Episode 226 Autism, Violence Against ICE, and Censorship: Politics Infecting Everything

The dangerous intersection of inflammatory rhetoric and real-world violence takes center stage in this urgent analysis of America's deepening political divide. We examine the recent shooting at a Dallas ICE facility that left two migrants dead, where the FBI quickly identified an ideological motive with shell casings marked "anti-ICE." Yet mainstream media continues to obscure these clear motivations, creating a dangerous environment where accountability becomes impossible and violence continues unchecked.

As political figures adopt increasingly extreme language—from Gavin Newsom demanding ICE agents "unmask" to New Mexico Senator Joe Cervantes comparing ICE to the KKK—we're witnessing leadership that validates rather than calms extremist viewpoints. This pattern repeats across virtually every issue facing Americans today.

Drawing from personal experience as parents of a child with autism, we dive into the Trump administration's announcement of research linking prenatal Tylenol use to autism. Despite being backed by studies from Harvard and Johns Hopkins, this potentially groundbreaking information was immediately framed as "misinformation" by political opponents, demonstrating how tribal politics now trumps scientific inquiry and public health.

The politicization extends to healthcare access in New Mexico, where bipartisan efforts to address doctor shortages through interstate medical compacts are being blocked by powerful trial lawyers in the state senate. Even Google has admitted to censoring Americans at the Biden administration's request regarding COVID-19 information that has since been proven accurate.

What makes this episode particularly compelling is how it connects these seemingly disparate issues to reveal a fundamental breakdown in American discourse. When politics infects every aspect of life—from medical research to basic healthcare access—citizens suffer while special interests thrive. Join us as we cut through the noise and examine how we might begin healing this dangerous divide.

Rate, review and subscribe to help spread the word, or visit NoDoubtAboutItPodcast.com to support our work directly.

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

Episode Transcript

Speaker 2 (00:11):
you ready to go, guy?

Speaker 3 (00:12):
I am ready.
This is uh.
Oh, this is a spicy day it'sjust been.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
It's been kind of a heavy couple of weeks, honestly.
Uh, we're gonna find somelighter content for our weekend
show.
I'm just gonna tell you thatright now because I think our
audience might need it.
I don't know Like this has justbeen.
Everybody, I think, is feelinga lot of weight over the last
couple weeks, and we are nodifferent.
We definitely feel the weightand we'd like to tell you some
more uplifting news.
Quite frankly, apparently,that's not coming in at you

(00:38):
today.

Speaker 3 (00:45):
But we'll work on finding some happier pieces to
share.
Yeah, and I think you, I don'tknow.
I mean I spend a lot of time,you know, in the Bible trying to
, trying to just find a pathwaythrough in some of this and it
is difficult you know, yeah, itis daunting and trying to weave
through your faith and how younavigate all of this, and so
we're going to talk about a lotof different things today.

(01:05):
I'll go through the quick stuffwe've got here the ice shooting
Someone got on a rooftop andunloads on an ice building and
into an ice van.
Two people are dead, two peoplethat were, I think, in
detention in ice detention.
They were killed.
So I don't think the gunman'sdesired results occurred, but

(01:29):
this person then in the cowardlymove that shooting itself is.
They killed themselves too.
But it's pretty clear wherethis motivation came from.
The FBI has already given someinformation out.
We'll talk about that.
We'll talk about how the mediahandles these things, and how
the way the media handles themunfortunately has led to this
sort of violence being prolonged, not being stopped, and so I'll

(01:52):
get into that explanation justa little bit on this.
And we'll talk about rhetoricrhetoric that continues to be
white hot from leaders who don'tseem to understand that their
words matter and that if you usethese words and if you go out
and incite people, you're goingto get a bad result.
It's the ultimate in a lack ofleadership, but we continue to

(02:12):
see it, so we'll talk about that.
We're also gonna talk aboutwhat's going on with this autism
thing and Tylenol being kind oftargeted as a potential cause
for autism, and this, too is nowpolitical, targeted as a
potential cause for autism andand I this is, this too is now
political and, as a family whois in the middle of the autism
battle, it's important to us,right, and we're going to talk

(02:32):
about that, and it is sopolitical, it's disheartening,
okay.
And then we're going to talkabout doctors coming into New
Mexico and the chance toactually add healthcare to the
state of New Mexico, a chance toactually do something that
could make a pretty quickdifference.
Actually, maybe not havedoctors move here.
We're not going to do that, ofcourse, but don't get your hopes
up, people, but this is abipartisan thing where, believe

(02:54):
it or not, the governor, thespeaker of the House,
Republicans, all say the samething, but there's one group who
says, oh no, no, no, no, not sofast, my friend, we're not
going to allow this to happen.
And so we'll get into that,showing that again, not
political here, but itdefinitely affects every New
Mexican who needs health carealong the way.
And then we're also going totalk about what happened with

(03:17):
the Google censorship.
You want to talk aboutcensorship?
Google admitted this week hey,we censored you.
We're sorry about that.
At the government's behest.
We did this.
Jonathan Turley had aninteresting article on that,
which we're going to talk aboutas well.
We'll get briefly into theKimmel deal as well, but then

(03:41):
we'll talk about a variety ofother issues as well.
Another candidate has jumped into what's happening here with
the race for CD2.
And so we get into that as well.
So all of this is is on the way, and it should be rather
exciting stuff.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Okay, well, let's start with your hoodie, because
actually and people can't see it, so you're going to do your
standing up New Mexico juniorcollege baby.
Yeah, New Mexico junior collegeit's.
It's a little hot right now foryou to be wearing it so soon,
but I know you wanted to showyour appreciation.
A gentleman of your name, GuyKessner.
He actually wrote the kindestnote to us, a sympathy card

(04:14):
response to me losing my mother.
So thank you, Guy, that was sothoughtful of you and added that
very nice hoodie for Mark.
So, I guarantee you he'll bewearing it well past now because
, as the temperatures dip, sovery thoughtful of you to ship
that our way.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
Oh God, this is awesome.
Thank you, and I do love thestuff our viewers send and
listeners send.

Speaker 2 (04:34):
I know, they're so nice, it's so sweet.
They send the coolest stuff.

Speaker 3 (04:36):
We've got Lovington stuff, we've got an Artesia
stuff.

Speaker 2 (04:45):
We've got New Mexico junior college stuff, we've got
the Carlsbad caveman, we get allkinds of stuff.

Speaker 3 (04:47):
It's very sweet and I'll wear every bit of it, I
promise.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
I loved the very thoughtful sympathy card for my
mom.
That meant a lot to me.
So thank you for your words andjust taking the time to do that
.
That was so nice of you to evendo that.
So thank you so much.
We have some more emails fromviewers out there.
It's been a long time sincewe've shared any and I apologize
, we've just been stack, stack,stack.
This is a little bit of the fun, okay?
So let's put a little bit oflightheartedness.
At the beginning, deneen wrotein said I was there talking

(05:11):
about the Charlie Kirk Memorial.
When Erica announced herforgiveness to the assassin, it
broke me what an amazing exampleof a Christian she is.
And then Wayne Jones wrote inGod cannot forgive your sins if
you do not forgive people thathave sinned against you.
Thank you, wayne.
I learned that in Sunday school.
I believe that was in responseto the fact that I was just
being as honest as I couldpossibly be in saying, listen, I

(05:32):
would need a while to be ableto forgive somebody.
If they took out my husband, Ijust would.
That's just me being human andI admit it, that's full pride,
right.
But I'm aware that, like it'smy job to forgive people who you
know, sin against us so God canforgive us.
I am super aware of that.
I was just trying to beauthentic and saying, hey, I

(05:53):
would struggle with that thatsoon.
But I think forgiveness for mewould be like a wave, and we
talked about this in my Biblestudy actually on Monday.
Our group talked about how itwould be like a wave, like where
you would be like, yep, I'mgoing to forgive this person,
and then you'd probably hit alow again, and then you'd have,
to like, come back up and haveto ask God to help you forgive
this person again.
And I just think it's probablysomething that Erica will have

(06:16):
to do over and over and overthroughout the course of her
life, I imagine, if she's humanwhich she is and so, of course,
course, I applaud her on allthat.

