June 15, 2025 • 52 mins
❤️ A Special Father’s Day Call from Ava
We start with a heartwarming moment as Ava calls in from her mission trip to the Ivory Coast to wish Mark a Happy Father’s Day. Her update from West Africa is inspiring and a reminder of what truly matters.
🔥 New Mexico Heat Rule DELAYED — You Spoke, They Backed Down!
Mark tears into the out-of-touch activists who’ve never run a business but want to impose ridiculous “heat illness” regulations that would make it nearly impossible to work in New Mexico’s summer climate.
The good news? The New Mexico Environment Department just announced a delay in the proposed rule—and the blowback started with this podcast.
Business owners and workers pushed back HARD, and your voices were heard.
🇮🇱 Israel Strikes Iran — Could This Spark Real Change?
We break down Israel’s massive military operation that’s devastated Iran’s military infrastructure.
Mark and Krysty explore:
- Why this matters globally
- How it could lead to a brighter future for the Iranian people
- The fall of the Mullah regime and what it could mean for human rights
💰 Protests Exposed: Are Some Protesters Actually Getting Paid?
A jaw-dropping admission from a VICE reporter confirms what many suspected—some recent protests were not organic.
Mark and Krysty expose who’s behind it and what it means for public trust.
Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
All right, it's the no doubt.
Whoa Ella, wait, there you go.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Okay, all right, a little jarring there on this
Father's Day Unbelievable what aday it is Well and, speaking of
Father's Day, we're going tostart the show with something
just a little different and it'sgoing to be really quick
because we only have a second,but we have your daughter, ava,
calling in from Africa and she'son here.
(00:30):
I think we've been able tocatch her through.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Ava.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Hello guys, Can you hear me?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yes, we can Hello.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
Hello.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Okay, well, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Thank you for having me.
It's an honor to be on the show.
Hey, how are you?
I've always wanted to be on ano Doubt About it.
Podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Yeah, How's it going in Africa?
Ava?
Speaker 4 (00:57):
It's good.
It's really late here.
It's almost 9 pm.
I'm just chilling.
I've been here since May.
I don't know.
I've been here for like twoweeks.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Well, I think you've actually been there a little
longer, but that's okay, that'sno problem.
Give us a quick, just recap,for those of us who are
interested in knowing just what,like what, have you been seeing
and doing since you've beenthere on the mission trip?
Speaker 4 (01:25):
And knowing just what , like what have you been seeing
and doing since you've beenthere on the mission trip?
Yeah, so I'm staying in-housewith about 20 other people Every
weekday, or pretty often on theweekdays.
We go out to the local collegecampus and we talk to the
students there about God, andthen we come back here and we
eat home-cooked meals, which areall really really good, and
then we'll go out and do funstuff as a group.
(01:47):
We'll go shopping or we'll godo touristy stuff.
It's been really, really fun.
I've been to an orphanage a fewtimes.
I really enjoy it.
Yeah, that's the basic review.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Okay, well, and we actually had you patch in today
for a special Father's Daymessage.
So anything you'd like to sayto your dad today?
Yeah, Hello dad.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
You are such a wonderful dad and I'm sorry that
I'm not there.
I know that you have to havekind of a second great father's
day, with me being across theworld and as wonderful as Ella
and mom are, I know that theydon't it's just not the same and
I apologize for my absence.
Speaker 7 (02:35):
But I miss you.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
And I love you and I'm really excited to see you
just take off and soar podcastwise well, no, thank you, ava,
and thank you for taking thetime from Africa to join us.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
That is very sweet yeah, I'm really busy.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
People really need me , but I'm here with you because
I love you, so you're welcome,you are loved as well.
Love you too, kiddo you.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
You're welcome.
You are loved as well.
Love you too, kiddo.
You're doing great work, goodjob.
Keep going to the orphanage.
I know you guys have a lot ofplans to do some more work there
.
Thank you for calling in.
We love you and we miss you.
We can't wait to see you whenyou get back.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
All right, I love you .
All right Love you too.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Talk soon, au revoir.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Au revoir, au revoir, okay, all right, oh, ava, very
nice.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Yes, see, a little surprise for you.
Yes, thank you very much I knowit's hard when she's not home.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
I mean we talked about it last night that it's
getting ready to go to college.
