people that use them for
self-protection, and they do solegally, and most often the laws
in which they are trying topass affect those people more
than anybody else.
We're not passing laws that areramping up penalties on those
who have guns illegally.
We should absolutely be doingthat.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Right Agreed and which we've talked about a lot.
So, okay, well, good, so goodnews on that.
As far as that law, I'm notgoing all the way through.
Let's move on.
Though.
Let's talk a little bit aboutthe Albuquerque mayor's race.
There was a article that cameout in the journal that was
really talking about where allthe candidates now stand as far
as their fundraising dollars.
So it's interesting.
If you kind of take a look atthis, you'll see that Mayor
(12:31):
Keller obviously is dominatingthe space, because he has been
able to receive a bulk of hismoney coming from the public
funds, the public campaign funds, which you know.
In a nutshell, just so as areminder for those folks you he
had to get somewhere aroundthirty eight hundred signatures,
along with a five dollarcontribution, to be able to get
(12:55):
that public financing, and hewas able to do that and secure
that.
So that's why he has so muchmoney.
He's got a roughly a littleover $757,000 now in his coffer,
which is quite a bit comparedto Louie Sanchez and Daniel
Chavez as well, who basicallyhave about 150,000 and $100,000
in their campaign.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Yeah, so, okay.
So a few things on this thatare interesting.
First of all, keller's numbersand the way this works is this
because Keller got thesignatures that Christie's
talking about and the $5donations, he basically gets 750
K.
Everybody else.
Okay, now Keller can't raiseany more money into that right
in, right through his campaign.
Okay, he can't do that, but hecan raise money into a pack and
(13:35):
use that as well, okay.
So now the pack can't directlybe run by Keller.
It's got to be run by peoplewho want to help them but they
can't have direct contact withthe campaign.
You know how that all goes.
So basically he's got 750K andthe reason that Keller supported
, I think and a lot of theseincumbents support public
financing is because it's anincumbent protection project.
(13:57):
It is that the most well-knowncandidate oftentimes can get
that 3,500, 3,700 number withthose $5 donations and that
immediately gives Keller amassive financial advantage
right out of the chute here.
Okay, but there are things thatyou can glean from this and I
think number one you'll see hisopponents close in on that money
(14:18):
amount as we go through thenext few months, meaning Darren
White will end up raisingprobably four or $500,000.
He's not going to raise 700,probably would be my guess.
He'll raise somewhere in thefour to $500,000 range, if I, if
I had to guess.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
And so I just feel like it's going to come down to
Darren White, louis Sanchez andobviously Keller in a runoff.
That's what I think is going toend up happening.
It's going to come down to oneof those two and and Keller in a
runoff.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Yeah, that's true and I think that's probably true.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
I think those that's my, that's my guess.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
I will say that the numbers aren't real.
But there's not a ton offundraising going on here.
I was honestly surprised atthese numbers.
I thought the numbers would bea little stronger.
Uh, across the board.
I thought you know, keller, youcan't really tell no-transcript
(15:12):
absentee starts on October 7th.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Early voting starts on October 18th for this race.
So it is coming right aroundthe corner.
I would just say that whoeveryour candidate of choice is, you
probably don't want to wasteany more time in the fact of if
you can give them some support.
It's valuable to tap in and beable to do that.
But you know, I just think it'sa.
I liked showing this articlebecause I think you look at the
(15:35):
article and you think, oh,Keller's in the lead.
There's no way he's going tocatch up, which, financially,
that's true, he does have a lotof money.
I just doubt the actual supportis there as much as it is for
some of these other twocandidates.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
And again, that's why we bring up the fact that the
public financing is theincumbent protection fund,
because it absolutely favors anincumbent every time.
So now he gets a massivefinancial advantage.
Why?
Because he's more well-knownand everybody's.
He's got that.
He's got the whole campaigninfrastructure in place from two
prior races that he's alreadywon, so.
So that's why he supports thesethings, and it's very difficult
(16:12):
, unless you're reallywell-known, to be able to go get
3,800 signatures or 3,700 orwhatever it is, in the city of
Albuquerque along with a $5donation.
