Episode 235: Inside Albuquerque’s Stash House Scandal, Energy Reality, And A Tariff Firestorm

A 911 ping leads to an Albuquerque stash house with kidnapped migrants and a ransom ledger—proof that policy signals have real-world consequences. We unpack how sanctuary rules that block ICE coordination can embolden predators, why public safety must come before political branding, and what accountability should look like at City Hall. That urgency threads into a broader reality check: Britain’s step back from rapid net zero plans exposes hard limits on intermittent power, rising grid costs, and the arithmetic of energy density. Meanwhile, U.S. demand is skyrocketing—think AI data centers, electrification, and industry—while New Mexico families operate on thin margins. Price hikes don’t hit spreadsheets; they hit kitchens.

So we draw a line: pair responsible oil and gas with a national sprint toward fusion. Unlike fission, fusion promises abundant, cleaner baseload without massive waste, and breakthroughs are accelerating. We talk practical policy—why middle-class tax relief matters now, why energy scarcity guarantees suffering, and how investment in fusion can deliver both climate progress and affordability. It’s not ideology; it’s physics, finance, and compassion.

We also tackle a brewing trade storm: Ontario’s ad splicing Ronald Reagan’s anti-tariff remarks to swipe at Trump spurred a tariff escalation and a quick pullback. Beyond the noise, the question is context—1987 trade dynamics aren’t today’s, and resilience matters when supply chains shape national security. Add a government shutdown threatening pay for troops and federal workers, and the theme is clear: don’t outsource reality. And because real life isn’t all policy, we close with a jolt from our game cams—coyotes, a big bobcat, and a massive mountain lion caught strolling at midday.

Join us for straight talk on safety, energy, and sovereignty—plus the wildest wildlife clip we’ve seen yet. If this resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review so more people can find it.

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_04 (00:03):
Okay.
We got a good one.
You know, I was concerned aboutthe show.

SPEAKER_06 (00:08):
You were?

SPEAKER_04 (00:08):
I was.
Yeah.

SPEAKER_06 (00:09):
I'm never concerned because I already I know that
like there's always so muchcontent out there.
It's more I'm more concerned,like, are we gonna turn this one
hour show into a two-hour show?
Yeah.
Which a lot of people say,please do that.
Then you have the others thatare like, could you make their
show 15 minutes?
Um no, we can't do that.
And we also won't turn it into atwo-hour show.
So we'll that's what we'llpromise you.

SPEAKER_04 (00:27):
Yes, we will we'll keep humming along here, and
we've got a lot.
Obviously, it is Sunday gameday, and I have to say, the
video I'm gonna share with you,the best game video we've gotten
so far.

SPEAKER_06 (00:38):
The scariest video we have gotten so far.
The best.
The scariest.

SPEAKER_04 (00:42):
It's the last thing we're gonna share with you, but
we'll have it.
So a couple other things too.

SPEAKER_06 (00:45):
Also, it's not Sasquatch.
I'll go ahead and just tell you.
It is not.
It is not Bigfoot.
We've not still not seen Bigfooton there yet.
But we're waiting.

SPEAKER_04 (00:51):
In fact, we haven't seen an animal where I'm like,
hey, I didn't know that animalwas in New Mexico.
Like I have not seen that happenyet.
Yeah.

SPEAKER_06 (00:57):
Okay.

SPEAKER_04 (00:57):
But but the ones we do know that are there are
definitely there.
Uh so we'll get to details onthat.
Uh, we're gonna start off with astory from um a bunch of
different news outlets acrossuh, especially Albuquerque,
talking about a stash housewhere they are trafficking
people out of this house andholding them hostage for money.
And they are taking people inand they're bringing them across

(01:18):
the border from Mexico, stickingthem in a house, and saying,
give us X amount of money orwe're not letting them free.
And that's happening right inAlbuquerque.
We're gonna get to details onthat.
It's unbelievable story here.
And we're also gonna take a lookback, a couple quick clips.
There was one little mayor'sdeal that happened again.
Darren White, I thought, did areally good job with a quick
soundbite on that.
We're gonna talk about that.

(01:39):
I want to take a deep dive, andit's not gonna be super long,
but uh, but I want to tell you,I think the whole climate debate
is over.
I think the climate debate isover.

SPEAKER_06 (01:48):
Okay.

SPEAKER_04 (01:49):
I I think what we're about to watch unfold here is a
more realistic approach to wherewe are headed as a country and
as a world, to be honest withyou.
And people are starting torealize that this whole thought
of net zero, it's not even aconsideration.
Like you can't even consider itanymore.
It's not even a thought.
Now, the question is, is theresomething, is there a lane where

(02:11):
people who say, I wanna, I wantto get to net zero or I wanna, I
wanna, you know, get rid of allcarbon and everything else?
Is there a lane where people whoknow and are realistic and know
we need actual energy to run theworld and the some of these
environmentalists that arewilling to be honest, is there a
lane where they could cometogether?
And I think actually there is,but we're gonna take this and

(02:33):
take it overseas and then backto New Mexico, which I think is
some interesting informationhere as well.
The whole Trump Canada ad,that's a fascinating thing.
It blew up, okay?
It blew up, and Trump droppedanother 10% tariff on Canada
because they sent out adisingenuous ad.
And we'll explain why that is.

(02:53):
About, of course, my guy Reagan,my favorite president of all
time.
We'll get to details on that.
We'll give a quick shutdownupdate, and we will break down a
product that if it is real, is agame changer in my life.
And I and I I don't care thecost.
I'm sorry, you should know.
I'm purchasing it.

SPEAKER_06 (03:11):
Yeah, it's it's okay.
Yeah.
We'll we'll let the we'll letthe folks at home uh who are
watching today decide if theythink that that is a real
product or not.
Okay, Mr.

SPEAKER_04 (03:20):
Okay, mister.

SPEAKER_06 (03:20):
All right.
All right.
Uh well and then Sunday gameday.
And then Sunday game day.
Okay.
Well, thanks for the uhnon-quick tease off the top.
Good job.
Well done.

SPEAKER_04 (03:30):
Sorry about that.
I went a little deep.

SPEAKER_06 (03:32):
When you start giving me the rap when I'm
talking right now, need to doyeah.
Yeah.
Uh I'm not gonna listen to you.
I'm gonna talk as long as I wantnow.
So let's dive into this first,the stash house happening in
Albuquerque uh that has come tolight quite a story here.

SPEAKER_04 (03:44):
Yes.
And our and our friends fromAlbuquerque Raw.
This is where we pulled this.
These guys do a great job.
And so they break down policereports, they get a lot of
really good information here.
And so this happened a couple ofdays ago.
And so here are some of thedetails and what APD found out.

SPEAKER_06 (04:00):
Says APD finds Stash House with kidnapped victims,
and a man is charged.
Details a 911 call toAlbuquerque Police Dispatch
started an investigation in ahigh-stakes kidnapping scheme
that involved large cashpayments for ransom.
A woman let police know that shewas kidnapped and did not know
where she was.
The criminal complaint says APDused the phone call she was

(04:22):
using to ping a location nearthe 700 block of Old Coors
Boulevard.
Um, goes on to say that now,because of the investigation, a
59-year-old Francisco Galvez,who was born in Mexico City, but
has been residing inAlbuquerque, is being charged
with kidnapping.
According to the criminalcomplaint, police found a note
on Galvez with a list of namesand a cash amount.

(04:44):
The note had Libre, with thecash amount indicating how much
was owed to be set free.
Some had amounts of up to$18,000in cash.
Victims told police they weretrafficked from Mexico to the
United States and taken to thehouse in Albuquerque.
If they could not make theransom, a$300 a day charge was
added on.