Speaker 3 (06:25):
So yeah, I agree, and I had the same response, which
is I don't, I don't think Icould forgive the person,
especially right away, butespecially if they did not seek
forgiveness.
But but again, again, I get it.
There are some people that aremore pious than me, that that I
think can can just be, or justthe forgiveness monsters, and
they're just handing it out.
I get it, that's why we don'twe never?

Speaker 2 (06:44):
lie to you.

Speaker 3 (06:45):
We'll tell you what we think, and if we're, we're
flawed human beings and we'regoing to say oh, we're super
flawed.

Speaker 2 (06:49):
So yeah, we're definitely.
Uh, we're not a father, Mark,and sister Christie.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
No way, no not even close enough.
Hail Marys and our fathers tosay in confession I promise you
that, okay.

Speaker 2 (07:08):
And then this last one came in by love.
My soul dog, uh Kimmel, was onthe way out, and I think he
purposely lied to use it toclaim his free speech was
violated to keep his horrific,non-comedy show retained.
His show was on the way out.
Also, note this is a publicbroadcast network, not cable,
yep, absolutely, um, okay, I hadto put this one in this little
surprise for you, mark, youhaven't actuallyry, and her dog,
daisy, apparently is a big fanof your game cameras.
So hit.

(07:28):
Play on this and turn the volumeup.
Okay, so Daisy just wentrunning towards the TV.
She is watching you discuss themountain lions that you showed
a couple of weeks ago and Daisyis fully in.
She's fully in on this and ifyou watch Daisy, she doesn't

(07:50):
move, she's barking, she'swagging her tail.

Speaker 3 (07:53):
Oh yeah, that's the bobcat.

Speaker 2 (07:55):
Yeah, bobcat.

Speaker 3 (07:56):
And then you showed some elk.
She's concerned about the elk,yeah, yeah.

Speaker 7 (08:01):
Anyway, I just think this is hysterical and our own
huskies have done this for stuffthat we've had on television as
well.

Speaker 2 (08:05):
So thank you daisy for uh, you know, giving a point
for mark's game camera andthank you, jennifer, for sending
in and it was very and she puta lovely note with it.
So thank you so much for that.
I just thought that, oh, that'ssuper another point for you yes,
for game camera not everybodybut but you have not everybody,
not me not christ, but everybodyelse, I think it's just a
reminder of all the scary thingsthat are out there that I don't

(08:27):
want to run into up in themountains that were.
It's right next to where we'rebuilding.
So that's all I'm saying.
I just I'd rather not know.
I think I'd rather not now.
Okay, all right, let's behonest.

Speaker 3 (08:36):
There's a reality out there and there are bears.
All right, there are bears andthere are mountain lions.

Speaker 2 (08:41):
Please don't give us the bear story.
They're not.

Speaker 3 (08:43):
They're not interested in messing with you.
They're really not.

Speaker 2 (08:46):
Okay, so okay.

Speaker 3 (08:47):
All right.
So here we go, let's get tothis.
Let's start with this attack ona nice facility.
Here we go again.
This morning in Dallas, at anice facility, a gunman got on a
rooftop and unloaded into anice building with bullets and
into an ice van.
Okay, killed two people.
Two detainees were killed inthis process.

(09:07):
Okay, here we go.
More violence at the barrel ofa gun.
I mean, here we go again.
Right?
So here is the statement thatwas issued by FBI Director Kash
Patel and, surprise, surprise,we have more violence.

Speaker 2 (09:22):
This morning, just before 7 am local time, an
individual fired multiple roundsat a Dallas Texas ice facility,
killing one, wounding severalothers before taking his own
life.
Fbi, DHS, ATF are on the groundwith Dallas PD and state
authorities.
While the investigation isongoing, an initial review of
the evidence shows anideological motive behind this
attack, See photo below.

(09:42):
One of the unspent shellcasings recovered was engraved
with the phrase, quote anti-ICE.
More updates will beforthcoming.
And then it keeps going.
It says these despicable,politically motivated attacks
against law enforcement are nota one-off.
We are only miles fromPrairieland, Texas, where just
two months ago an individualambushed a separate ICE facility

(10:02):
, targeting their officers.
It has to end, and the FBI andour partners will lead these
investigative efforts to see toit that those who target our law
enforcement are pursued andbrought to the fullest extent of
justice.
Thankfully, no law enforcementpersonnel were injured.
Please pray for the injured andthe deceased.
And then here's a picture ofthe bullets that were found at
the scene that he shared as well, and you can see right there it

(10:24):
says anti-ICE on the casings.

Speaker 3 (10:27):
Okay, so two innocent people who happened to be in
ICE detention, who did notdeserve to be summarily executed
, on a Wednesday morning inDallas were.
Because violence is violence.
And here we go again.
This is the same thing.
It just keeps happening, and Iwant to listen to a couple of

(10:50):
people talking about this and Iwant to get into rhetoric on
this, because it matters.
What we're seeing now, more andmore, is even in the wake of
Charlie Kirk.
You saw a great outpouring froma lot of people, but then you
also saw a terrifying acceptanceand embrace of violence.

Speaker 2 (11:07):
In celebration, actually In celebration, yeah,
absolutely yeah.
There were plenty of peoplethat were celebrating.

Speaker 3 (11:10):
Because you know, hey , we don't like him, so
therefore it's okay that he getsshot Right.
That has happened too manytimes for me to be comfortable
with it, and it's horrendous.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
And just to clarify really quickly, mark, because I
read in that tweet that therewere, you know, obviously I just
read it and it says that youknow, it said that two people
one person was killed and oneperson's injured- no, no, two
people are dead.
Okay, so that's more recentthough that that information
just came out.
Yes, okay, so I just want toclarify that for our viewers.

Speaker 3 (11:40):
Two people that were being detained were dead.
Now, remember this much too,one of the people.
You know some of this, and noneof this matters, by the way,
what I'm about to say.
But but some people are saying,oh well, you know, because two
migrants were killed it wasprobably a Republican, first of
all.
That's ridiculous, because theyfired into a van OK, they fired
into the building, ok, this is,they're trying to kill ICE

(12:02):
officers.
That's what they're doing.
But even if, whoever they wereaiming for, it's not OK, it's
not OK.
And again, it just keepshappening.
And I have a theory on some ofthis.
So I want to start with this.
And it's CNN trying to talkabout.
Well, we don't know what the.
We don't know what the motiveis.
Yeah, you pretty quickly knowexactly what the motive is.
Ok, that's, that's not amystery here.

(12:26):
But but I want you to justlisten here to John Miller about
what he has to say here in the.
We don't know what the motiveis.
Who really knows what themotive is?

Speaker 4 (12:35):
We don't know whether this was an anti migrant
shooting because of thevictimology who was struck, or
whether this is an anti-iceshooting, and the governor's
statements about assassinationsuggest he has some information
that we don't have yet and thatmay not be entirely clear to

(12:56):
authorities.
So the press conference isgoing to be very pivotal because
they're going to be able totell us, in some form, what they
know, what they don't know, andwhat they're going to be able
to tell us in some form whatthey know, what they don't know
and what they're doing to findout.

Speaker 3 (13:08):
Okay, so, very quickly, we do know what the
motive in this was.
But here's the problem.
And earlier in that same CNNprogramming, the anchor said we
still don't really know theCharlie Kirk shooter's motive.
Okay, yeah, we do.
Yeah, we do.
Okay, we know this, we know allthis.

Speaker 2 (13:27):
And we know this because his parents are the ones
that went and told and filedthe police reports and their
former law I mean his dad's aformer law enforcement officer
their their kid told them likeit wasn't like third hand
knowledge, it was direct firstperson testimony.
But that's how.
That's why they were able tomake that conclusion as quickly
as they were.