It's harder than it looks Reallyhard to do and he knows that
and so when they supported that.
There's no question, thathappens all the time.
And and these public financethings, everybody says, oh,
public financing is the way youshould go and you know, get
(16:35):
money out of politics.
It doesn't get money out ofpolitics at all.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, youcan still run a pack through
this as well.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Yeah, it seems.
I mean, honestly, they voted toeven up the dose or whatever
you want to call it up thepercentage amount that you can
be given as a mayoral candidatefor public financing.
That was voted, I believe, in21 or 22.
They upped that rate.
So I think it's justinteresting.
I hope that people don't justsay, okay, look at the amount of
(17:02):
money that Keller has has hasin his coffers and assumes that
that's done Right.
I hope that you sit there andevaluate has he been a good
mayor for our city?
Yeah, and if he has not been agood mayor.
Here's the one thing.
We need to vote differently.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Well, yeah, but I was talking.
I agree with you totally.
But I was talking to a friendof mine this afternoon and he
said you know, here's the oneproblem Keller has.
And this is the problem.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Wait, I'm sorry the one there's like one.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Well, no, there's a million, but fair point.
So he said this is a bigproblem Keller has.
When you have a hundred percentname ID and everybody has an
opinion of you, all the money inthe world is not going to
change it.
Okay, so that's.
What's interesting is that youcan spend all the money in the
world, but everybody has alreadysolidified their opinion on Tim
Keller and the vast majority ofthem don't like him.
(17:49):
Okay, so the extra money while,while great and again it's
700,000, let's not go crazy hereYou're not gonna get that far
on $700,000 in a big campaignand buying TV ads in the biggest
TV market in the state.
You're not.
It's not gonna last that long.
So I will say this advantage onmoney with him a is not, is not
that important.
And then B, when everybodyknows how what they think of you
(18:12):
already some ad about you withsoft music talking about how
great you're doing when theylook out their window and see
there are massive problems goingto be tough to get by.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Okay, I agree with you, mark, but I have to play
devil's advocate on this,because I I will come back to
this over and over again, andit's one of the biggest reasons
we do this show is I still thinkpeople have a hard time
correlating crime, homelessness,you know, lack of whatever lack
of jobs, staying here in thecity due to leadership, because
you talk to people and they,they will like be like well,
(18:43):
this isn't the mayor's fault andthis isn't the you know
whatever.
And I'm just thinking well,whose fault?
Speaker 3 (18:48):
is it?
I disagree, I think I thinkyou're, I think you've got
plenty of voters that don'tcorrelate our leadership with
bad decisions.
Ok, that's fine, I agree, thereare those people, just not most
of them, and in fact if youlook at his numbers, he's upside
down by 20 points.
I mean, I'm sorry but that's aproblem.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
I get it.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
And I hope that you know people that are upside down
20 points do not win elections.
I'm not saying he's going tolose, I don't know.
You know what I mean, like Idon't know, but I'm saying
people that are upside down 20points don't win you don't
Listen.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
I hope you are correct, because I do think this
city needs some real change.
I really believe that we needsome change desperately.
So, obviously, get your moneyinto the people that you want to
support.
For this race Again, earlyvoting starts in October.
We're going to find out whenthe debate is, because I think
that's going to be fascinating.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Yeah, well, you're going to watch, just a feeding
frenzy.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Oh, it's going to be interesting, so of course,
course, we'll be sitting therewith our popcorn, because we
live for those kinds of things.
So we'll keep you posted onthat, but anyway, so that was
our take on that.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
Okay, I want to talk to you about a little different
issue here, and it's one thatdoes affect New Mexico, and
we're part of the story yetagain, and it's a tragic story.
There is a truck driver namedHarjinder Singh.
Okay, he was driving an 18wheeler in Florida on August
(20:11):
12th.
Okay, he was in the right lanegoing down the interstate and
inexplicably took a left-handturn to whip a U-turn in the
middle of the interstate.