SPEAKER_04 (05:02):
Okay, so hold on.
Let's just get a grip on andI'll let you finish this in a
second.
But but understand what we'retalking about here.
People are pulled out of Mexico,brought up to the United States,
put in a house in Albuquerque,and then their family members
are contacted and saying, if youever want to see them again,
send us these payments.
We're operating in the middle ofAlbuquerque.
That's what is happening righthere.

(05:23):
It's unfathomable.

SPEAKER_06 (05:25):
It's like the international, remember the
international kidnappings thatthey've made movies over.
Like I remember a famous MegRyan Russell Crowe one.
Oh, yeah, definitely.

SPEAKER_04 (05:32):
That's a big deal.
Yeah.

SPEAKER_06 (05:33):
Well, no, I'm just saying, like, I'm just saying
that like this used to be kindof a thing that we were
concerned about contractorsgoing down to work in like you
know, other countries and thatthey had to have ransom
insurance and kidnappinginsurance.
That's my point, guy.

SPEAKER_04 (05:46):
Yeah, okay.
Well, no, what the minute you goRussell Crowe, we start talking
policy, we're like, well, thenRussell Crowe.

SPEAKER_06 (05:51):
No, I'm just saying this was known to be happening
in foreign countries, and nowit's happening in Albuquerque.
It's like a role reversal.
Yeah.
That's my point, Ms.
Okay, keep going.

SPEAKER_04 (05:59):
Sir, zip it.
Keep going.

SPEAKER_06 (06:01):
Okay.
Um, Galvez said he would visitthe house and see some quote
friends, and he would see randompeople at the house.
He stated he would see differentpeople at the house when he
would visit.
Galvez denied being part of theStash House shenanigans, even
though the financial there was afinancial ledger of victims'
ransoms was on his person.
He was booked on kidnappingcharges and more than likely

(06:21):
will face federal charges inthis case.

SPEAKER_04 (06:23):
Okay, so here is Francisco Galvez right here.
And the reason he's beingcharged is because he again had
the list, had the amounts onthere.
He acts like, oh, just visiting.
What do you what are you talkingabout?
And by the way, uh from thesources we have talked to, uh,
he is here illegally.
Okay, that that's what we havebeen told from two different
sources, actually.

(06:44):
Okay.
And so as you look at this andyou see it, here's his booking
sheet right here.
He is from Mexico City and hascome into this country and
deciding to kidnap peopleallegedly and then hold them for
money.
Now, this is off the chartsdangerous.
I mean, this is why we talk allthe time about the fact that

(07:04):
when you advocate for,especially when you turn the
whole Sanctuary City thing into,oh no, we're much safer when we
don't operate with ice.
It's just not true.
It's a lie.
And the problem with the lie isthat it's one thing to be a
slimy politician who lies.
It's another thing to put yourcitizens in danger and to put

(07:26):
people of other countries indanger being dragged up here
because they know they canoperate in Albuquerque.
They know they can do it.

SPEAKER_06 (07:33):
Yeah, that's what the whole point.
I mean, that's what's sofrightening is that there's just
this, we have this reputationnow that nothing's gonna happen
to you.
I mean, whether you're homelessor whether that you're here
illegally and doing crimes hereillegally, those are two issues
that Albuquerque and New Mexico,just in general, you're gonna
get away with it.
So that's what we talked aboutearlier, where criminals were
actually coming in fromCalifornia to New Mexico.
Because they can operate herewithout, you know, being maybe a

(07:56):
little bit more under the radarhere.

SPEAKER_04 (07:58):
And and let's just be clear, let's go whack one
more time because I because Iwant to draw this very clear
parallel and just drive thispoint home.
This is Mayor Tim Keller in adebate with Channel 7 about 10
days ago, bragging about thefact that his people and APD do
not work with ICE.
And make no mistake, when wedon't work with ICE and we don't

(08:20):
allow law enforcement to worktogether to keep the people of
this country, this state, andthis city safe, this is what you
get.
This is beyond a dereliction ofduty by the mayor.
This is flat dangerous.

SPEAKER_02 (08:38):
When this started, when Trump started separating
children at the border, I stoodup in defiance and I created our
immigrant-friendly policy thatdoes just that.
This is a city that is saferwhen families feel safe to call
our police department.
And by law and by executiveorder, we do not work with ICE.
And that's the right answer, sothat everyone feels safe, no
matter who's in their home or nomatter who's in their family.

(09:01):
Okay, right there.

SPEAKER_04 (09:01):
Just it's ludicrous, right?
It's just ludicrous.
And by the way, as part of thearrest and what happened with
what we were talking about oncourses with Francisco Galvez,
the threat against the people inthe house was if they they don't
get their money, they're goingto cut people up and basically
disintegrate their bodies in abowl of acid.

(09:25):
Yeah, but yeah, but but ofcourse, this is about separating
families and about peoplefeeling safe.
Are you kidding?
Yeah.
Like I'm sorry, this guy, heknows what he's doing.
You take the debate and heswitches it to something that's
not occurring.
And he says, Oh, don't worryabout these other things,
they're not happening.
Clearly, Francisco Galvez'sarrest points to a totally

(09:45):
different scenario.
And by the way, just one other,remember, this is not the only
one, Adon Munoz.
I mean, we talked about him onpast shows.
This is the guy that beat up hiswife, threatened her with a gun,
threatened his kid.
Instead of arresting him,contacting ICE, and sending him
back to Venezuela because he washere illegally, they let him

(10:07):
back out and he committed amurder days later.
This is what happens.
So his whole argument isludicrous.
But the problem is it's onething to be again a clown
politician.
It's another to put people'slives in danger.
This is not about what he how hetries to frame this issue.
It's not.

SPEAKER_06 (10:27):
Well, he wants to frame the issue as like these
poor families being ripped apartby Trump, and you know, these
kids are left without theirparents and all this.
I mean, he's trying to like pullthis like heartstring type
argument when that's not, or wewant to make sure that our uh
people our immigrant familieshere are safe and they can call
on each other during domesticviolence cases and not be
reported to ICE.

(10:47):
That's the most ludicrous thingI've ever heard of being
explained for that.
I am like, what are you talkingabout?
The other thing that really,really, still really makes me so
mad is this talk about we'regonna have these national ICE
hotlines where you can call inand re find out where ice is
gonna be located and howdangerous that is.
And we just talked about that onthe last show of the spike and

(11:09):
violent effect you know impacton ICE officers and federal
agents.

SPEAKER_04 (11:12):
Hey, and guess who would love a phone call that ICE
is in the area?
Francisco Galvez.
He would love it because thepeople that he is allegedly
keeping in a house with ransomand threatening their lives, he
would love the advance notice.
Because if you think people inthat neighborhood are gonna
cross him because you say so,Tim Keller, because because they

(11:36):
can call, no, they're gonnacross him when they know they
have law enforcement of allstripes that are backing them
and that will help keep themsafe.
This is unreal.
And I I I I just cannot believewe continue to deal with this
and listen to a guy who iswilling for political reasons to

(11:56):
trade the safety of the citizensof his own city.

SPEAKER_06 (11:59):
I know.
And then the problem is you havesomebody like Louis Sanchez,
who's also on the ballot formayor, right?
And he is the one, he was thedeciding vote on keeping
Sanctuary City policy in place.
And people are saying, well, hesaid he's gonna work with all
you know all areas of lawenforcement now.
It's too late.
You had the opportunity, Louis,to change this vote and to push
back and appeal this policy.

(12:20):
And when you know the rubber metthe road, or whatever you want
to say, he chose not to do it.

SPEAKER_04 (12:24):
That was a gutless move.

SPEAKER_06 (12:26):
So to sit here and say, Oh, but he I would do this.
I would work with the water.
Well, he did.

SPEAKER_04 (12:30):
He came out in this in this journal debate.

SPEAKER_06 (12:32):
I understand.

SPEAKER_04 (12:33):
He came out in the journal debate and said, I will
work with ICE absolutely haveto.
Because that's logic.
And I do think Louie will bewould be far better on this.
I do.
I believe that.
I think I think that's a goodthing.