Speaker 3 (13:47):
That's right.
And here's the.
Here's the connection I want todraw by the media and it's not
just CNN, it's all of theestablishment media or not,

(14:08):
report on the reality that thereis a real issue right now with
the people who call themselvesanti-fascists and far leftists
embracing violence.
They're embracing it.
Okay, they are, and they'rethey're doing it.
We're watching it Okay, nowit's weekly.
So here's where I think theproblem is by the media trying
to cover and say we really don'tknow, we're not really sure who
really knows.
It's both sides.
They do the whole thing.
Here's what happens in thatcase.
You never allow good,well-meaning Democratic leaders

(14:33):
to be able to stand up andcondemn this and rip it, because
if it got out there and theywent out and honestly reported
on it and said there is a realproblem here, you would allow
your leaders the cover to say wehave a problem, we will address
it, we will not stand for it,but they won't do it, they won't
admit there's a problem.
So, therefore, any democraticleader that comes out and says

(14:56):
anything, well, they gethammered because they're like
what are you talking about?
Everything we're hearing.
That's not true.
Nobody knows what the realmotivation was.
There's no real ground.
To tell the truth.
It happened with Biden.
They would not admit that hewas not.
Well, they covered time aftertime.
And so what happened?

(15:16):
It just kept going and it gotworse and worse and worse and it
blew up in their face.
This is going to happen again.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
Well, it is happening .
I mean, if you actually readthe New York Times, the same
writers that were covering forBiden, right, they're doing the
same thing in the Charlie Kirksituation.
You know, you're kind of hopinglike man.
This turnout maybe we'llactually start changing some
minds and getting somejournalists to actually cover
things more just balancedly.
Like you know, I don't ask themto come to the other side of

(15:43):
their way of thinking, but atleast to cover something in a
fair way, and I they're not like.
The Charlie Kirk thing is stilllike oh, the great unknown.
I guess we won't know until wego to court.
No, we know, we actually know,and you knew about Biden and you
covered from him there too.

Speaker 3 (15:59):
So I just think Well, had they had they had they said
on Biden hey look, this isn'tright, everybody knows this Then
, all of a sudden, you wouldhave had this litigated two
years ago and then you wouldhave had a presidential race
that didn't look anything likeit did Now.
If they want to keep doing this, they get their own results and
they get exactly what theydeserve because of it.
But this is far more dangerous.

(16:20):
Well, although a president ofthe United States not being able
to handle the job is a hugeissue, but but this is, this is
terrible, right, and so what wesee here is just the continued
and then the rhetoric just keepsgetting worse.
Even the leading figures in thedemocratic party are saying
stuff that it's crazy.
Two days ago, gavin Newsom isin Sacramento with his

(16:44):
legislature and in the bill theypassed in California was to
make sure that ICE agents can'twear masks.
Listen to Gavin Newsom describethis.

Speaker 6 (16:58):
I'll be signing a bill first in the nation saying
enough, ice, unmask.
What are you afraid of?
What are you afraid of?

Speaker 3 (17:11):
They're forcing ICE to unmask and Gavin Newsom has
the gall to say what are youafraid of?
After multiple shootings intoICE facilities and today two
migrants are dead because of it.

Speaker 2 (17:23):
And I'm sorry and we haven't learned from defund the
police and the riots and theviolence that came after
officers in 2020, 2021.
You haven't learned from thathistory.
My question on that is does heeven have the authority to do
that?
Because ICE officers arefederal.
So, him signing some sort ofstate law state bill.

Speaker 3 (17:43):
Yeah, yeah, it just feels like he's telling a
federal prosecutor you can'tpress those charges.
Okay, champ.

Speaker 2 (17:48):
Yeah, okay, I didn't think that it's just him just
propagating right.
Like him, like hey, look at me,look at me.

Speaker 3 (17:52):
No, no no, it's preening yeah, absolutely yeah,
for a second.
So let's follow another one.
Okay, this is also Newsome.
The reason I bring up Newsomeis he is the leading contender
to be the democratic nominee.
We need leadership from GavinNewsome to help this country,
and I mean that I clearly Idon't share his beliefs, but we

(18:13):
need him to be sane.
We need sane leaders.
I don't care what side you'reon.
You didn't have nut bags, yeah,like you can't do it.

Speaker 6 (18:20):
So Gavin Newsom then comes out yesterday and says
this, I fear that we will nothave an election in 2028.
I really mean that and the coreof my soul.
Unless we wake up to the codered, what's happening in this
country, and we wake up soberlyto how serious this moment is

(18:43):
happening in this country and wewake up soberly to how serious
this moment is.

Speaker 3 (18:50):
Okay.
Okay, this is what I mean.
Okay when you have a media thatdoes not cover stories.
Look at him run to the left,look at him, run to the most
extreme positions.
He knows for a fact there'sgoing to be an election in 2028.
He's running for president likea mo.
He is going for it For a guywho doesn't think there's going
to be an election.
He's sure, running hard, he'ssure running.
He knows there's going to be anelection.

(19:11):
But what is he doing?
He's lighting the flames asmuch as possible because he
knows the voters he has toconvince and because there is no
honest media coverage of theenvironment that is developing
in this country that is so veryclear, and because they're not
doing it, there is no cover forsomeone like a Newsom.
If he had guts he'd stand upand be a real leader, don't get

(19:32):
me wrong.
Okay, but I'm saying that ifwe're just talking about real
cover for these people, becausetoo many politicians are gutless
, we all know this, right.
But if there was real coverhere, if there was a real
admission, there is a massiveviolence problem here.
They are solving problems atthe end of a gun and don't tell,
don't both sides this for meyou can see it happening right

(19:52):
in front of us, just like youcould see the Biden deal.
We all saw it right.
So you've got to admit this.
And because there's no cover,that's.
What worries me is that youcontinue to see the rhetoric.
The rhetoric of the extremes isbecoming the rhetoric of the
leaders, which is really reallyscary.
We can't have that.

Speaker 2 (20:10):
Right.
Well, it gets worse, even on astate level.
We have Senator Joe Cervantes.
He's comparing ICE in thismeeting to the KKK.
Like it's unbelievable.
Like it's unbelievable, I justthink, when you are again in

(20:38):
leadership and you don't thinkthrough what comes flowing out
of your mouth and how it couldimpact people and again, most
people are normal, saneindividuals and don't right that
, don't pay that.
Take this verbatim say oh mygosh, an ICE officer.
It's KKK.
Let me do something about that.
Right.
So why you're not a matureperson when you're in leadership
and think through what youverbalize before you say it?
Take a listen to this.

Speaker 3 (20:58):
Well, by the way, just so you know, this is a
hearing.
A couple of days or yesterdayit was hearing and Joe Cervantes
is head of the JudiciaryCommittee of the New Mexico
State Legislature.
So there's there's probably nosenator who is more powerful
really than Joe Cervantes is ina lot of different ways, and
there are many times when wetalked about him on this show
where he's been the adult in theroom.
He's been the adult in the roomin the legislature.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
That has happened multiple times, but not in this
particular case, as yourightfully point out and there
are a lot of people that areunhappy you can hear from the
passion of my colleagues here myco-chair when children are
being put on planes and peopleare being taken in the night and
people are raiding mobile homeparks and they're doing it with
masks, and you know something wehaven't seen since the KKK days
, right, and so we're in a placethat we don't want to be going.
I think a lot of us and I'malways proud to be part of a

(21:48):
profession that will write that.
We'll write that withsegregation, we'll write that
with civil rights, we'll writethat with the laws we pass here
today and we'll write it withlawsuits oh yeah lawsuits.

Speaker 3 (21:58):
So there you go, right, okay.
So there you go, right, okay,okay.
So again, ridiculous.
Comparing ice to the KKK isridiculous.
But look at this picture.
Do you remember when theRepublican headquarters were
fire bombed here in New Mexico?
Again more violence.
Right, this was a few monthsago, right?
What's on the wall?
It says ice equals KKK, soCervantes is now taking the

(22:22):
language of extremists and he'susing it instead of the other
way around.
Instead of leaders leading theextremists now are pushing in
this type of rhetoric and ourleaders are falling for it and
they're jumping on it.
Why, yeah, why are they doingthis?

Speaker 2 (22:41):
and I don, because, again, if you even just boil
down his whole comments, he'sstill defending people here
being here illegally that arecriminals.
Like again, if you just boil itdown and if we would allow ICE
officers to go into our jailsand our prison systems, which is
what they've asked for is thatcooperation.
We don't have to be going intoa mobile trailer park, joe, like

(23:04):
.
The whole point is this is aripple effect from poor
leadership on a statewide levelto start with.
So I just think, again, it'sdangerous territory.
It's dangerous on either sideof the aisle to be giving
inflammatory language andstoking the fire because you
don't know who's out therethat's listening to what you say
and how they implement it, howthey process that information

(23:28):
and then what they do with it.
And I think that we're seeingthat now.
We saw that with this guy whojust shot Charlie Kirk.
So it's like wake up, like justwake up.