Okay, so think about this.
Think about when you go to passsomebody and you're in the
left-hand lane on an interstateand imagine a 18 wheeler just
cutting straight in front of you, cutting you off, giving you no
(20:33):
chance to stop and trying topull a U-turn.
It's something that, no, nobodyof any sort of competence who
understands road travel in theUnited States would ever do.
Right, you would never beexpecting that, never.
You would never be expecting it, right?
He does it.
Okay, a minivan full of afamily runs right into the
bottom of it and they all dieand it's devastating.
(20:57):
Well, mr Singh came to thiscountry illegally in 2018.
He then went and applied forhis CDL in California and
Washington State.
We'll get into that, but let'sjust say he did not get the kind
of results that would justifygiving him a CDL which, chris,
you'll have those numbers in onesecond.
(21:18):
But here is what this lookedlike as he was driving.
And he goes, just makes theU-turn right here and then there
goes the minivan right in.
It's beyond.
It's not irresponsible.
It's having no business beingon the road with a CDL, driving
an 18 wheeler just cuttingacross an interstate and this
poor family had no chance yeah,absolutely no chance to survive.
(21:43):
He's just clueless, like totallyclueless, and so we want to
show you what the issues were,and this is from the US
Department of Transportation,with some details on how did
this guy get a CDL and couldthis have been stopped?
(22:03):
And yes, it could have beenstopped.
In fact, it should have beenstopped in the state of New
Mexico.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
And Christy has that it says.
During FMCSA's interview withthe driver, investigators
administrated an Englishlanguage proficiency or an ELP
assessment in accordance withFMCSA guidance.
The driver failed thatassessment, providing correct
responses to just two of 12verbal questions and only
accurately identifying one offour highway traffic signs.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
I'll say one quick thing before you keep going.
Remember what we're talkingabout here.
Somebody who can't speak thelanguage and can't read our
signs is driving a semi.
You have to have a specialqualification to do this, okay.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Okay, so this is the preliminary findings that
they've found so far.
On July 15th of 2023,washington State issued the
driver a regular, full-termcommercial driver's license.
And, basically, asylum seekersor individuals without legal
status are not eligible for thistype of license.
And again, we have informed you, this man was here illegally,
so who knows why he was issuedthis CDL.
(23:11):
Then again, on July 23rd, 2024,california issued the driver a
limited turn term CDL license.
Again now FMCSA isinvestigating the issuance of
this license to determinewhether it was issued in
accordance with federalregulations.
I'm assuming they're going tofind out it was not.
And then on, on July 3rd just amere a little over a month ago,
(23:33):
2025, the New Mexico StatePolice conducted a roadside
inspection of the driver.
Who this guy was driving on ourhighways on July 3rd, speeding,
speeding.
The state police pulled himover, issued him a speeding
ticket, but there's noindication that this English
language assessment test wasadministered this ELP.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
Okay and that, by law , has to be done.
Okay, that started in June ofthis year.
The federal law is listen, ifyou've got somebody who you
suspect can't either read theroad signs or can't speak
English well enough to be ableto be a functional driver, it's
like you know, there are certainplaces in this world I couldn't
drive right Cause I don't.
I don't know.
(24:13):
I don't know the road signs, Idon't know what side of the road
to be on, I don't have any clueRight.
And so, especially in a semiright in our our state police,
who I think do an incredible job, but, for whatever reason, miss
the boat here, because if theyhad looked at this and said,
wait a minute, we need to assessthe CLP, they would have
(24:41):
stopped him.
He never would have gotten toFlorida and wiped that family
out.
And the reason we bring up thisstory is, first off, because it
does affect the state of NewMexico and we're part of the
story.
But even bigger issue in all ofthis is the fact that this is
happening more and more.
We're starting to hear aboutthese more and more across the
country, where people aredriving with a CDL that
shouldn't have a CDL and theycan't function.
(25:02):
And we've lived through fouryears of don't worry about the
border, everything's fine, noproblem at all, don't worry
about it, it matters.
This, all matters.