SPEAKER_06 (12:42):
But you had the opportunity to step up at the
time when you have power inplace.
You were in a you're an electedofficial that had the power to
push back on this policy.
You were the deciding vote, andyou chose not to do it.
And you come up with all theseexcuses now as to why you did
not.
I'm sorry, it falls on deafears.
It's it's too it's too late forthat for that situation, in my
opinion.

SPEAKER_04 (13:03):
But it can I just say one other last thing before
you lead it?

SPEAKER_06 (13:05):
By all means, by all means, sir.
You're hot today.
You're hot today, guys.

SPEAKER_04 (13:10):
Sorry, sir.
I'm sorry, sir.
But but I have to have myobligatory statement that until
we realize that this isn't ared-blue thing, this is just a
safety thing for every singlenew Mexican.
It just when we realize that itis not partisan to care for your
people and to keep them safe,uh, as long as it's partisan,
nothing's gonna happen.
But it but if we come over andrealize that it is not about

(13:32):
what color jersey you have on,not about what party you're in,
it's about leaders who say, Iwill spend every single day
keeping you safe.
I don't care what you know, whatcomes before me, I don't care
whose idea it is, I don't careif you're a liberal or a
conservative or a libertarian, Idon't care.
My priority is to keep you safe.

(13:53):
And if we have leaders who won'tdo that, you have to stand up
and say, get out of the way.
This is too serious for clowneryand politics.

SPEAKER_06 (14:01):
Right.
And I will say that, like, andI've said this before on
numerous shows.
When I when you were running forgovernor, I literally looked up
what the job entails asgovernor.
The number one job of thegovernor is to keep the people
in that state safe.
That's the number one job.
So I don't know how you justify,like, hey, we're gonna go ahead
and keep these violent offendersand we're not gonna tell federal
officials about it.
Son, right?
We're just not we're not gonnado that because we're keeping

(14:23):
what?
Who are we keeping safe?
I'm still confused.

SPEAKER_04 (14:25):
You're not keeping anyone safe.

SPEAKER_06 (14:26):
I'm super confused on, you know, they're helping
illegal families, immigrantfamilies.
I'm like, what about thetaxpaying citizens here?
That you have to understand thatagain, ICE is there's so many
people here illegally, they'venarrowed it down to the most
violent offenders.
That's who they're going after.
So to sit here and say thatthey're going after everybody
and they're breaking up homesand breaking up families, that's

(14:47):
just not true.

SPEAKER_04 (14:48):
And it's also a way for chaos to continue to ensue,
right?
When you have leaders stand upand say, we've got to stop this,
just make no mistake, when webring these stories to you, this
is what's happening.
So you can jump on the side ofcreating a boogeyman out of ice.
But the fact of the matter is,by and large, and we talk to FBI
agents, we've talked to ICEagents, we've talked to all of

(15:09):
them who who believe me, theseare people that are not
necessarily conservatives orRepublicans or anything.

SPEAKER_06 (15:15):
Especially some of our FBI contacts, I would say by
far, they're like, that's notwhat they're leaning in.
But they're saying, listen, ifyou had the list that we have
and you see the rap sheet onthese people that we're going
after and we're trying to getout of this country, you would
be begging us to get them outtoday, right now.

SPEAKER_04 (15:30):
And this is a great example of the arrests that
happened here.
Now, assuming he's guilty andeverything else, we'll see.
But obviously there was a stashhouse.
There were people being heldthere.
They were being threatenedwithin an inch of their lives,
and they were being charged rentfor being kidnapped.
Okay.
It's crazy.
You cannot allow this to happen.
There is no reason for our lawenforcement not to work as one

(15:54):
cohesive unit across local,state, and federal platforms to
keep people safe.
This is not a political issue.
But I will say, I think you seemore of these debates and these
things back and forth.
And you do, you know, thereoccasionally you hear some stuff
and you start waving thepom-poms going, there are people
who get it.

SPEAKER_06 (16:11):
Yeah, I do think one of the biggest reasons we've
backed Darren White on this onthe mayor's race is because he
will, he has been very loud anduh very, very strong on the fact
that he's like, listen, I'mgonna protect citizens.
He's a former sheriff, hebelieves in taking care of the
safety of people.
Here's a clip from him from thelatest candidate roundtable
discussion speaking directlyabout what he plans to do and

(16:32):
and how he would uh work on thisand why he's so personally
invested in changing the waythings are going here.

SPEAKER_00 (16:39):
My grandfather was murdered.
I know it from my own family.

I am I will tell you this (16:43):
I am a little bit harder than a lot
of people when it comes todealing with criminals.
Because the closer you are to acrime scene, the harder you get.
You want people to be heldaccountable, you want people to
face consequences.
We know here in New Mexico thatdoesn't happen.

(17:04):
We have a system, it's not, it'sI don't even know what to call
it anymore, but it's not holdingpeople accountable.
And by the time they are, it'sway too late and they've killed
somebody.
And so, yeah, I I yearned forthat time 10 years ago where we
only had 30 murders.

SPEAKER_04 (17:21):
Really powerfully stated, I think Darren did a
really good job there.
And I think it's so important torealize that, and this is one of
those things that's just a factof life, is that when you're a
police officer, and I can onlyimagine I've never done that
job, but when you see thesethings happen right in front of
you, or when you're a victimlike a Nicole Chavez, and you

(17:43):
see these things happen right infront of you, you become far
less Pollyanna about what ittakes to keep people safe.
And most people, I think, are onthe same page.
Most people are like, enough,enough of this.
But when you have people who areremoved from it and don't deal
with it every day and aren'twilling to sit down and really
look at it, I think it'sincredibly frustrating.

(18:05):
But I think more and more peopledo realize exactly what has to
happen.
And when you had these things inin the early 2020s, right?
You know, defund the police andall these.
It's ludicrous.
It's ludicrous.
And I think we need people whotake these things responsibly
and say, look, I'm I'm just notgonna let this happen.

SPEAKER_06 (18:24):
Yeah, I just I, you know, it's hard because you see
the all these debates on social,especially uh next door, for
instance, is a hotbed of kind ofinformation.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And it's people that are like,we need to be nicer to our
neighbors, not be so divisive,not be going after people that
are here illegally.
And I just, you know, I go backto the same thing.
You can be an absolutely goodneighbor.
You can also follow the law ofthe land.
And I think that there is acombination of both.

(18:46):
You know, again, we're nottalking about ICE officers going
in and ripping kids out of, youknow, the country.
That's not what's that's not thereality check.
That's kind of the uh, you know,it's just you're being played
politically.

SPEAKER_04 (18:58):
Right.
You're being played becausewithout that, without that
thought of, oh, they're tearingthe kids away, without that, no
one can make the case that theyshouldn't be removing violent
criminals from the country.
They have nowhere to go.
So you have to shift theargument into something that
largely is not occurring,especially in Albuquerque.
It's just not happening.
Right.
Right?
And this is.

SPEAKER_06 (19:16):
Yeah.
And so it's it has nothing to dowith like, yes, absolutely,
Jesus said for us to love ourneighbors and to love everybody
and everybody's treated equally.
But there are processes and lawsin place to protect people and
protect a country.
And I guess I just get I getfrustrated and upset because I
keep thinking, like, listen, I'mall about being kind.
I'm also about obeying the law.
And so, yes, you see videos of,I think there was something like

(19:36):
I several, several dozen peoplegetting citizenship in
Albuquerque.
They were taking theircitizenship like pledge.
Yeah, that's really cool.
That's a great opportunity.
We are the land of that, right?
But those are the people thatfollow the steps to get here
legally.
And that has to be in place.
And yes, that has to berectified.
And yes, there's issues withthat.
I totally get that.