Speaker 3 (23:38):
And the media continues to play their
unbelievable role in this.
I can't let this go because theycould absolutely be a calming
force in this meaning holdeveryone to account.
But this is the headline fromNBC News.
Two days ago, ice agents held afive-year-old autistic girl
outside her Massachusetts hometo pressure her father to

(23:59):
surrender to authorities lastweek, according to the girl's
family.
Ok, first of all, really, isthat how this goes?
You have someone that's aboutto be arrested, you go to their
family as the primary source andyou're like, oh, what's the
deal?
And the family's like, are youkidding?
That's completely irresponsibleto use their family as your
primary source and to write theheadline that way, oh, but then,

(24:22):
of course, they find out noneof it's true, it didn't actually
happen.
So again you've got a shooterwho probably read this and then,
of course, had been planningthis anyway, because it takes
some planning to do this.
You don't get on top of thatbuilding and start shooting into
an ICE facility this morningthe way he did, without planning
.
And then of course, you get NBCwho says oh correction, sorry

(24:43):
about that earlier story, Iceagents didn't really do it.
That way, turns out.
The girl's family may not bethe best source, because
relative was being arrested atthe time for violent crime, by
the way.
Okay, so again, just anotherexample of what happens with all
of this and the rhetoric whereyou see just the white hot

(25:05):
rhetoric, the media not holdingpeople to account on both sides,
only one side.
They only believe in holding toaccount on one side.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
Well, you have to read.
We should give them credit andjust read what they said,
because for people that arelistening to us, they don't see
this.
We showed it, but let me justread it.
So they're changing theirheadline.
So no, you're right.
Video shows ice withfive-year-old girl while agents
attempt to arrest her father.
Correction and earlier versionof this article mischaracterized
the activities of ice agents inthe video.
The article has been updated,so I just want to make sure we

(25:35):
actually read that for right,and then again, again, a lie
works its way halfway around theworld before the truth gets its
pants on.

Speaker 3 (25:42):
So, thank you very much.
But the fact that they evenwrote a headline grabbing the
girl's family and them basicallylying to the media and lying to
NBC, and NBC just dutifullywrites the headline.
It's just, it's incompetenceand it's becoming more and more
dangerous.
This just keeps gaining speedbecause we don't have any

(26:02):
accountability in this country.
We don't?
Joe Cervantes should bequestioned by everybody.
Every station in New Mexicoshould be tracking down Joe
Cervantes and saying why are youcomparing ICE to the KKK and do
you worry that your rhetoric ismirroring the violent rhetoric
that firebombed your politicalopponents?
Are you concerned?
Should you really be using thatrhetoric?
Will joe cervantes be askedthat question?

(26:23):
No, will koat call him?
Nope kob, nah, krqe, forget it.
The journal no, I'm sorry, Ijust don't even.
This is so bad for the countryas a whole.
See, I told you I was fierytoday.
You're like you knew I was in abad mood.

Speaker 2 (26:38):
I told him I was like gosh guy, I don't know we
should maybe temper, like he'sso flared up.
I was like maybe you shouldtemper yourself before we
actually start filming.
I know, I'm sorry, it's a heavy.
It's been a couple of heavyweeks and obviously we want to
do our best to bring you whatthe coverage and then hopefully
you can create your own opinion.
Yes, we absolutely add our owncolor.
As you can see, mark's colortoday is bright red because he's

(27:01):
all heated up.

Speaker 3 (27:02):
That's a cheeks reference.
Okay, we don't need it.
We all know about the cheeks.
Okay, they're well established,but anyway, all right.
So that's that, all right, butit's not going to get better.
What I'm about to say now, thisstory, it makes me even more
mad.

Speaker 2 (27:16):
I know, because we're personally tied to this one one
.
I mean, my goodness, let's diveinto this, increase what's been
happening with the autism story?

Speaker 3 (27:26):
Right, okay, you want to go ahead and speak.
No, no, no, well, no, I justput in this graphic, but Trump
announced yesterday that, okay,okay.

Speaker 2 (27:33):
Trump announced yesterday that potential link
between Tylenol given in uterocould be linked to autism, based
on studies from Harvard andfrom John Hopkins.
So basically, here is a quickheadline for this.
It says autism rates amongstchildren by age eight.

Speaker 3 (27:53):
Yeah, this sort of is the basis right.
So we look at the basis and wesay, for those of you who are
part of this community, as weare with, you know, with
children with autism, it is.
This is incredibly importantand for for us and we we've sat
here and watch this and youcould see the rates skyrocket
from from, you know, basicallynine, 1992, all the way you know

(28:16):
, on up to 2020, you could justsee these rates, just Right.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
So if I could read the headline.
Sir, if you'd let me read theheadline, as you jumped all over
me, sorry, autism rates amongst.

Speaker 3 (28:25):
Sorry, I'm a little angry.
Yeah, sorry.
All right, now you're takingover Go.

Speaker 2 (28:28):
Okay, thank you.
I just would like to read aheadline I apologize.
Autism rates amongst children.
By age eight, prevalence ofautism increased nearly 400% in
just 22 years.
So it used to be that one in150 children had autism.
Now it's 1 in 31 children, andthat's just been in the last 22
years.
So now you can see this birthyear, the massive uptick that

(28:51):
continues to keep going.
They're actually now evensaying that.
You know, could the same thingthat you're seeing an uptick in
autism could it also be givingyou the uptick in ADHD?
You know there's significantresearch that is showing that
and as a parent of an autisticchild, I welcome research Like

(29:12):
let's have the conversation,let's discuss it.
I'm not saying I know one wayor the other because I don't.
I have my own theories, but Iwant all the theories flushed
out because clearly it's notgetting better.
And so, as a parent of anautistic child, what I don't
want is to have another child beborn with autism and have that
struggle for that family.

(29:32):
The goal is let's get thisunder control and better for our
future children.
So let's read a little bit ofthis.
This came out of the White Houseyesterday.
It said large-scale cohortstudies, including the Nurses
Health Study 2 and the BostonBirth Cohort, reported
associations between in uteroexposure and later diagnoses of
autism spectrum disorder andattention deficit disorder.

(29:55):
Scientists have proposedbiological mechanisms linking
prenatal acetaminophen exposureto altered brain development and
adverse birth outcomes.
Andrea Vaccarelli, as an MD-PhDDean of Faculty at Harvard Chan
School of Public Health, saidquote colleagues and I recently
conducted a rigorous review,funded by a grant from the

(30:16):
National Institutes of Health,of the potential risks of
acetaminophen.
Acetaminophen Okay, sorry, Ican't say that, that's all
righthen used during pregnancy.
We found evidence of anassociation between exposure to
acetaminophen during pregnancyand increased incidence of
neurodevelopmental disorders inchildren.
This is based on the HarvardUniversity study.
Using acetaminophen duringpregnancy may increase

(30:40):
children's autism and ADHD risk.
And then John HopkinsUniversity also did a study
taking Tylenol during pregnancyassociated with elevated risks
for autism, so ADHD.

Speaker 3 (30:50):
The reason we include that for you is because this is
what some of what the whitehouse is working off of Okay,
real studies and a desire to tryto find an answer, which, for
parents like us, there's nobodyin the government the highest
levels of government that hasbeen talking about this the way
the Trump administration has.

(31:11):
I don't care if you like theTrump administration or not.
If you are more than willing toget upset and back Tylenol over
this versus trying to learnmore so we can figure this out.
You were the problem.
You've taken politics andyou've elevated it above the
health of our children.
That I can't help you with.

(31:31):
And so what we've got here is avariety of different things
we're going to look at here.
But but I want to show yousomething here because, as
Christie said, as parents of anautistic child, when you see the
white house come out with anautism, an autism action plan,
you are cheering.
You are cheering becausesomeone's doing something and we

(31:51):
don't think this is all theanswer.
It's I.
I guarantee you.
Tylenol is not the whole answerright, I guarantee you.