And you can't drive thesetrucks without the proper
training and you have to be ableto speak the language and read
the signs.
It's not racist to say that.
And you see, when you, when yougo and you compromise people's
(25:25):
safety in service to what?
Some agenda, some woke agendathat nobody understands the
benefit of.
It's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Yeah, very dire consequences on top of all of
this.
So I mean the Secretary, seanDuffy.
He tweeted the same thing thathe's talking about.
This cannot happen again.
He's talking about FMCSA islaunching an investigation into
both the driver and the WhiteHawk carrier, who is the
business owner of the semi, andbasically he just goes into
exactly what we just talkedabout the big findings here of
(25:57):
this man being issued licensesin two different states and then
pulled over in the state of NewMexico and not given this ESL
test.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Yeah, and he says states must follow the rules.
Right, if they had, this drivernever would have been behind
the wheel and press.
His lives would not have beenlost.
The failures here aredespicable.
Non-enforcement and radicalimmigration policies have turned
the trucking industry into alawless frontier, resulting in
the unqualified driversimproperly acquiring licenses to
operate 40 ton vehicles.
(26:28):
I mean, this is a danger toanybody on the roads.
If you've been on I-40 in thisstate, you know it.
You know how dangerous it canbe because you have so many big
rigs and you depend on those bigrigs to know the rules of the
road, because most of the timethey do.
They're the ones who know thembetter than anybody, right, but
(26:52):
it's just devastating when theydon't because, when they don't
people die, and it's not themever.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Yeah, and they sit there and go.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
They get a little little bump and that's it.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah, you, just, you just think about your children
who are out there driving.
Of course I do that.
I don't even let our kids driveon I-40 and they think I'm a
helicopter parent, but it'sthere's so many.
I am a helicopter parent, butthere's so many semis on that
road anyway, and I feel like,until you have some more
experience driving on thehighway, uh, you get enough
hours under your belt, so tospeak.
Uh, I don't even like to driveon 40, if I'm being honest, I'm
(27:23):
not the.
And in this whole, you knowhe's trying to broker this peace
deal, right.
So are the media behind him?
Do they get fired up?
Are they like go Trump, let'send this war, let's save some
(27:44):
lives?
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Well, forget the media.
We've talked about this sameissue a million times, which is,
if Trump's on one side, themedia and in the far left will
take the other side every, everysingle time, so it doesn't
matter.
So now Trump, literally doingmore than I think any other
president would do or definitelyhas done to this point uh,
trying to bring this war to anend Now, even if you don't think
(28:05):
he's going to be successful, oreven if you know you hate Trump
, you still got to say, okay, Ihope it works, I hope he's
successful, because there areliterally thousands of people
it's not an exaggeration.
Thousands of people are dyingevery week.
Nobody wants that Nobody.
So you start to see thereaction from the media and from
(28:25):
the White House on this,because I think you don't
necessarily see that samethought process.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Right.
So let's just take a quick lookat Caroline Leavitt.
She basically just lets themedia have it for for how
they've been covering thesituation when it comes to Trump
.
Speaker 7 (28:41):
Of this entire process, much of the left-wing
media has been actively rootingagainst the president of the
United States in the pursuit ofpeace.
The media relentlessly attackedpresident Trump and claimed he
suffered a quote major defeatfor not immediately emerging
with a final agreement, eventhough he said, heading into
that meeting, this was a meetingto listen and to understand how
(29:02):
to move the ball forward.
The so-called experts in theforeign policy establishment,
whose record is nothing butendless wars, trillions of
wasted taxpayer dollars and deadAmericans, have the nerve to
try and lecture President Trump,who has solved seven global
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
So I think she's just she's kind of laying it out
there a little bit.
So, yeah, which I mean.
Okay, now in response, likeyou're wondering, maybe you've
missed something.
You didn't see some of themedia coming after with some of
these attacks, so we pulled thisother clip for you.
This is a global affairsanalyst from CNN and she is just
(29:43):
, you know, she's just shockedthat that Trump is actually
going to talk to both Zelenskyand Putin to try to put this
deal together.