(19:56):
But when you have 11 plusmillion people that cross our
border in three years underBiden's administration, and a
lot of them are violentoffenders, they have to go to
keep us safe.
And the fact of the matter is, Idon't know how you can put
everything in one basket andsay, well, you're being cruel
and you're being um unkind andunchrist-like if you're just

(20:17):
booting people, you know, you'reyou're reporting people that are
here illegal.
I mean, give me a break.
It like doesn't add up.
It doesn't add up.
So I just think there is still alaw of the land that we need to
follow.
And if you want to get to theTen Commandments about things
like do not steal, do notmurder, all the things like
that, these violent offendersare what they're what?
That's what they're doing.
So, of course, like even underGod's eyes, we gotta be able to.

SPEAKER_04 (20:38):
Well, but believe me, the biggest argument from
many though, who who advocatefor basically unfettered
immigration and and and notenforcing our laws, they
wouldn't know the Bible from ahole in the wall.
Really.
I mean, that's in very fewcases.
You do have some some groupsthat that cross that Rubicon
that's pretty rare, though, Iwill say.

(20:59):
So not that there isn't a aconscientious left in the faith
community that that does.
And I respect those people whostand up and say that.
I disagree with them, and Idon't actually think a lot of
scripture backs them up.
There, there's plenty ofscripture uh that that speaks
very clearly about God raisingup people and that you follow
the laws of your country.
Like that that's in that's not,you know, that's there.

SPEAKER_06 (21:19):
Right.
You know, so okay, so just aquick reminder, I keep plugging
this, but early voting is umMonday through Saturday, 10 to 7
at most early voting locations.
And so make sure if you haven'tbeen out there to vote yet, you
get on it.
And again, one final plug forCourtney Jackson.
She's running for school board,Dan Lewis and Renee Grout.
They're voting for you, they'rebackup for uh great job.

(21:41):
And of course, Darren White fromAir is our recommendation.
So anyway, okay, let's move on.
Let's talk a little climatechange.

SPEAKER_04 (21:46):
Yes, I want to talk about something here, and we're
gonna start across the pond.

SPEAKER_06 (21:50):
Okay.
Because now Can you do it in aBritish accent?

SPEAKER_04 (21:52):
Uh, you know, it's a good question.
I used to be better at accentsthan I am.
I can't pick them out of nowhereanymore.

SPEAKER_06 (21:58):
You were better at accents.
When were you getting away?

SPEAKER_04 (22:00):
I was great.
I was great.
I was legendary.
When?
Yeah, my twenty my twenties andthirties.
I was just gonna do that.

SPEAKER_06 (22:03):
I've known you in your 20s and 30s, and I don't
recall you having a greataccent.
I think you can do like fletch.
I think we need to get in.
You could do like fletch, TommyBulls.

SPEAKER_04 (22:10):
Fletch isn't a fletch is just a line.

SPEAKER_06 (22:12):
I know, that's what I'm saying.
You can do movie lines reallywell.
I'm not sure I've heard you doan accent.

SPEAKER_04 (22:16):
I don't think you needed to crash the show on
that.
Uh, but so we just I'm justasking, I'm just pulling out
what you're saying.

SPEAKER_06 (22:22):
That's all I'm saying.

SPEAKER_04 (22:23):
Okay, I want to I want to start with this because
uh so the whole climate changemovement, when you look at a lot
of different issues, they hitEurope before they hit the
United States.
Okay.
A lot of the men and women'ssports stuff, all that sort of
thing, that was in Europe beforeit ever came here.
They went way left on it andthen came back, right?
And the climate change issue isone that's been very similar.

(22:46):
In Europe, they were way aheadof where we are, pushing for net
zero, pushing for renewables,pushing for getting rid of oil
and gas.
Uh, Germany got, you know,basically, and in some parts of
France, but Germany too gettingrid of nuclear and then moving
toward renewables.
The results have beenuniversally devastating.
Okay.

(23:06):
Economically, it is absolutely anon-starter.
Okay, so I I pulled this articlefrom the Wall Street Journal,
which I want you to read alittle bit of so people
understand what's going on inBritain right now, because
they're having to just basicallyscrap the net zero, meaning by
2030, they were trying to get tonet zero.
I'll have you read this firstand then I'll explain why it's

(23:29):
important to New Mexico and theUnited States.

SPEAKER_06 (23:31):
Okay, so the head the headline says Britain nears
its net zero breaking point.
Voters are fed up with risingenergy costs, and politicians
are worried.
Um, so this is Keir Starmer.
He is the prime minister, and itsays here uh uh he is preparing
to ditch his promise to shift95% of Britain's electricity
generation to renewables by2030.

SPEAKER_04 (23:50):
That's crazy high, crazy quick.
But anyway, go ahead.

SPEAKER_06 (23:52):
The Guardian newspaper reported this week.
Mr.
Starmer's office denied it, butevery other word and deed from
his government suggests thereport is correct.
Now, basically, he's saying thatBritain can't afford any of
this.
Chancellor of uh I don't know,Chancellor of the Exquitter?

SPEAKER_04 (24:08):
Yeah, I don't know what that is, but Rachel Reeves,
anyway.

SPEAKER_06 (24:11):
Okay, Rachel Reeves is struggling to balance the
books ahead of the new annualbudget to be released next
month.
Big tax increases are expected,and Mr.
Starmer may need to re try againto push through some reforms in
social spending.
All that will be hard to do ifthey're also shoveling billions
of pounds into nebulous quoteenergy transition.
Costs are already killing thebreaths, especially when

(24:32):
businesses and householdsalready are chafing under the
costs of transition to date.
British industry has long paidelectricity rates among the
highest in Europe.
Consumers are also paying moreowing to the growing cost of
building new power lines toconnect wind and solar and
escalating balancing costs tosupply electricity when
intermittent renewable sourcesare not generating.

(24:55):
Um, I'll wait.

SPEAKER_04 (24:56):
Let's wait on that last line.
Okay.
So what's basically happeninghere is uh the UK and more
specifically Britain iscollapsing under the fact that
they can't do what they'retrying to do.
Uh renewable resources aren'tnearly enough to power them.
They're not.
Costs are too high.
Their people can't afford it, itcan't be done.
It just cannot be done.
Like, there is no, like, oh, ifwe do this and we do this, we

(25:17):
add a tax here, add it.
You can't do it.
People can't afford it.
They're getting crushed.
Okay, that's what's importanthere.
Okay.
And so when you look at this andyou say, well, if it's not
working in the UK, how would itwork here?
So, but the last line that youwere gonna read.

SPEAKER_06 (25:31):
Well, it says, uh, the climate left won't go down
without a fight and is waging arearguard action to hold Mr.
Starmer to his renewablepromise.
He may change his mind thisautumn.
Still, it's progress that he'seven thinking about ditching
labor's climate obsession.
Reality generally wins in theend.

SPEAKER_04 (25:48):
Right.
And so, you know, labor is kindof the left party in in the UK,
and he's backing off of this.
And so, you know, and otherpolitical parties in the UK are
like, yeah, this isn't even,it's not even a consideration.
Okay.
So let's carry it back here tothe United States and more
specifically to New Mexico.
Article in the journal a coupleof days ago, data centers could
drive up energy demand.

(26:08):
No kidding.
Okay.
So this is an article that's notworth reading.
I read it, so you didn't haveto.
Um, but but the point being, AI,data centers energy need is
exploding.
Like there's no other way aroundit.
Like we're we're so theconsideration that you can take
any sort of energy off the tableis ludicrous.
It's not happening.
You're not going to be able todo it.