Speaker 2 (31:58):
I mean, and again, we won't ever really probably know
what's led to um our daughterhaving autism, right like we
don't.
We won't ever really probablyknow what's led to our daughter
having autism, right Like wewon't know.
That I can tell you personallyI didn't take Tylenol, but they
also talk about giving Tylenolto little little kids when they
have a big which?
We definitely did we definitelydid do that, so I don't know.

Speaker 3 (32:14):
And again, I don't sit here and wear this around as
some big portion of guiltbecause you know what we didn't
know.
Yeah, big portion of guiltbecause you know what we didn't
know, but there's no excuse nowto not to try to find out that
that that's where you shouldwear guilt is if you're not
willing to find out.
And, believe me, we saw anissue here in New Mexico where
someone who should care aboutthese kids more than anybody is

(32:35):
taking up politics before thereality.
So here's the autism actionplan that the Trump
administration put out again.
Whether you agree with everypiece of this, if you're the
parent of an autistic child oryou know someone with autism, at
least we've got people inleadership who are saying we're
going after this problem.

Speaker 2 (32:52):
Okay, did you want me to read all this?
Not?

Speaker 3 (32:54):
necessarily, but a few things.

Speaker 2 (32:55):
Well we're just talking about.
They want doctors and familiesinformed.
The FDA will issue a physiciannotice and initiate a safety
labeled change on Acetaminophen.
Research shows a potentialassociation between
acetaminophen using duringpregnancy and adverse
neurodevelopment outcomes andthen it says that for infants
and toddlers and toddlers right.

Speaker 3 (33:15):
Okay, there are a lot of these cases where your child
people talk about these things,right, and it's like, oh my
gosh, then there was a fever andthen there was an issue Like I
don't know, none of us know, wejust don't know.
I think that's the scary part,the bottom portion of this
they're dedicating 50 moremillion dollars to start to work
on this.
Now, that's not enough.

Speaker 2 (33:32):
It's not enough.
But I am so pleased to hearthat because, if you you know,
when we found out that ourdaughter had autism, she was
about eight years old when shewas diagnosed and I remember I
mean, I just dove into all ofthe research that was out there
at the time and I remember a lotof the voices at the time, one
of those being Jenny McCarthy.
She was really loud at the time.
And they were trying to On oneissue yeah, on one issue, and

(33:54):
they were really trying tosilence her.
And I just thought, why are wetrying to silence her, like, why
don't?
I mean she may be wrong, shemay be dead in the water, wrong,
I don't know but why would wenot want to try to uncover, to
see what the potentials could bethat could be, you know, is it

(34:14):
food, is it vaccines?
Is it what is it like?
We need to find out because theuptick is strong.
And another thing is it's inAmerica.
So it's something that we'redoing in America specifically to
have this increase.
So it's not worldwide.
These numbers, these upticksare not going on across global,
it's just happening here.
So what are we doing in theUnited States that could be
potentially leading to this?

(34:35):
It's not just hey, you're bornwith it, right, so we got to be
able to figure it out.
So I just welcome $50 million,I'll welcome any amount of money
.

Speaker 3 (34:44):
Yeah, that we can put towards the research yeah, and
so then let's listen to martymccary, who, who is kind of
spearheading all this, andhere's what he says about what
we want to do.
And again, if you listen tomarty mccary, it's a reasonable
take here and what he says, andI I don't know what else to do
for you.
If you're more interested inhating Trump than trying to

(35:04):
solve the autism problem, thenthat's a you problem.
You should look in the mirror.
That's where you should beembarrassed and ashamed, right
there.
So here's, here's Marty McCary.

Speaker 8 (35:12):
Much of the acetaminophen given for low
grade fevers and just givenroutinely, mindlessly, without
even thinking why we're givingpatients the option to not take
it.
Much of that.
I think people deserve to havethe information, to know that
there are some doctors withconcerns, including the Dean of

(35:33):
the Harvard School of PublicHealth, who made a very clear
statement that there is a causalrelationship.
I'm reading now from thestatement of the Dean of the
Harvard School of Public Healththere is a causal relationship
between prenatal acetaminophenuse and neurodevelopmental
disorders of ADHD and autismspectrum disorder.
We felt an obligation to getthis information out to everyday

(35:53):
docs.

Speaker 3 (35:54):
OK.
Here's what's so importantabout that.
Ok, and that is listen to whathe said.
Think about this and when you,when you were, you had a you
know we had the kids with afever or whatever would you have
thought twice about giving themTylenol?

Speaker 2 (36:06):
No, no, there's no warning on that at all.

Speaker 3 (36:09):
If they were at 99 or a hundred is a fever.
You'd give them Tylenol, likethat.
Now again I don't know whatTylenol's role is, but there's
clearly at least enough here toto be concerned with.
So what he's saying is justdon't randomly like Tylenol,
tylenol, tylenol I don't do it.

(36:29):
So that is so valuable forparents.
It doesn't mean you never giveyour kid Tylenol, but it could
well mean that unless it's up103 ish, then you could start
saying, all right, now this is alittle tougher, let's go to our
doctor, talk about gettingTylenol.
Okay, so, so that's what's somaddening about all of this.
But then what kills me is wesee an article in today's

(36:49):
Albuquerque journal on Wednesday, and this is the headline it
said New Mexico advocates anddoctor decried Trump's autism
claim.

Speaker 2 (36:56):
Again, I get that he's the president.
I get that he did a pressconference on this yesterday.
I get all that.
This isn't Trump's autism claim.
Ok, again, this is backed byother researchers from the
schools of medicine Right thatwe've leaned into for a long
time that are basically saying,hey, let's look at these studies

(37:17):
, let's take a deeper look.
So this is after PresidentDonald Trump.
This is the article afterPresident Donald Trump spread
misinformation aboutover-the-counter pain medicine
and autism in a White House newsconference Monday.
A New Mexico-based autismadvocacy group and an
Albuquerque doctor are worriedthat pregnant patients could
ignore their pain and beburdened with mom guilt.

(37:37):
What a stupid, stupid firstparagraph, I will say this this
sounds so much like COVID.

Speaker 3 (37:43):
This sounds exactly like COVID language.
You're spreading misinformation.

Speaker 2 (37:46):
It's the same playbook.

Speaker 3 (37:48):
It is the same exact playbook.
And again, understand this.
I understand the OBGYN we'reabout to quote here.
I get it.
I'm sure she's a smart ladywho's a great OBGYN.
She is not a medical researcherwho goes through all this.
That's not.
She can't possibly be built.

Speaker 2 (38:04):
She's just going on based on what they've been told
for all the years that she hasbeen a doctor, and I respect and
understand that.
Guess what Things might bechanging Like.
We may want to have things likelook at that.
There have been this is whatshe says there have been decades
of research that has shown nocausal link between a set of
myofin in pregnancy and autismin children.

Speaker 3 (38:24):
Okay, so, and then she goes on to say you know
robust studies and there's beenother stuff, and don't worry,
nothing to see here is whatshe's saying.

Speaker 9 (38:31):
She has no idea Okay.

Speaker 3 (38:32):
She's not a researcher, she's not, I'm sure,
a smart lady, but again, notproductive.
Again, we're not trying to, youknow, go through this and be
like, hey, this is exactly right, but we're at least we're
making steps forward.
And when you have people standup on political grounds, that's
what this is.
This is on political groundssaying no, no, no, no, don't do

(38:53):
this, Don't do this.
We've heard this before.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
Oh, this reminds me of the ad that they used against
you of.
You know, mark doesn't believein the science or whatever.
It was just ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (39:02):
Too many doctors are willing to stand up in some
cases and put politics ahead ofpeople.
I don't know why they do it,but then in this article they go
on to say the president's alsoannounced 13 new funding awards
for research into understandingautism prevalence, treatment and
services.
That's tremendous.
That is a huge win for familieswith kids with autism.

(39:23):
Okay, no doubt okay.
But then here we go again.
Professional medicalorganizations have pushed back
against hhs and the president'sclaim.
They say today's announcementby hhs is not backed by the full
body of scientific evidence.
In other words, you don'tbelieve the science.
Here we go again.
They're six feet of distance,you don't believe the science,
it's the go again.
They're six feet of distance.
You don't believe the science.
It's the whole thing theshaming of people who stand up

(39:46):
and say wait a minute let's lookat it, yeah Right, that's what
makes this so bad.