She's going to college out ofstate, so you know she's going
to be going to college inVirginia at Liberty, so she's
going to be a ways away.
So this is kind of a littlepractice run.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
It's something.
Yeah, it is something.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
We'll see how it shakes out.
Ella, you hanging in, okay,with Ava not being around, you
being the center of attention.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Yeah, I'm fine.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I yeah, I'm fine, I'm doing well, you're doing great,
it's not a problem.
She's struggling real hard.
Everybody, okay of course.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Now I didn't line up the cameras right for the show,
so we're going to do a littleproducing on the fly.
So, if you don't mind justtightening the shot up on me
just a bit so we don't seerandom cameras in the background
, see the camera in mybackground, your camera, okay,
camera has made an appearance inmy shot.
(04:26):
Oh, and that's heaven forbid,oh heavens, yeah.
Well, you got to have a, yougot to execute.
So now what Ella didn't do wasactually put up our shot so we
could see how it looks.
She's going to take a guess.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
She's just going to do it for you.
She's going to do it Okay.
So why don't you give us alittle bit of a uh tell?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
everybody.
What's going on on the show nowthat we a couple of things.
First of all, a story we havebeen talking about for more than
a month, and that's the heatrule in New Mexico.
Ludicrous situation, but enoughpeople have stood up to the
environment board and said waita minute, this is crazy town.
What are you guys trying to do?
That's starting to push backnow, so there's been a decision
(05:00):
delayed and so we'll talk aboutthat and what they're going to
do.
We're going to talk.
The most of the show is going totalk about what is going on
here with Israel and Iran, andit's a massive story.
It really is.
It's staggering to watch howeverything has sort of changed
since October 7th 2023.
And that chain of events hasled to, I think, something that
(05:20):
was probably unimaginable beforethat point.
So we are looking at a regimein Iran that not only is going
to eventually lose its nuclearcapability that's happening
right now and they're likely tocompletely lose it one way or
another but could theadministration not really the
administration, but I guess themullahs fall in Iran?
It's a possibility, okay, sowe're going to talk about that,
(05:41):
and then we're going to talk alittle bit about what went on
with the protests across thecountry on Saturday the no kings
protest I think you saw mostand I will say I mean the vast
majority of it was really quietstuff and the kind of protests
that there should be.
You know, no matter what yourthoughts are on what they were
protesting, but there was a fewthings got a little spicy, but
we'll talk a little bit aboutthat as well.
(06:02):
And, by the way, just so youknow, we will not have a show on
Wednesday.
We have some significantobligations we have to attend to
this week but we'll be back aweek from today.
So just realize that this showwill be up for a week, that's
right and it was going to be adelicious show.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
And if you haven't had a chance to watch some of
our previous shows, because nowthis is officially our 201
episode, 201 first episode 201episode.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
That's good stuff 201 , everybody by the way, I want
to give you some quick credit.
Yeah, this is my Father's Daycard and yes, it does have a
beaver.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
It has a beaver, your biggest nemesis, on the planet.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
That is my, yeah.
Speaker 9 (06:37):
I found a card that had your nemesis on it.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
It was either going to be that or like a
Philadelphia Eagles card.
I mean, I don't know which oneyou hate worse, the Eagles or a
Beaver?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Well, no, Beavers and I.
We're respectful nemesis, allright, like all, the Beavers are
my personal nemesis.
The Eagles is not a goodsituation.
It's not one of thoserespectful things.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
What if I could have drawn like an Eagles little
football helmet on the?
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Beaver.
That would be a terriblecombination.
It really would be the worst ofboth worlds.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
And Ella, maybe at some point you could think of
something to say to your dadabout Father's Day as well.
I mean, I'm just saying we justgive all the oxygen to Ava.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
Well, I don't know if that's right now or later.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
I don't know what's going on, go ahead, go ahead and
say a few words to dad.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Unlike Avava, I am here I felt like it was more
important for me to make anappearance than to be gone, so
that's why I'm here.
Yeah, it's more important toyou obviously and thank you for
all that you do and thank youfor being a great dad, thank you
very much.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
It's getting emotional in here.
Speaker 4 (07:40):
I'm very emotional.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I'm very into this yes, I can tell, we can always
tell.
Thanks so much.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Let's, let's get right to this headline from the
Albuquerque journal on Sunday.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Okay.