Like she doesn't understand.
Speaker 6 (29:48):
He feels he's got to check in with Putin right away
and that just as this meeting istaking place, we get news that
Putin is saying by the way, noNATO troops on the ground in
Ukraine.
That is unacceptable.
Still feels like Trump needsPutin's approval in a way.
That's got to be verydisturbing to Zelensky sitting
(30:11):
there, but of course, Zelenskywas a good actor.
He's playing it cool.
He's not biting on any of thequestions he got and hopefully
what's going to happen isthey're going to go into this
meeting with European officialsand the Europeans are saying we
need to put these troops on theground inside Ukraine and it's
(30:34):
not Vladimir Putin's business.
Speaker 3 (30:37):
OK, look, I admit I am not the world's foremost
foreign policy negotiator, butI'm pretty sure that Trump does
need Putin's approval.
He's a principal in theconflict.
You don't get to just wag yourfinger and tell him the deal and
(31:00):
move on.
That's the most ignorant thingI've ever heard.
Just like Zelensky is aprinciple in the deal.
You gotta bring them bothtogether.
Now, if all you care aboutKimberly is politics, then you
can just wag your finger atPutin, do a dog and pony show in
the Oval Office and then, whenit doesn't work, say you tried.
(31:23):
That may be what KimberlyDozier does.
That isn't what Trump is doingby all accounts.
He cares deeply about bringingthis war to an end.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Yeah, I mean, the war has been going on now for
almost the better.
Almost four years is wherewe're at now.
So I think he's been prettyclear that he wants peace in
this situation.
He doesn't feel like it was awar that was started under his
watch.
He claims it would not havehappened under his watch if he
had been president, and now allhe wants to do is make it end
Right.
So there's going to have to besome deals that are made on that
Now.
What's interesting is that hisapproval rating is surging after
(31:56):
this Putin summit.
So this is a Newsweek articlewe pulled for you guys and it
says according to polling byInsider Advantage, 54 percent of
voters said they now approvedof the president, while 44
percent disapproved.
So it's, he's climbed up evenin just the last couple of weeks
, because they polled in July.
(32:16):
This is a new poll for just now.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
Look, I think voters look at this and say, yeah, he's
trying, good job, nice work.
But it just makes the commentsfrom Dozier that much more
ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Well, and also, I think you have to keep in mind
that the majority of the countrywant this war to end.
They just want it to be done.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Right, agreed, but that's what I'm saying.
When the hate for Trumpoutstrips the need to save lives
, it just is so ludicrous.
And so you just watch it and itjust doesn't make any sense.
And so it is just alwayswhatever Trump's doing, you're
on the opposite side.
So if Trump's trying to bringwar to an end, you're like, well
, we don't want to bring this toan end.
It makes no sense.
(32:55):
And so and you saw the samething, and we have new numbers
in on what's going on in DC, andit was the same deal there
where it's like how do youobject to bringing in the
national guard and bringing downcrime in DC?
It's ridiculous, it's a stupidstatement to say that you do it
to call him a dictator fortrying to end all this right and
(33:16):
to try to clean up the nation'sCapitol.
Well, now the DC police unionhas put out the numbers what's
going on with crime?
Speaker 2 (33:23):
And so this is just in the last seven days from
seven days, right.
So this is a very short snippetof time.
Robbery is down 46%, 80 W'sdown 6%.
Carjacking down 83%.
Car theft 21%.
Violent crime is down 22%.
Property crime is down 6%.
All crimes are down 8%.
So all the crimes havedecreased since the National
(33:45):
Guard has been hitting thestreets.
So you know, I think it's is it.
Is it the change that can takeplace forever?
No, nobody's claiming that.
Right, it's a, it's a.
Hey, listen, this is the frontdoor to our country.
He took a step to say listen,we're 500 police officers short
in Washington DC.
We're not going to get thatanytime soon.
So we need to take some stepsto start getting our city
(34:06):
cleaned up.