Speaker 2 (39:50):
Just look at it Like that's what's so frustrating and
I'm I'm just disappointed inthis statement from Christina
Angel.
She's a mother of two withautism and the executive
director of the autism societyof New Mexico, the president.
She's also autism and theexecutive director of the autism
society of new Mexico.
The president.
She's also you know um.
She says here the president'snews conference could have a
negative effect on the autismcommunity.
According to angel, quote it'svery dangerous for the autism

(40:11):
community as a whole, butespecially to our mothers that
might feel guilty for somethingthey did during pregnancy that
was deemed unsafe Quote it wasdeemed safe it was deemed safe.
It was deemed safe.
It was deemed safe.
We do not support the medicalcommunity in saying that Tylenol
is safe.
Oh wait, we do support themedical community in saying that
Tylenol is safe and we wantmothers to know that they did
nothing wrong and they did whatthey needed to do for themselves
and their child.

(40:32):
Give me a freaking break.
None of us.
I don't feel guilty of being amother of an autistic child.
I don't sit here and go oh mygosh, what did I do?
What I would feel terribleabout is if I put my blinders on
and said, oh well, this guyover here said there's no way it
could have anything to do withX, y or Z.

(40:53):
Tynanol couldn't be a factor.
Vaccines couldn't be a factor.
Our food supply couldn't be afactor.
There's nothing that could be afactor.
We've already done all thestudies 15 years ago.
We know, we know, we know.
That's what I would feel guiltyabout, because then at that
point, what's the nextgeneration going to deal with my
daughters, who have daughtersthat we see this uptick from
400% to what?
600%, 800%, like enough.

(41:16):
The guilt comes from saying thatI'm okay with the answers that
have been given to me up totoday.
I don't like the answers thathave been given to me up to date
.
Now do I think the time and allis the end?
All be all answer for this?
More than likely no right, butwhat I appreciate is the fact
that we're actually looking intoit so we can try to figure out
what's happening to our kids.
So enough of the mom guilt.

(41:37):
I don't have mom guilt.
I want us to find the answerand the solutions, and I feel
like this angel woman shouldwant the same, and I'm
disappointed in hearing what shehad to say about this.

Speaker 3 (41:48):
Well, again, this is the deal when everything is
political and you're the hammer,then everything's a nail.
I mean, this whole article ispolitical.
They don't care.
I'm sorry, christina, this isridiculous.
I mean, did you make onemention of additional funding
and maybe they cut it out of thearticle?
I don't know, maybe she did.
Maybe she said you know what,at least we're headed in the

(42:10):
right direction with funding.
Maybe she said that and itdidn't fit into this ridiculous
article.
Okay, but it is a terriblearticle from the journal yet
again and again it is.
You see, and everybody'sexperience with this is
different, we don't want to tell.

Speaker 8 (42:22):
Christina how to act.

Speaker 3 (42:24):
Okay, but at the same time just sit there and say I
support Tylenol.
You don't know the first thingabout it.
You don't See, you're a momwho's busting her butt getting
to the end of the week.
You don't know the first thingabout acetaminophen and the

(42:44):
effect on an in utero brain or ayoung I yeah.
Okay, I don't play, I don'tclaim to.
So so to go out there and actlike you do is ridiculous.
You're being used as a pawn.
Okay, just, I really so sorry.
See what I mean.
It got even worse.

Speaker 6 (42:51):
But, anyway, so here we go, just to give you a little
bit more to show you howpolitical and nasty this
environment is.

Speaker 3 (42:56):
And after this we're going to have to haul because
we're going way over oneverything.
But look at this, and there arethese all over twitter and
tiktok.
There there are pregnant womengoing this route okay yeah, okay

(43:19):
, I just I don't know what totell you.
Like you're going to go drink aton of, or fire down a bunch of
, tylenol to send Trump amessage.
You're just that's.
You're just, you're not.
Like, what are you doing?
Yeah, what are you doing?
I just it's the same thing,like getting in these articles
just to come out for Tylenolbecause you don't like Trump.
You just have no idea, yeah.

Speaker 2 (43:41):
And so it's just heartbreaking.
It's just again.
It's just a house divided, andI hate it.
I'm so sick of the politicsbeing a part of literally every
single conversation, Like we'velost our senses.

Speaker 3 (43:52):
I think Okay, conversation Like we've lost our
senses, I think, okay, allright, all right, so I'm sorry,
so we've got this.
Next thing.
I want to just quickly talkabout an article from Jonathan
Turley, and this was somethingthat was a huge issue a couple
of days ago.
Google admitted that, underpressure from the Biden
administration, they censoredAmericans free speech on their
platforms, youtube, mainly hereit is.

Speaker 2 (44:13):
It says unacceptable and wrong.
Google admits censorship incoordination with the Biden
administration.
Google made the disclosure in aletter to the House Judiciary
Committee Chairman, jim Jordan.
It says, quote reflecting thecompany's commitment to free
expression, youtube will providean opportunity for all creators
to rejoin the platform if thecompany terminated their

(44:33):
channels for repeated violationsof COVID-19 and election
integrity policies that are nolonger in effect.
Ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (44:42):
This is another major victory for free speech, says
Turley here.
He says Google specificallyacknowledged past political
censorship and stated that itvalues conservative voices on
its platform.
Again, the suicide mission bypolitical or by platforms like
ABC, nbc, cbs and Google to justtake half the country and throw

(45:02):
it away is ludicrous.
That is one thing, that this isan ugly fight right now, but it
needs to happen for thebetterment of the country, which
is you cannot have onepolitical party in charge of
every outlet that gets peopleinformation.
It has not worked.
We've watched it.
Okay and, believe me,republicans and conservatives
will make plenty of stupidmistakes and overstep.
And, believe me, the Trumpadministration at times, which

(45:24):
we've talked about, at times,especially with what happened
with the FCC never should havecome out and said we can do this
the easy way or the hard way.
You know which, which happenedwith the FCC, which was stupid.
It was an overreach.

Speaker 2 (45:37):
Well, it's interesting.
I was listening to MarkHalperin yesterday and he had a
really good point.
He was talking about how bothsides have always tried to use
the government to try to like.
You know they want thegovernment to help fight their
cause or fight their side of theagenda.
The difference is is the media,which is legacy media, which is
the primary media in ourcountry?
It's their coverage of thatright.
So they will stick up foranybody that's on the left that

(46:00):
is trying to use the governmentThey'll try to downplay.
You know there's been a ton ofcensorship cases that have gone,
that Biden tried to have thingscensored on Fox News and local
television stations, all kindsof things.
He was getting the FCC allfired up about things too under
his administration.
You just don't hear very muchabout it, right?
You have this situation withKimmel and it's the world's on

(46:20):
fire, right?
So both sides have been doingthis Like I'm sorry, but both
sides have been doing it and atthe end of the day, you don't
want FCC involved in anythingunless it's like real, true
content that is damaging to theAmerican public.

Speaker 3 (46:33):
But this is even bigger, as Turley says.
He says the company for thefirst time meaning Google or
Alphabet admitted that ityielded to comprehensive
pressure from the Bidenadministration to censor
Americans.
It acknowledged that the Bidencensorship pressure was
unacceptable and wrong andpledged to resist such pressure

(46:53):
in the future.
Good for Google for doing that,I mean there's no doubt.
But this is interesting becauseit says the very figures and
this is what Turley says, kindof to wrap up the article, which
is super poignant the veryfigures claiming to battle
disinformation were suppressingopposing views that have now
been vindicated as credible.
That's what this is so scary.

(47:14):
And then you look back at thisTylenol thing Again, it's kind
of the reverse because thegovernment's coming out and
saying it with a lot of peoplesaying no, you shouldn't be
talking about that, shouldn't bedoing it.
But it's just fascinatingbecause he gets back to the
COVID thing.
He says it was not only the lableak theory, because that's
where we got hit on ads ordoctors saying I didn't believe
in the science.
Turns out we were right.
Right, right, ok.
In my recent book this isTurley I discuss how signatories

(47:36):
of the Great BarringtonDeclaration were fired or
disciplined by their schools orassociations for questioning
COVID-19 policies.