Well, it basically is talkingabout this heat roll again and
it says extended process pusheshearing on New Mexico worker
heat protection rule to 2026.
If we don't have an answer forit, kick it down the curb, I
guess.
Is that kind of the takeaway?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, you get enough pushback and all of a sudden to
the credit of people in thebusiness community here they've
gone to the political types andsaid what are you doing?
So, let's start breaking downthis article.
You've got a bunch of clips onit and we'll just kind of walk
you through it, but basically,and give you a little bit of a
background here.
So here's what the rule wouldbe about, as stated in this
article by Megan Gleason.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Okay.
It says the rule would requirea slew of control measures when
the heat index, which is ameasure of how hot it feels to
the human body, taking intoaccount temperature, humidity
and type of clothing, exceeds 80degrees.
The measure includes regularrespite breaks, provided shade
or cooled areas, free andaccessible drinking water,
acclimatized working schedulesand monitoring for heat-related
(08:46):
illnesses.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Okay, and so a couple things.
First of all, what you havehere is a battle between people
who have to live with theserules and activists who want to
put these rules on top ofbusiness owners.
That's the battle.
So you have these activists who, far too often in the state of
New Mexico, have been able toget lawmakers to do what they
want at the expense of smallbusiness owners.
(09:07):
That's how it works in thestate too often, but I give some
credit to the pushback on thisbecause that's critical, and
then maybe we'll see what theEnvironment Board does here.
You know they've made somedubious decisions in the past,
but hopefully they will make thedecision that.
Wait a minute.
We can't continue to heap onour business owners all these
rules that are ridiculous andover the top.
(09:29):
And it's not that you don'tneed to look out for people that
are working in hot conditionsEverybody knows you do but if
you put out these rules above 80degrees, some of this stuff is
craziness, especially dependingon the type of work that you
have to do and that's broughtout in this article.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
So first let's start with the activists who have no
idea but just want more rules.
And they had quite a quote inthis story.
It's a no-brainer for CarlosMatutis, state director of the
national nonprofit Green Latinos.
Matutis grew up in San Antonioworking in the industrial light
repair industry before travelingto South Texas to work in oil
and gas industry and auto bodyshops.
He says, quote I lived workingin extreme heat.
I know what it's like to not beable to think clearly or maybe
(10:11):
even make good decisions becauseyou're so overheated.
I know what it's like to feelso drained at the end of the day
because you've been working insuch hot conditions that you're
not able to do anything.
End quote.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Okay, again, while I appreciate the pure emotion of
this and no logic whatsoever,the reality of the situation is
that if this is all you'reoperating off, if it was hot
when I was a kid in San Antonio,okay, I get it, but that's not
a serious discussion.
A serious discussion is whatline of work are you in?
What temperatures are welooking at?
What mitigation factors can wetake to help people along the
(10:43):
way to make sure we're good withthis?
All right, and again, is this aproblem we've talked about
before, where people are justdropping like flies and all
these businesses?
The answer is no.
But do we still need to makesure we're good?
Yes, and Carla Kugler, whoworks with especially builders
in New Mexico right RightConstruction New Mexico brings
up a very fair point as shestarts to discuss all of this.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
So she says.
Industry officials agree thatthere needs to be heat safety in
workplace, as Carla Kugler,president and CEO of Associated
Builders and Contractors of NewMexico, but they disagree on
whether this is how the stateshould go about it.
Quote you can't afford to haveyour employees become ill from
heat stress.
We want to keep them safe, butthe way in which the rule
describes it, we're having adifficult time seeing how
(11:25):
anybody's going to get any workdone.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Okay, and what she means by that is and we've
talked about this on this showyou get up over 100 degrees.
You start basically tipping thefact that, for example, oil and
gas great example.
Road work great example.
Okay, you go down toSoutheastern New Mexico.
You have an average of 50 plusdays a year where you have over
100 degree temperatures.
Okay, you're going to end uphaving people spending more time
in the heat tent than they areactually working.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Okay, so it's don't forget, it was like a liter of
water every 15 minutes every 50,every eight ounces every 15
minutes.
You're just like and then yougot to figure out how to get
them to the bathroom faster thanany time.