(26:30):
If you were to do it, you wouldimmeasurably increase suffering
in the state of New Mexicobeyond anything that you can
imagine.
Forget the fact that 40% of ourrevenue is oil and gas.
Just even just set that aside.
The people in this state cannotafford to have their energy
rates skyrocket because you'regonna go and try to set up some

(26:52):
renewable goal, which doesn'teven work.
Renewables, again, whatever withthe renewables.
But the fact of the matter is,wind and solar are not energy
dense enough to power thiscountry.
They're not.
You need too much space forthem.
They're not efficient enough,it's not enough.
It's not even close to enough.
So that discussion, I'm justgonna set aside because it's
ridiculous.

(27:12):
So we need oil and gas.
And if you want to have somerenewables, fine.
Renewables as well.
Okay, but there's more we'regonna have to do.
But here's the problem in thestate of New Mexico.
Where are we on income in thestate of New Mexico?
We're in the bottom 10 in thecountry on total median income.
So if you look where we are andwe focus in here, the average
person in the state of NewMexico makes roughly$35,000 a

(27:36):
year.
Okay.
That's the average singleperson.
Okay.
And then household, as we slideover, is about$72,000.
That puts us in the bottom 10 inthe country.
Okay.
That's number one.
Again, we have a richgovernment.
They have three billion dollarsof surplus money every single
year.
It's ludicrous, okay?
How rich the government isversus how much people are

(27:58):
struggling.
Now.

SPEAKER_06 (27:59):
And we've asked for rebates multiple times.

SPEAKER_04 (28:01):
Not only rebates, and we'll get into that in just
a second.
Tax breaks, all kinds of things.

SPEAKER_06 (28:04):
I mean, and you've you offered so many of these
when you were running forgovernor, and she called you a
socialist because of some of theprocess, the processes that you
wanted to put in place.
That's ludicrous.
Just to give money back topeople that are hard-working in
Mexico.
Let me just forget that.

SPEAKER_04 (28:14):
Money that they earned, by the way.
Um, okay, sorry.
So then you look at SNAPbenefits, okay?
Meaning food stamps.
We have the highest number ofpeople in the country on food
stamps.
21.2%.
Okay.
Nobody, nobody has more than wedo.
Medicaid, we have the highestnumber of people on Medicaid.
Just a couple of quick stats onthis right here.

(28:36):
Burst, 55% of the children bornthat's covered under Medicaid.
More than half, okay, are underMedicaid, government assistance.
Children, 61% of children arecovered under our Medicaid
program.
Okay.
If you're working with adisability, odds are you're on
Medicaid.
Not a total surprise there.

(28:57):
Nursing home residents, mostnursing home residents fall
under Medicaid.
Okay.
So the point I'm making to youin all of this is we and
especially our families in thisstate and working families who
bust their butts every day areon the edge of their financial
ability to sustain and survive.
Okay.
So to go in and believe that youcould go jack up their rates or

(29:21):
go in and think you can go tonet zero, which they've already
found out in Europe doesn'twork, it's not going to work
here.
It's just not going to happen.

SPEAKER_06 (29:28):
And so I think that that's the the to me, the the
throwback on that and theinformation to follow through on
that is when you're looking atpeople that you're voting for in
our state to rule as leadership,when they are pushing the
environmental side of things,the solar and the wind and
things of that nature, you needto show caution to that because
it will absolutely impact yourbottom line.
It does.

SPEAKER_04 (29:48):
I don't even know that you need to show caution as
much as you need to say, yeah,it's not possible.
I mean, it's I know but I think.
The piggly wiggly and go get adrink.
You're like, yeah, but there'sno unicorn.
Like, there's no unicorn again.
What are you talking about?
Right.
And so that's the thing.

SPEAKER_06 (30:07):
It's been a speaking point for I totally agree.
But my point to you now isopposing side.
And you've got people that arerunning for office that are
saying it's all about saving ourenvironment and less drilling
and less uh help for you knowanything else.
And we'll look into some otherrenewables, but right now it
should all be about ourenvironment and protecting our
environment.
And that really bothers mebecause it's disingenuous to the

(30:28):
people of New Mexico who arestruggling as it is.
So that's all I'm saying.

SPEAKER_04 (30:31):
No, no, no.
I think you're right.
You're totally right.
You're absolutely right.
But I think now it's gonna besort of a roll the ice.
Like this is gonna become a rollthe ice.

SPEAKER_06 (30:39):
Well, by for us, it is.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
It's not even I still don'tthink a lot of people put
connect the dots in this state.
That's what I'm saying.

SPEAKER_04 (30:47):
I'm not telling you what people are doing.

SPEAKER_06 (30:49):
They don't they don't think that solar and wind
energy is the unicorn mark.
They still believe in it so muchthat they're adding it and
they're they still believe inthese wind farms and stuff.
I know this because I I'm withthe people.
So this is what I understand.
I see it's out there.
I'm just saying, as much as youand I, it's like duh, no duh,
that this this stuff can't work.
I just think most people, notmost, but there's a majority of

(31:10):
people that still don't knowthat's a unicorn.
That's all I'm saying.

SPEAKER_04 (31:14):
Okay.
Okay, so fair enough.
And I will tell you that thejust pure weight of reality,
that that debate's over.
Okay, so now now I I agree withyou though.
People don't know it's over.
Like the game's over.
Yeah, I understand, but it is.
So that's over.

SPEAKER_06 (31:29):
They still vote for the same people.

SPEAKER_04 (31:30):
That's all I'm saying.
Well, well, whether they do ornot, it doesn't matter.
Those people who come in, theycan't do it any more than Keir
Starmer could do it.
Right.
Okay, so they're they're notgonna be able to do it, and we
need far more energy than thanBritain does.
So anyway, getting to the lastlittle graph here, okay?
One other interesting thing.
Who pays most of their income intaxes?
Who pays the highest percentageof their income in taxes, okay,

(31:52):
in the state of New Mexico?
Before I get to the solution andall of this, you could see if
you're very low income,$19,000or less, you pay about 7.1% of
your income in taxes.
And what starts to happen is,and Ella, can you make this a
little bit bigger?
As we start to get into if youmake, say,$20,000 up to about
$37,000, you pay about 9% ofyour income to taxes.
Then we get into the middleclass who pays by far the

(32:15):
highest amount of their incomein taxes.
Okay.
If you're making 37 to around60,000, you pay 11% in taxes in
New Mexico.
And the highest number is thosepeople squarely in the middle,
59,000 to about 115,000.
They pay the highest amounts.
Now, why does it go down as youget more money?
Because you get so much moremoney, right?

(32:38):
You have so much more money thatthose percentages don't take as
big a bite out of you.
Now, there's a couple of ways tolook at this, but when you look
at these numbers, uh, one of thesimplest things you could do in
the state of New Mexico iseliminate the income tax for
people making under$300,000 ayear or households under$300,000
a year, easily.
We could easily afford that.
Easily you could you couldafford it.

(32:59):
Okay.
So that's one little thing.
That isn't the solution, though.
The solution is very simple.
And that is when you talk aboutenergy and that we have to have
energy to survive, or you'regoing to kill people, right?
They're just, they can't survivewithout energy.
It's that simple.
We have to get serious about uhfusion.
Fusion is the future for us.
And I think we as a government,as a state, everybody should be

(33:22):
on a race to make fusion work.
I know fusion's been out therefor many decades, and it's
always seemed to be out ofreach.
We're making more progress onfusion in the past five years
than we have in the prior 50.
Okay.
We are making huge progress.
Trillions of dollars need to bespent in developing fusion.
It has to happen.
And again, fission is breakingapart molecules.

(33:45):
You get all, you know, you geteverything that comes with that.
You get issues with nuclearwaste and everything else.
Fusion, there is none of that.
It is what powers the sun, okay?
It is bringing moleculestogether.
Okay.

SPEAKER_06 (33:57):
It also takes very little space to actually have
this take place.
It would.
And now it was one of Mark'sspeaking points on the campaign.
So I learned a lot about the andI'm not going to learn a lot
about that.