And I just think it'sinteresting when you hear people
that are criticizing that, evenback here, you know, with our
governor putting out theadditional support for
Albuquerque and Espanola, andpeople are on both sides saying
you know what good is this goingto do?
It's going to do no good.
It's not going to do it.
Who knows If it's done properly, it should deter crime.
(34:28):
You should have more eyes outthere watching what's happening.
You should be freeing up someof these police officers.
Now does that happen?
I don't know.
We're still following up onthat and as soon as we know more
, we will be happy to share itwith you guys.
But to see that these numbersare working in DC, I think let's
let him do this.
Let's see how.
I mean, we need something to beworking.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
Oh no, it's just no, it's again.
It's another one of these 80 20issues.
It is an 80 20 issue, by theway.
It's another one of these 80 20issues that absolutely you know
you run to the other sidebecause you hate Trump and he's
doing the right thing.
So as long as he keeps stakingout his territory on the 80,
none of this doesn't work.
You know now, it doesn't meanthat the midterms are going to
(35:07):
go his way and everything else.
They may well, not, becausethat's a really steep hill, but
overall I think it makes a tonof sense.
So we'll see.
We'll see how it shakes out OK.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
So some changes happening, if Trump would.
If Trump stays on board on this, he would like to see some
changes done at the Smithsonian.
So there's a couple of exhibitsthat we have pulled to talk
about in specific where there'skind of a revisionist history,
like there is just kind of adifferent telling of maybe what
some of these important times inour history were all about.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Well.
So when I watched the newsstory on this and I'd see all
the you know, you'd seeeverybody just up in arms.
Trump is going after theSmithsonian Like he's trying to
change history.
Is he or or or is he doingsomething different?
So we decided to kind of searcharound a little bit and figure
out what kind of stuff are wetalking about, where you look at
the exhibit and you go okay, Igot a problem with this, or why
(36:00):
do you have a problem with it?
Or do you have a problem withit?
Well, there's a couple ofdifferent examples.
Number one if you check out thetitle nine exhibits at the
Smithsonian, it is amazing.
So I want you to just read thisNow.
Many of you know Title IX waspassed in 1972 to allow women
more access to sports okay,especially at the collegiate
(36:20):
level, where they didn't havethe same sort of access that men
did, and so this Title IX did avery good job of that.
But listen to how it isdescribed in the Smithsonian
exhibit on Title IX.
Again, this is in 1972.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Okay, so it says.
This exhibition marks the 50thanniversary of Title IX, federal
legislation championed byCongresswoman Patsy Mink and
signed into law by PresidentRichard Nixon in 1972.
The act unintentionally boostedlongstanding efforts to open
male-dominated arenas of sports.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
Not unintentionally, but okay, keep on going.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Okay, yeah, even as Title IX protections have been
expanded over the years, mostrecently under the Biden
administration, athletescontinue to face sexism, racism,
transphobia and other forms ofbigotry.
The stories of athletes beforeand after Title IX are part of a
larger narrative of thestruggle for equality in the
United States.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Okay, and then here is one of the pictures that
comes with this.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
Yeah, and if you can look into this.
I mean, if you're not looking,you should get on our YouTube
channel and check this out.
It just has nothing to do withTitle IX.
I mean, this was not even anissue in 1972, when we were
trying to make it an evenplaying field or at least give
the opportunity for women toparticipate in a sport.
(37:44):
The way it was explained to metoo, back when I was in high
school, is if there was a sportthat was provided for a male
team, there needed to be asimilar sport offered for women.
Speaker 3 (37:55):
So good examples football for men, field hockey
for women, Right.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
So things, things of that nature baseball for men,
softball for women, that allthat kind of thing.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
Right, so it had nothing to do with sexism, I
mean with racism or all thesegender all the trans movement of
, of trying to trying to takethings and really usher in men
into women's sports.
That's what Biden's efforttried to do, Right?
Speaker 2 (38:20):
I mean, there's no question which actually is
stripping the rights of titlenine.
Exactly, it goes the oppositeway, it does the opposite thing.