Speaker 2 (47:45):
Yeah, it says.
Some experts question theefficiency of surgical masks,
the scientific support for thesix foot rule and the necessity
of shutting down schools.
The government has now admittedthat many of these objections
were valid and that it did nothave hard science to support
some of the policies, whileother allies in the West did not
shut down their schools.
We never had any substantivedebate, due to the efforts of
this Alliance of academic, mediaand government figures.

(48:07):
I mean it's like we.
What we want to be able to dois have the conversation about
autism.
Have the conversation to seewhat could it possibly be.
Don't just say bad Trump can'tbe true, like you know, and I
would honestly say I mean I knowthat I'm going to get some hits
for this, so go ahead and makethe comments.
I don't even really careanymore, but I think Trump

(48:28):
overstated the message in hispress conference yesterday.
I think that him going outthere and and kind of just
making it about his opinion andhe did say this is my opinion he
did back it at least by sayingthat I would love to have seen
him to stay out of it and sayhey, listen, based on this
research that has been allocatedto us.
This is what we are supportingas an administration.

Speaker 3 (48:51):
That would be a cleaner message.
I think that's a really fairpoint.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
So I just I do get a little fiery about that where
I'm like oh Trump, stop likelighting things on fire for us,
like it's already hard enough.

Speaker 3 (49:00):
So okay, no, no, no.
I think it's a really goodpoint.
It's super, it's super fairpoint.
And again, this is part of theshow where it's like, when
something happens on our youknow what we consider the people
we agree with more our sidewe're going to tell you, and
it's exactly right.
I think Trump just speaks moreplainly and was basically like
you know don't do it, Don't takeacetaminophen, you know or
whatever he didn't even.
He had a little trouble withacetaminophen too.

(49:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (49:20):
I can't, he can't say it, I can't say it.
So we're in the same companythere, right?

Speaker 3 (49:32):
All right, we were graphic to make a broader point
on this, and this is theleft-leaning late night hosts.
What kind of guests they've had.
Okay, that's why if you own allthese different affiliates,
like if you're Nextar or you'reSinclair or you're Tegna, you
have late night programmingwhich forces you to the left.

(49:53):
They give you programming whichforces you to the left.
Just look at here and StephenColbert he's had 176 guests that
were the liberal or Democratsover the past few years.
He said one Republican, Okay,the Daily Show, which is cable,
but still 157 to nine.
Seth Meyers, NBC, 68 to nothing.

(50:14):
He wouldn't even have anybody.
I mean this is ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (50:17):
Yeah, Jimmy Kimmel's had 58 liberal Democrats and
only two conservatives orRepublicans.
Fallon's had 41 liberals orDemocrats on and only two
Republicans or conservatives.

Speaker 3 (50:26):
So those are the numbers and it keeps going.

Speaker 2 (50:27):
So, if you just look at the total numbers, a total of
511 liberals and Democratguests versus 14 conservative or
Republicans.
If you think this is anunbiased situation, it's not.

Speaker 3 (50:40):
And again they've done the dumbest thing ever,
which is turn themselves intopolitical honks for one side,
cut off half their audience andthey wonder why they're failing.
You know, stephen Colbert isgoing to be off the air because
he has failed in continuing togrow an audience Jimmy Kimmel's
done within a year or two, notbecause he is you know someone

(51:00):
who's of the left, it's becausehe cut off half his audience and
calls him stupid and doesn'tlike him.

Speaker 2 (51:04):
And right now, just to clarify, nextar and Sinclair
have both said listen, we'restill not going to air a show, I
don't care, I don't care whathe does.
We feel like our audiences havealready told us they don't want
him anymore.
That's a third of his audienceright there that they're now
gone.
So it's interesting to see howlong you give him.
Two years.
I don't even think he laststhat long, quite frankly.

Speaker 3 (51:23):
No, but they've got to figure out what they're going
to do for programming thatactually makes the audience
bigger, not smaller.
Remember linear TV.
The audience is shrinking, itjust is.

Speaker 2 (51:32):
It is.

Speaker 3 (51:35):
Beyond what they're doing, but then you make your
life even harder.
So there we go Now, another bigstory here.
Right, I mean, this is a superinteresting story.
This is top Democrat opposed toadding medical compacts to the
special session.
Now I want to talk to you aboutthis because this is super
important, okay, and I want youto understand what medical
compacts are and what's going onhere.
So this is an issue that unitesmost of the state of New Mexico

(51:58):
, but there are a few powerfulpeople that it doesn't unite in.
The governor actually gave awaythe game.
She pointed out to exactlywhere the problem is, believe it
or not.
So we're about to firmly jumpon the same side as Michelle
Lujan Grisham.

Speaker 2 (52:11):
So it doesn't happen.
Often it doesn't, but you knowwhat?
Enjoy it people.
So here we go.

Speaker 3 (52:16):
Here's a quote from the story to start things off.

Speaker 2 (52:18):
It says the interstate medical compacts
would allow doctors andspecialists to treat patients
who live in other states via theuse of telehealth or in-person
visits.
Advocates saying joining thecompacts would help alleviate a
longstanding healthcare providershortage in New Mexico.
Healthcare provider shortage inNew Mexico.

Speaker 3 (52:32):
This is big right.
We're short on doctors.
We could get doctors from otherstates.
You could see other people,telehealth or whatever.

Speaker 2 (52:37):
Well and honestly.
We have a child that's incollege now.
She's not allowed to see thedoctors that she sees here in
New Mexico via telehealth, eventhough she saw them via
telehealth in New Mexico.
She can't do it because she'sout of New Mexico now.
So these doctors are wantingthis to go through too.
The state is currently only amember of one such compact, the
one for nurses, and 10 billsapproving membership in compacts

(53:00):
for doctors, counselors andphysical therapists stalled in
the Senate during this year's 60day legislative session Due to
some senators concerns aboutlegal sovereignty and patient
safety.

Speaker 3 (53:12):
I'll stop with the patient safety.

Speaker 2 (53:13):
I know you know what's not safe for patients
Removing all doctors from themor not having doctors to be
available for them.
That's actually what hurtspatients' safety.

Speaker 3 (53:22):
But listen to that.
Ten bills died in the NewMexico Senate, okay, and then
you start to think to yourselfwhat's going on with the Senate
here, right, okay, so, as welook at some of this and you see
some of the details, just gothrough this too.

Speaker 2 (53:41):
So New Mexico is currently one of only seven
states that has not passedlegislation to join the
interstate medical licensurecompact for doctors, though
implementation is still pendingin several states.
Quote if you have no doctorshere and nobody can get in, I
don't see how you make theargument that you're leaning
into patient safety.

Speaker 3 (53:57):
Hello, Good for you.

Speaker 2 (53:58):
Governor Says Lou on Grisham this week yeah okay, so
that wasn't a rule of thumb.
So she's admitting that there'sno doctors here.

Speaker 3 (54:03):
That's not even yeah, and, by the way, she helped
cause that problem Right.
But at least she and make theright decision.
It drives me crazy.
She deserves great credit forthat comment.
She got a better one coming.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
Okay.
However, she indicated shewould not ultimately include the
compact bills on the agenda ifSenate Democratic leaders remain
opposed.

Speaker 3 (54:29):
Okay, hold on one sec .
Just give me one sec before youfinish reading this.
Okay, so what's going on is,with the special legislative
session, there is some limitedtime to do this and she wants to
include it in the special, getit passed and get it done.
Okay, because she has thesupport of most of the Democrats
.
She has the support of all ofthe Republicans.
She knows that she's got whatshe needs to get this through,

(54:51):
but she also knows if shedoesn't get this group of
collective senators on board, itwon't go anywhere.
They'll kill it, okay, but, but.
But.
But why would they kill it?

Speaker 2 (55:01):
But so, but listen.
She says, however she indicatedshe would not ultimately
include this contact, she knowsit will not pass.

Speaker 3 (55:07):
Ridiculous, okay, okay, here we go, here we go,
here it comes, here it comes.

Speaker 2 (55:11):
Quote I worry there are so many trial lawyer leaders
in the Senate that it getscaught there, Wow.

Speaker 3 (55:18):
Here we go and, by the way, our guys all the
attorneys in our Senate.
I mean that's giving away triallawyers.

Speaker 2 (55:25):
I mean she said it herself.