SPEAKER_04 (34:06):
I'm not going to dive a bunch into fusion, but I
will just tell you that's theissue, right?
So now it is you either investin fusion or or you're going to
see a massive problem.
We're going to have a desert ofenergy and we're not going to
have enough energy to powereverything we need.
So to me, this needs to bepriority number one.
So it was very interesting to methis week that energy secretary

(34:26):
Chris Wright stood up andstarted talking about what the
Trump administration wants to doin relation to fusion.

SPEAKER_03 (34:35):
Energy matters.
More is better.
More produced from the UnitedStates is better.
We can bring peace andprosperity by having more
energy.
So he is all in on this.
Is President Trump going to beall in on fusion?
Absolutely.
In fact, you'll see uh you willsee announcements on this in the
future.
So I could not be more excitedat the time.

(34:57):
I thank everyone in this roomwho's working in AI, who's
working in fusion, who's drivinginnovation.
We're going to get the fusionball moving.
I think we will see moreprogress in the next five or ten
years, much more progress thanin than in all of the history
before on fusion.
To everyone sitting in thisroom, we're finally going to see
the reality of fusion come.

(35:19):
First in the electricity grid,ultimately in industrial process
heat to make things.
And hopefully we can rapidlyscale that up as we figure out
the most efficient topographyand technologies to harness
fusion.

SPEAKER_04 (35:33):
So, my point in all of this is that the whole
thought process ofdecarbonization and you know
getting rid of oil and gas, youcan't do it.
Can't be done.
Don't even bother.
It's just not.
Plus, nobody does it better andcleaner than we do in this
country, and we'll continue todo that.
And especially in this state,we're great at it.
But then in this state as well,and in the country, go after

(35:54):
fusion.
It has to be done.
And if you're a trueenvironmentalist who really does
care about people not sufferingand you care about the
environment, then you should beall over fusion.
And if you're not, then you arespecifically looking for an
off-road for that will lead youdirectly to human suffering.
And you have to know that.
And if you don't, you're notbeing honest with yourself.

SPEAKER_06 (36:12):
Well, what's interesting is I don't have a
lot of details on this, but Idid, I was looking at this short
video clip and it was talkingabout how some of the biggest
leaders in technology space, andyou know, I don't want to name
the companies because I don'twant to name them inaccurately,
but think of the big boys on theinternet, so to speak.
Okay.
Kind of those are the companiesthat I read about.
Again, I can't verify it, so Idon't want to say it verbatim,
but all of those companies arealready pre-buying this energy

(36:37):
you're talking about.
They're trying to pre-buy,they're trying to get in because
they know that like things thatthey're doing with AI and the
manufacturing that they'reputting into place is the new
technologies that they'rebringing in, how much energy
source it needs.
They're talking about pre-buyingup some of this energy.

SPEAKER_04 (36:50):
Well, it's not even pre-buying.

SPEAKER_06 (36:52):
Which is crazy to me because it just shows you that
they already know they're aheadof it.
They're saying we need so muchmore energy than what this
country is developing right now,that we're gonna go ahead and
put some money down on to topre-buy it.
Like that, what was the article?

SPEAKER_04 (37:05):
Yeah, I don't, I wonder what that is.
I'd be we should look into that.
I'll go back and look it upbecause I wouldn't have to do
that.
It would be interesting to knowbecause it isn't necessarily
fusion yet, because we're notproducing enough at all to be
able to do that.

SPEAKER_06 (37:13):
They're trying to get units, they're trying to
pre-buy units with the manager.

SPEAKER_04 (37:27):
Yeah, they're all investing in fusion, fusion
companies.
I guarantee you they're doingthat because they realize like
this is where we have to go.
So my point is this whole thingof carbon this, carbon that,
it's all forget it.
It does none of it matters.
What matters is what comes next,and can you develop fusion
quicker than that, say theChinese do and other countries

(37:49):
do?
And can we be the leading fusionproducer of energy in the world?
We have to be.
There is no choice.
There is no debate anymore.
None of that matters.
Because if you're on theenvironmentalist side and you
sit there and if you think youknow going net zero in the
United States would make a hillabeans difference, it wouldn't.
What would make a hilla beansdifference because China isn't,

(38:10):
because India isn't.
None of it matters.
What matters is we developfusion with an endless supply of
energy.
That's a game changer.
That's a game changer.
So until then, we've still gotuh great oil and gas supplies
that we desperately need in thisstate.
And then we pair that withfusion going forward.
It is the only path.
To me, this whole debate isgone.
So that's it.

SPEAKER_06 (38:30):
Okay.
Well, so it's some interestingnews out of Canada this week.
Uh, really a kind of a heatedtopic based on the tariff plan
with Trump in Canada, right?
Now they're negotiating.
They're doing some negotiation.
So as part of the negotiationtactics, I guess, Ontario
decides hey, we're gonna findsome old video of Ronald Reagan
discussing tariffs.

(38:51):
We're gonna manipulate it alittle bit, slice it, dice it up
a little bit, and we're gonnaput it into an ad that basically
is trying to embarrass Trump, soto speak.
I think that's kind of the deal,right?
So, do we have the ad?
Is that what that's in here?
Okay, so we're gonna show youthis ad really fast and then
we'll come back and talk aboutit.

SPEAKER_09 (39:08):
When someone says, let's impose tariffs on foreign
imports, it looks like they'redoing the patriotic thing by
protecting American products andjobs.
And sometimes for a short timeit works, but only for a short
time.
But over the long run, suchtrade barriers hurt every
American worker and consumer.

(39:30):
High tariffs inevitably lead toretaliation by foreign countries
and the triggering of fiercetrade wars.
Then the worst happens.
Markets shrink and collapse,businesses and industries shut
down, and millions of peoplelose their jobs.
Throughout the world, there's agrowing realization that the way

(39:51):
to prosperity for all nations isrejecting protectionist
legislation and promoting fairand free competition.
America's jobs and growth are atstake.

SPEAKER_06 (40:03):
Okay, and then it ends with Ontario Canada.

SPEAKER_04 (40:05):
Yeah, Ontario put it out.
Yep.

SPEAKER_06 (40:07):
Okay, so before we talk about it, let me just read
you a couple of headlines.
This is from the New York Timesthat came out with this.
Okay, so it says here Trumpannounces tariff increase on
Canada over the Reagan ad spot.
The ad, which will stop airingon Monday, used audio of a 1987
address by Ronald Reagan makinga case against tariffs.
Here's what it says PresidentTrump doubled down on Saturday
in his feud with Canada over atelevised ad that used audio of

(40:30):
former President Ronald Reagandenouncing tariffs, saying he
would punish the country with anadditional 10% tariff on its
goods.
Mr.
Trump had already suspendedmonths-long trade talks with
Canada, the United States'second largest trading partner,
on Thursday night because of thead, which had been paid for by
Ontario.
Though the ad faithfullyreproduced Mr.

(40:50):
Reagan's words, quote, just in adifferent order, Mr.
Trump has insisted it wasfraudulent after the Ronald
Reagan Presidential Foundationand Institute said it had made
selective use of the five-minuteoriginal address.
So I did watch the address.
I watched the ad.
Basically, what they did is theypulled things from his his
five-minute speech, they put itin different orders.

(41:12):
Um I will say it is what RonaldReagan did say in his address,
so that part's true.
However, this gets sticky.
So let's talk a little bit aboutwhy it's so sticky.

SPEAKER_04 (41:20):
Well, I I think first of all, the the you know,
the Reagan PresidentialFoundation came out and they
were furious about this.
First of all, because a foreigncountry going and taking a
former president's words andrepackaging them is a major
issue.
And let me tell you why.
My problem isn't that Reagandidn't say this or whatever.
My problem is these guys wentand took Reagan's words from 40

(41:43):
years ago and tried to applythem right now.
So I bet if you asked RonaldReagan, hey, what's the best way
for families to stay in touch?
He's like, well, probably atelephone landline.
Right?
Or letters.
Or letters.
Or letters.
Uh now, if you ask him that samequestion, would the answer be
the same?
Of course not.
It's totally changed.