So just looking at this quicklittle fact check that was put
together, it says here you seeNixon 1972, signing this Title
IX right, which is to expandopportunities for women.
And then it goes into and thisjust really shows the impact.
So you had less than 10 percentof females, by the way.
(38:42):
Before Title IX, less than 10percent of females were in
sports.
Today we have 43 percent ofwomen participating in
collegiate sports, and so it'sjust like they're just again
it's blurring these lines.
It's trying to strip away whatthe original context of this law
was about, why it wasestablished a civil rights law
(39:04):
for women.
That, basically, is beingmorphed into something twisted
and not what it was actuallyintended to be.
And so I have zero problem withTrump or whoever coming in and
saying let's get this thingstraight, because you have kids
that go in there on school fieldtrips, you have people that go.
I mean, we were just at theSmithsonian two weeks ago.
Right, we love the Smithsonian.
(39:24):
But what you hope is, when yourkids are reading all the
displays, that they're not beingmisaligned or misinformed about
what actually took place.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
Okay, well, let's, let's take a different subject.
Let's go to Cuba.
Okay, let's, let's do this.
This is the.
This is one of the uh, centralAmerican displays, and I want
you to just read this now.
For many of you, it doesn'ttake a genius and again, not a
genius over here, but I do knowthat that most of the outflow of
(39:56):
of what happened in Cuba wasthe result of people seeking a
better life because of theleadership of one person.
But I want you to go ahead andread this.
See if that one person's namecomes up in Cuba that ruled with
an iron fist for decades andcaused mass immigration to the
United States, and rightfully so.
So we'll see if that person'sname is mentioned and see, know,
(40:20):
was it maybe the United States'fault that there were issues in
Cuba?
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Okay, well, it starts here with seeking democracy and
safety.
Civil wars, oppressivegovernments and natural
disasters pushed millions ofpeople to migrate from Latin
America and the Caribbean to theUnited States.
Throughout the 1900s, theUnited States supported foreign
governments that favored USbusinesses and fought communism
foreign governments that favoredUS businesses and fought
(40:46):
communism.
Sometimes, us foreign policycontributed to the violence and
corruption driving people tomigrate.
The United States backednumerous dictators, including
Cuba's Batista and the DominicanRepublic's Rafael Trujillo.
Cuban, dominican and many otherLatino communities still feel
the effects of war andrevolution.
Their stories reveal the humancost of immigration and the
(41:08):
contradictions of US foreignpolicy.
Speaker 3 (41:11):
Okay, this is idiotic , right.
I mean, they literally blamethe United States for this Right
and they never mentioned.
They mentioned Bautista, whichwas a mistake by the United
States, no question.
But the real issue here, youthink it could have been Fidel
Castro.
Do you think we would mentionthat at all?
That if you go to most Cubanswho immigrated from Cuba to the
(41:34):
United States over the past Idon't know 50 years, that would
be the main factor as to why.
And yet this is what you see inthe Smithsonian.
So again, what you've seen is,over decades, groups like this,
you know, or organizations likethis, have gone and put their
own spin on history, which is nohistory at all, and so, at a
(41:56):
certain point, holding them toaccount and saying wait a minute
, if you're going to takefederal dollars, you're not
going to lie about this countryand you're not going to run the
country down and say things thatjust clearly aren't true.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
I know.
I think what's so shockingabout this is that exactly what
you're saying is like it'sfederal money that builds these
museums.
Again, this is the gateway toour country.
Hundreds of thousands ofvisitors go to the Smithsonian
because it's free.
It's all these museums aroundthis big area called the mall if
you haven't been to DC and youcan walk into these museums.
Our kids love them, we lovethem and it's like this big
(42:28):
education on all different kindsof topics.
And if this is the gateway intoour country, kind of part of
our proud part of being anAmerican, and we're just not
even telling the truth about ourown history and kind of bashing
ourselves in the process, I'mlost and I don't even know how
the curators of this put thisstuff together.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
Well, I agree, and we're not saying that you don't
tell the ugly history of theUnited States.