Speaker 3 (55:25):
She's like there are too many trial lawyers in the
Senate, they're going to kill it.
Yeah, I mean, it's unbelievable.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
And then this was an apparent this was an apparent
reference to Democratic senatorslike Joseph Cervantes old Joe,
we just talked about him of LasCruces, katie Duhigg of
Albuquerque, who both holdSenate committee chairmanships
and have expressed misgivingsabout the medical compacts Now
going on.
Most of the compact billspassed the House of
Representatives during thisyear's session and House Speaker

(55:52):
Javier Martinez, who's aDemocrat from Albuquerque,
recently indicated the Housecould move quickly to pass them
again.
Meanwhile, top Republicanlegislators have called on the
governor to include the medicalcompacts and other hot button
issues on the special sessionagenda.

Speaker 3 (56:07):
OK, think about this Governor.
Every Republican, javierMartinez, who we lit up last
week for rhetoric that's overthe top, has said I'll pass it
through the House.
Yeah.
And no.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
No, because we got some trial lawyers in the Senate
that are saying, nope, we don'twant to sign this, we don't
want to have telehealth help forour people that live in this
state.

Speaker 3 (56:28):
I'm telling you, you guys.
We talk about it all the time.
It is just we have leaders thatfar too often are grandstanding
for their own benefit, and ourhealthcare is being destroyed.
And what is the benefit?

Speaker 2 (56:41):
That's what I guess I don't understand what's the
benefit for them, because theywant to be able to sue and they
want to be able to sue and getmoney out of.

Speaker 3 (56:46):
I mean, that's why the medical malpractice rates
are so high, because we sue likecrazy here and it enriches
trial attorneys at the expenseof doctors.
You can't have both.
You either have to have somesort of tort reform that
benefits bringing more doctorsin.
I'm sorry, if you make thisenvironment too difficult for
doctors, they're not coming here, and that's what's happened and
, believe me, the wholelegislature on the Democratic

(57:07):
side does deserve blame for that, because that's what they've
created.
But you've got some Democratsnow that are like, wait a minute
, we do need to adjust.
We have a huge health crisisand we need to fix it, and
they're not doing it.

Speaker 2 (57:15):
So it's ridiculous, okay?
Well, this person, whoever winsCD2 race won't, unfortunately,
be able to help us with ourmedical care crisis, but could
potentially help us in the house.
So more candidates have joinedthe second congressional
district race.
Voters won't be able to castballots in the second
congressional race until nextyear, but the field of
candidates has begun to expand.
Incumbent Democrat Gabe Vasquezofficially launched his

(57:38):
reelection campaign over theweekend.
A retired Albuquerque policedetective, greg Cunningham, is
the second Republican planningto enter the race, joining radio
station owner Eddie Aragon.
Historically, the secondcongressional district is the
most competitive of the threestates' districts.
It encompasses much of thesouthern New Mexico, but also
reaches North into AlbuquerqueSouth Valley.
Aragon and Cunningham both livein Albuquerque, while Vasquez

(58:00):
lives in Las Cruces.

Speaker 3 (58:01):
Okay.
So it's going to be aninteresting race.
There are more people gettingin, so it's not just going to be
those guys, not going to bethose three.
We might have some sources thattell us.
I really do.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
I think that's going to be really good We'll continue
to cover that race for thosepeople that are looking into
that Right, and so this lastclip I have for you this is it.

Speaker 3 (58:19):
Okay, we're wrapping on this one.

Speaker 2 (58:20):
We are.

Speaker 3 (58:21):
We are Okay.
Is there some other stuff?

Speaker 2 (58:23):
No, no, it's great.

Speaker 3 (58:24):
Okay, good.
So this last clip is our guyare on the issues.
Now we know we've talked aboutthe fact that if you look at
Trump's numbers, he's underwaterright now and he's like oh,
Trump's underwater, Thingsaren't going well.
People are going to theDemocrats.
Oh no, Au contraire, mon frere,it's the opposite.

Speaker 9 (58:48):
Actually listen to what Harry Anton says about the
numbers right now, leading intoan election.
What are we seeing?
You know Donald Trump beingunderwater Democrats.
And all this guarantees uswe're going to fly high in the
midterms.
Let me tell you, thisguarantees you nothing.
Nothing, because at thisparticular point, the Democrats
are the New Orleans Saints ofpolitical parties.
What are we talking about?
Trust the Dems or GOP more onthe economy.
Who leads on the economy?
Republicans by seven.

(59:09):
Immigration Republicans by 13.
How about crime?
A big issue for Donald Trumpand the Republicans Look at that
lead by 22 points.
So the bottom line is this Atthis particular point, the ball
may be on the ground, but theDemocrats have not picked up the
ball and running with it.
If anything, at this particularpoint, it's the Republicans who
are running with the ball onthe top issues the economy,
immigration and crime.

Speaker 5 (59:31):
Give some context on this.
Compare this when Republicanslast took the House.

Speaker 9 (59:34):
Yeah, let's compare it back to 2022.
I think this kind of gives awaythe game right here.
Ok, the GOP is more trustedthan the Dems.
On the economy, it was 12points in 2022.
Slight, slight decline in thatlead, but still seven points.
How about immigration?
It was Republicans by threeback in 2022.
Look at this the Republicanlead's actually gone up by 10
points.
What are you doing, democrats,my goodness gracious.

(01:00:01):
And on crime, the Republicanswere up by 13.
And now they're up by 22.
The elite again expanding bynearly double digits.
So whatever Democrats are doing, it ain't working, kate, it
ain't working.
Republicans have the lead onall three issues.

Speaker 5 (01:00:09):
What's the reason that you are finding so far?
That's driving this.

Speaker 9 (01:00:13):
Yeah, I mean, look, it's all about the center of the
electorate, right, you win withindependents, you win overall.
And what do we see?
Right here, among independents,republicans still have a point
lead on the economy.
They got a 10 point lead onimmigration.
They got a 21 point lead oncrime.
The bottom line is, when youlook at these numbers, democrats
should call their officesbecause at this particular point

(01:00:34):
, even if Republicans or even ifthe public doesn't like what
Donald Trump is doing they ain'tnecessarily liking what
Democrats are doing, and itain't just a referendum on one
party you actually have to goout and beat that party.
At this particular point,democrats are not able to be
Republicans.
They still.

Speaker 5 (01:00:49):
And again, this isn't as Donald Trump came into
office.
These are numbers from thismonth and this isn't as Donald
Trump came into office.

Speaker 9 (01:00:55):
These are numbers from this month.
These are numbers fromSeptember.

Speaker 3 (01:00:57):
Yeah, that's interesting, yeah, I mean.
So let me just put a bow on allthis, and that is that when you
have an approach that is thiskind of lost for a message, you
need leaders who stand up andare going to need to redirect
their party, and so I get allthe whole.
Can you turn it into Trump orwhatever?

(01:01:17):
But when the center of theelectorate looks at your
approach on so many differentissues and goes, no, that
doesn't work, you got a hugeproblem.
And so I just I don't know.
Today is one of those dayswhere it's just everything feels
political.
I can't stand it.
I think good leaders transcendpolitical fights, but we're not

(01:01:37):
seeing that.

Speaker 2 (01:01:38):
Yeah, we'll have to see.
Okay, well, we promise to bringyou a few lighter stories on
this weekend.
I promise I'm going to findthem if Mark doesn't, because I
need his blood pressure to godown a little bit.
Okay, thank you so much forspending some time with us.
We have been asked how can youhelp us out more?
There's a few things you can do.
Go on Apple and Spotify.
If you're a listener, rate andreview us there.
It's really helpful for us.

(01:01:59):
If you're listening on YouTube,like and subscribe.
That helps us there.
Sign up for our email onNoDoubtAboutItPodcastcom and you
can also donate to the Cause,which is our podcast, if you'd
like, and you can do that on thewebsite as well.
Thank you so much for spendingsome time with us.
We appreciate your comments.
Keep them coming in and have agreat rest of your work week.
Take care.

Speaker 7 (01:02:19):
You've been listening to the no Doubt About it
podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it Podcast.

Speaker 6 (01:02:36):
No doubt about it.

Speaker 7 (01:02:39):
The no Doubt About it Podcast is a Choose Adventure
Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
There is no doubt about it.