(42:03):
It's ridiculous.
It's them taking a set ofcircumstances that we lived in
40 years ago.
They don't apply now.
In fact, if you take a lookright here, simple little graph.
Again, I'm just a simplemeteorologist, but I managed to
make a little graph on what'shappened to the U.S.
manufacturing jobs since 1979 or1980 when Reagan came in.
They've collapsed.

(42:23):
We have collapsed and we've lostmassive amounts of manufacturing
jobs.
Okay.
I mean, we're talking aboutmanufacturing jobs that peaked
out in the 80s and then justcollapsed when China joined the
WTO, the World TradeOrganization.
How much did we see just withChina alone?
Let's take a look at the thenext graph here.

(42:46):
And you can see we've lostroughly 3.7 million
manufacturing jobs.
Okay.
And then NAFTA cost some morejobs.
We are not the same country thatwe were then.
We don't produce nearly what weused to.
So to say and to take Reagan'swords and to move them ahead 40
years and put them on theAmerican people and say, hey,

(43:07):
what do you think of this?
It's ridiculous.
And it's completelyinappropriate what they did.
And so what bothers me the mostis they've just taken old
circumstances, old facts, triedto apply them currently, and use
one of our president's wordsagainst another president.
And to me, it's ridiculous.
And it was stupid.
And I think it's not going to goin their favor.

(43:28):
And I don't blame Trump forbeing mad about it.

SPEAKER_06 (43:29):
Well, and Frank Luntz, this is what he had to
say on um X.
He said, whoever authorized thisCanadian ad using President
Reagan to attack President Trumpshould be fired.
Americans don't like it in whenforeigners try to influence
domestic policy.
In fact, we hate it.
I love Canada because I loveCanadians.
They are wonderful, generous,kind people, and I mean that.
They also deserve politicalleaders who don't try and meddle

(43:50):
in American politics.

SPEAKER_04 (43:52):
It was stupid.
It was a stupid thing to do.
And it's just, it's ridiculous.
And I think that's the problem.
It isn't that they took Reagan'swords and made them say
something that he wasn't tryingto say.
But Reagan was dealing with oneset of facts that I think if you
were dealing with those thatsame set of facts now, knowing
all the support he had in theRust belt and areas like that
where people have lost theirjobs to all sorts of different

(44:14):
factors, but one of the biggestones being trade, he would have
a different approach.
But we don't know that for sure.
But we know this much.
Canada doesn't know it.
Canada has no idea that we know.
But here's what we do know.

SPEAKER_06 (44:25):
Here's what we do remember from Reagan.
He was about America first.
He was.
He was about rebuilding oureconomy because he came out of a
trash economy under Carter.
He was about rebuilding jobs.
He was about rebuilding oureconomy.
He would be doing whatever ittook to rebuild our economy,
making us the strength,strongest economy in the world.
So I think that it's fair to saythat that he would, he would,
this is ridiculous that they'retrying to re- you know, reuse

(44:46):
this against him when Trump'ssaying, listen, we're losing out
to competition on stuff andwe're paying them tariffs, and
then we're not they're not.

SPEAKER_04 (44:53):
The other thing too is right, the barriers for us
are much, much higher.

SPEAKER_06 (44:56):
Yeah, it's like, come on, let's even the playing
field.

SPEAKER_04 (44:57):
Right.
And the other thing is, look,you can have an argument on
tariffs too.
You know, there's no question,there are plenty of people, even
plenty of conservatives whodon't like tariffs, right?
Absolutely.
And then there's nothing wrongwith having that debate at all,
but going and trying to turnthat debate into one that where
it's Reagan versus Trump is wasa stupid overstep, and they've
pulled the ad since.

SPEAKER_06 (45:16):
Okay.
So I'm curious on that howthat's gonna happen.
Okay, so the shutdown continues.
Yeah.
Um, you know, I think some of usthought it would not last this
long.
I certainly did not think it wasgonna last this long.
Um, again, the consequences noware gonna start to have some
real dire effects on everydayAmericans.
Um, if the Democrats just do notare not willing to, you know, to

(45:36):
come back together and agree tothe a budget that was uh
approved under Biden.
So again, this is not like uhYeah, the continuing resolution.
Yeah, this exactly.
So anyway, this was kind ofinteresting.
We had what Scott Bessett talkeda little bit about this on Face
Nation on Sunday morning andjust how dire this is gonna
maybe start turning.

SPEAKER_08 (45:53):
I don't know what good it does to summon them to
the White House.
You know, that this is aDemocratic-led boycott, and you
know, I I'm just not sure whatthey're doing.
What's changed between now andMarch, other than Chuck
Schumer's poll numbers, and Ithink Hakeem Jeffries is now
gonna be primaried from theleft.
And I didn't think there was alot of room over there.

(46:14):
So both of them are worriedabout their primaries and not
the American people, not thegovernment employees, not our
military employees, because wewe were able to uh pay the
military employees from excessfunds at the Pentagon middle of
this month.
I think we'll be able to paythem beginning in November, but
by November 15th, our troops andservice members who are willing

(46:37):
to risk their lives aren't goingto be able to get paid.

SPEAKER_04 (46:40):
What an embarrassment.
Yeah, and and by the way, itdoesn't just start with the
military.
You got federal firefightersthat aren't getting paid right
now.
You got all sorts, thousands ofpeople that are not getting paid
right now.
And again, just to go back, inthe middle of March, there was a
continuing resolution, meaningcontinue to fund the government
going forward that Chuck Schumerand the Democrats agreed to.

(47:02):
But their base is so mad at themright now that they won't let
them agree to another one.
And so therefore, people areliterally losing paychecks over
this.
And it's easy to be a politicalactivist and be angry at your
elected officials when it's notyour paycheck.
It is incredibly short-sighted.
It is all politics, and you'rehanging families out to dry.

(47:24):
And it is something that I don'tand Trump says, why would I
bring them in to negotiate?
I want to just pass a cleancontinuing resolution.
John Federman, uh, Cortez Masto,and Angus King of Maine are all
voting for this.
All three of them are.
And every are 52 Republicans.
So you got 55 total.
We need five more Democraticvotes to get paychecks back.

(47:45):
And then you can go have aconversation about what you want
to do with healthcare subsidiesand things like that.
But you don't negotiatehealthcare subsidies and
budgetary items on the back of acontinuing resolution to fund
the government.
Chuck Schumer has more than adozen times voted to do this
exact same thing.
Keep the government open.
I get it.
He was right when he said that.
And they're right now to say,let's get on board.

(48:07):
And Besson's right when he saysthey're putting their politics
ahead of people getting apaycheck.
It is incredibly cynical what'shappening right now, and it's
terrible.

SPEAKER_06 (48:15):
And again, I go back to saying, listen, then why
maybe that whenever you uh voteto shut the government down,
then salaries should be put onhalt for all of our
congressional members.
I feel like that that's whatshould happen too.
If you if we can't pay ourmilitary, then we can't pay our
Congress members until you guysget together.
Totally.
And you make, you know, youactually do the job.
And if you're not doing yourjob, then you should not get

(48:36):
paid.
Another thing I'll just say thatlike leading this into the
holidays, I know this is not apaycheck situation, but you
think of uh TSA and you think ofthe folks that work on the
federal side at airports, whatkind of manic life this will
lead around the holidays if theydon't come to some sort of uh
resolution on this.

SPEAKER_04 (48:52):
And I hope, pray to God, that nothing bad happens to
with any staffing cuts or anypeople that decide they're not
gonna they can't keep doing thisand they can't keep, you know,
working at a job where theydon't get paid.
Now, I'm not sure that's theissue with what happens at the
airports, but still, it's gonnabe a huge problem going forward.
I just I hope they grow up.
And again, this just bugs me sobadly.