Absolutely, absolutely, youshould.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
We should absolutely talk about some of the ugliest
slavery, for instance.
I've never thought that shouldbe sugarcoated, no Whatsoever.
It absolutely is part of ourhistory and should be absolutely
talked about.
But stuff like this, whereyou're either twisting the story
of, like Title IX, you'rechanging the course of what that
was even established to be,yeah, leaving Castro out of the
(43:15):
Cuban migration Come on, give mea break.
Yeah, I mean I wasn't, you know, obviously alive during the
Kennedys and the and the, thesituation with Castro.
Then they, I mean that's thatwas happening in the sixties
when they were fighting that guy.
So I mean it's been around fora long time and I can't believe
it's a mismark on on this.
But I I think we should end onuh, the fun little clip from uh
(43:39):
Ronnie D.
You want to end with Ronnie D.
I think we should end withRonnie D.
I think, we should leave thesepeople on a little positive,
just a little funny quip.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
Well, people wonder and we obviously were fortunate
enough to spend a little timewith Ronnie D in the campaign
and when you run into peopleacross the country they're like
you know, how does he do it?
How does he do such a good jobin Florida?
And I think he finally answeredthat question and it's a little
(44:06):
bit more, a little bit simplerthan you may think.
Speaker 1 (44:11):
Don't.
Well, I mean people ask me likeoh, you know, florida, you guys
are leading this.
You just how you do it?
I was like you know, asgovernor of Florida, I get this
great cheat code.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
All I got to do is look to New York, illinois,
california, and then do theopposite.
He drops the mic, he does thewave, he does the wave about?
He does the drop the mic andsee you later.
I think that was a great.
It was a very well statedanswer.
Speaker 3 (44:37):
Yeah, well, he loves it he does love it and I think
you know it's so funny when youwatch it and when he ran for
president it's hard Cause it's a.
You know, I think so much ofrunning and succeeding in some
of these things, and even insmaller races too, is being
comfortable in what you're doing, and I think what you found
with DeSantis was it was gettingcomfortable in the national
(44:58):
stage was a little tougher thanit was on the local, like in
Florida.
He's got it wired because heknows, he knows what he's doing
and he gets in there and he's ina comfortable environment where
he's just like yeah, I knowevery decision he makes seems to
be one that is simple.
It seems a simple choice.
And when you're doing when,when things are going your way
and you're doing a good job, Ithink the decision seems simple.
(45:20):
And when it's not working,every decision you struggle with
right.
I mean, you're just like, oh myGod and you know this in our
own lives where you know you'reon a roll and you're like even
the big decision seems simple,right.
And then there are those otherthings along the way where
you're like, oh, you know what,I, you know they just get
difficult and you and youstruggle with him.
(45:40):
So he just seems to me thatwhen he's in that Florida mode
he's like man, every, everythingmakes sense.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
Yeah, he's got it down.
That was.
It's a good role for him.
He's he's a good governor.
He's done a good job.
Well, thanks you guys forspending some time with us.
We appreciate it.
Remember to like, subscribe,make comments.
If you want to support ourpodcast, you can do that a
couple different ways.
You can make some donationsthat's how we survive on this
podcast so you can make those onour email, on our website,
which isNoDoubtAboutItPodcastcom.
(46:07):
Please sign up for our emailtoo.
I promise we won't sell yourinformation.
We don't spam you.
It's just the way that we makesure that you still get all of
our shows, because some of theplatforms, if they don't like
what we talk about, they kind ofhide them from you.
So if you want to make surethat you don't miss a show, sign
up for our emails.
(46:27):
That's the only thing thatwe'll email you about is a news
that directly impacts Mark and Ipersonally, or things about
this show.
That's it.
That's all we do.
So thanks so much for spendingtime with us.
We appreciate it.
Have a great rest of your weekand we will see you back here on
Sunday.
Speaker 5 (46:37):
You've been listening to the no Doubt About it
podcast.
You've been listening to the noDoubt 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
(47:00):
production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
There is no doubt about it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!