(49:13):
We don't send our best.
We just don't send our best toleadership anymore, and we see
that every day.

SPEAKER_06 (49:17):
Yeah.
Okay, so you uh want to showfolks this um yeah, Els, let's
do this.

SPEAKER_04 (49:22):
Uh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let's do this um quote ad.

SPEAKER_06 (49:25):
It's an ad or something.

SPEAKER_04 (49:26):
So I stumbled across this on Instagram.
I don't know if it's true, butit is a drone for skiers.
And so basically, the dronecarries you up the mountain so
you do not have to ride the liftchair.

SPEAKER_06 (49:38):
You know this is not real, right?
Yeah, it's a lot of people.
I'll decide if it is or not.
Okay, here we go.
He knows it's not.

SPEAKER_04 (49:42):
He doesn't listen to the end.
Here we go.
Here we go.
Carries you up the mountain.

SPEAKER_01 (49:47):
How to skip the lines on powder days?
Meet powder lift, a personallift drone built to haul you and
your skis straight to the top.
400 pounds of lift, 20 minuteflight time, and
auto-stabilization.
Just clip in and go.

SPEAKER_04 (49:58):
I mean, it's fantastic.
Just bring down the sound elseand just play it again.
Go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead.

SPEAKER_05 (50:05):
I don't know.
I mean, at first I thought itwas real.
No way.
Who's gonna get in a drone andfly themselves up a mountain in
the snowstorm?
But he looks like AI in thesecond clip, but not the first
clip.

SPEAKER_04 (50:16):
Yeah, he probably is.

SPEAKER_05 (50:17):
He looks real in that clip.
In that clip, he looks real.

SPEAKER_04 (50:20):
He does, he does.
But and I think it's just adrone that carries us.
I mean it's ludicrous, right?
I mean, could you imagine real?

SPEAKER_06 (50:25):
Am I gonna be both smart?
I love that.
You guys are my little skiers,you two are just wanting this to
be true.
Oh, I still want it to be.
So make sure that you you tellour audience that you're not
total morons and getting suckedinto some AI thing that's not
real.
There's no way it's real.
Okay, but I want it to be.
I know, I mean, you always wantit to be, but that doesn't mean
that's a good thing.

SPEAKER_04 (50:42):
But could you imagine?
Like you get a lot of things toget real.
You're on a drone.
You're getting, I mean, we rundrones in bad weather for the
mountain show.
Yeah, and and you see whathappens.
Can you imagine you gettingwhipped around in a snowstorm?
There's no way it ends updumping you into the side of a
mountain.
It'd be a disaster.

SPEAKER_05 (50:59):
A lot of people don't, including your friend in
a super duper bad one.
Yeah, your dad.

SPEAKER_04 (51:02):
Oh, yeah.

SPEAKER_05 (51:03):
Or that day you just wouldn't take the drone.

SPEAKER_04 (51:05):
You just don't fly the drone.

SPEAKER_05 (51:06):
But on a nice day, you would fly the drone.

SPEAKER_04 (51:07):
Yeah, everybody's just running into each other up
there on the mountain in theirdrone.

SPEAKER_06 (51:11):
When there's a wind hold on the lifts, you guys,
you're like taking the droneinstead of it.
Oh, yeah.
Sorry, fellas, we're gonna go towe're just gonna take this drone
up by the street.

SPEAKER_04 (51:18):
You would be you'd be on a cliff side within like
five seconds.
Yeah, no.
Uh, but I still thought it wasawesome.

SPEAKER_06 (51:22):
No, I know.
I know this is what you want tobe.
I want a lot of things to bereal.
I know.
Anyway, it's not okay.

SPEAKER_04 (51:27):
Here we go.
Sunday game day wrapping it up.
Uh okay, first off, uh, we'vebeen watching one coyote come
through the game cams quite abit.
Well, this one we got a littlepack going here.
So this is three of them.
You see them here.
So you'll see the person veryit's kind of creepy, obviously.
Yeah.
So there this guy walking away,and then you don't see the other
two actually come all the waythrough, but pretty cool stuff.

(51:49):
So we got a little pack ofcoyotes there.
And they were drinking out of alittle pond over there as they
came through.
All right.
Okay, another guy comes through.
This is uh Jimmy the Bobcat.
He's big, man.
He keeps coming through.

SPEAKER_06 (52:00):
He is big.
There's a little no-tail.

SPEAKER_04 (52:01):
Yeah, look at his little bobtail.

SPEAKER_06 (52:03):
He's a good size bobcat.

SPEAKER_04 (52:04):
He is big.
And there's a smaller one in thearea, but he's definitely the
biggest.

SPEAKER_06 (52:09):
Yeah, he may be mom or dad.
I mean, he's good sized.

SPEAKER_04 (52:12):
He really is.
Okay, and then so we were atElla's volleyball game
yesterday.
No, I'm sorry, but by four orfive days ago.
And I saw this clip come inthrough my phone, and I was
shocked because number one, it'sthe middle of the day.
And number two, the size of thismountain lion is incredibly
impressive.
We'll play this a few times.

(52:32):
Here, here he goes.
He's just massive.
Look at that tail.

SPEAKER_06 (52:35):
I mean tail alone.

SPEAKER_04 (52:37):
This is the best video we've gotten, I think.
Oh my god.
So far.
I mean, he's just a beauty.

SPEAKER_06 (52:42):
Yeah, I don't want him on a tree jumping down on me
as I'm hunting.

SPEAKER_04 (52:46):
Oh, you see, I mean, we walk this, by the way.
We walk we hike this trail allthe time.

SPEAKER_06 (52:50):
Hiking, hiking.

SPEAKER_04 (52:51):
Do it again, Else.
Yeah, there he is.
I mean, just stunning.

SPEAKER_06 (52:54):
Oh, terrifying.

SPEAKER_04 (52:56):
Yeah, and now we do have a pair of mountain lions
we've seen.
This one is solo, so I don'tknow, you know, whether what?

SPEAKER_06 (53:03):
Because could we make a call and just see if we
could get him like relocated?

SPEAKER_04 (53:07):
No, he's he's I think the way they work is they
have very large ranges.
So he kind of comes through,keeps an eye on things.
He's not there all the time.
It's not like he's sittingthere.
He's not there flossing hismountain lion teeth all the
time.
I've read a few articles onmountain lions, and they have a
very large range, and they kindof pass through that range.

SPEAKER_06 (53:30):
So the range, like say Wyoming would be a good
range for the room.

SPEAKER_04 (53:33):
I think probably like that guy, probably, I don't
know, it's 10, 15, 20 squaremiles.

SPEAKER_06 (53:38):
That's it.
That's still too close.

SPEAKER_04 (53:40):
That's too close to me.
That's a long way.

SPEAKER_06 (53:42):
Yeah, well, then it's 20 miles.
There's still somebody's dogright there.
I'm telling you that right now.

SPEAKER_04 (53:46):
They are killing machines.
I'll give them credit for that.
I know.

SPEAKER_06 (53:48):
They they take down deer and animals and people.

SPEAKER_04 (53:51):
Yep.
It's incredible, but hey, we'llkeep getting the good video for
you.

SPEAKER_06 (53:54):
Okay.
Well, you guys have a greatstart to your work week.
We'll see you back here onWednesday.
We're also gonna have a littlespecial uh Halloween episode
later this week as well.
So stay tuned for that as well.
But we'll see you back here onWednesday.
God bless.
Take care, and we'll see younext time.

SPEAKER_07 (54:09):
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 the meantime, you canfind us on Instagram and
Facebook at No Doubt About ItPodcast.
No doubt about it.

(54:29):
The No Doubt About It Podcast isa choose adventure media
production.
See you next time on No DoubtAbout It.
There is no doubt about it.