Right, right, you're spendingconstantly the balance is off
right.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
you're just pulling people out of the work, just
with no thought of actualreality.
It's just, let's make a rule,because I've never owned a
business in my life, I have noidea what it's like to operate
these people's businesses, butI'm an activist and I think you
should do this.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
And I would.
I would think that largely mostpeople that employ people in
the heat have have a game planto protect people from heat.
It's like starting work earlierin the day, or maybe they work
later when the sun's gone, yeah,or overnight, yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
All kinds of different stuff.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Overnight, those kind of things where the heat you
know they can manage thisthemselves, but yet we have an
environmental group decides hey,no, no, no, no, let's make some
more rules and regulations onthis.
We'll do it for you.
We're going to take.
Environmental departmentdoesn't have enough to do well,
or these activists, theseactivists who push them?
Speaker 2 (12:44):
yeah, who push them, and when you have an
environmental board who doesn'tunderstand what it is to operate
business in this state, thatyou have to work together on
this.
And this is what I do like iscarla coming out with her
comment and then jim garcia, whodoes, you know, has a similar
take on this thing and he did areally good job of laying this
out.
He works with the associatedcontractors of new mexico and
(13:06):
jim's been around this stateforever with his brother.
They understand these things.
They're not activists, they'renot trying to push.
You know sticking workers outand you know heat conditions
that could get them hurt.
Obviously, as Carla said in hercomment, she's like we don't
want our workers out of the mix.
We can't afford that.
We can't afford our workers tobe overwhelmed by the heat.
Then they're not working.
So they understand that samething.
(13:27):
So there cannot be this thoughtof oh, we're in direct
opposition to the businesses onthis.
We're going to fight thebusinesses on this.
The businesses aren't theseevil entities that are trying to
destroy their employees.
They can't do anything withouttheir employees.
They get that.
So if you have a cooperativethought in all of this, then it
can work.
But again, a lot of theseactivists, by the way, in the
(13:49):
article and you go read it inthe journal.
They're very angry that this isbeing pushed back because, they
want to stick it to businessesright now because, a they have
no clue what they're talkingabout and, b to them this is
about power, and if they havethe power to stick it to a
business, they will.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
But Jim Garcia says this he says, for example, he
brought up a hypotheticalconstruction project 30 dump
trucks are coming down the roadlaying out 300 degree asphalt
which requires specificconditions to be laid, held and
cooled, he said.
But suddenly operations mustcome to a halt.
He said, so workers can takethat mandatory 15 minute break.
He adds on you are on acritical path for keeping up at
(14:23):
that schedule and if you don'tkeep up with that schedule
you're assessed late days.
He says how do you bid on a jobknowing it's going to take you
through the May, june and JulyAugust timeframe in a heat
environment where you could befacing 90, 95 degrees, with a
heat index schedule putting youwell over 100 degrees?
That means there will be nowork done in the state of New
Mexico outside from June untilSeptember.
(14:44):
So it's wrought with all kindsof problems.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Yeah, I mean, that's just the simple things, when
actually people on the groundwho are working have a say in
this.
And again, the reason we bringthis story up and the reason I
think it's so important, isbecause it's emblematic of a
bigger issue in the state thatwe have to get our arms around,
and that is that we have to workwith our business community to
make this state more competitive, because if the activists get
(15:07):
to come in and say we're makinga million rules, then guess what
?
All the big businesses, all thebig employers, all the people
that can take low-incomefamilies and lift them up to the
middle class are going to goaway, and then all that's going
to be left are the rule makersand the nags to tell everyone
you don't get to do that here,and if you do that to enough
people, you don't havehealthcare, you don't have jobs,
(15:28):
you do not have a life whereyou can build it with your
family, and so that's just afact, and I hope we're waking up
to that in this state becauseit affects people of every
single political party.
So we move on.
The next person, by the way.
More activists.
Let's get a taste of moreactivism.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Okay, I have no idea why this person.
I can't wait for you to commenton this.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
I know, no, no, okay, let's let you comment on this.
Here's what I mean again by theactivists.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
They keep going.
They're mad about this.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Why do we have a comment from the this is the
verbiage used here by this?
This union rep is unbelievable.
Okay so.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
Whitney Holland.
She's the president of theAmerican Federation of Teachers,
new Mexico described thepushback as typical from
industries that are prioritizingwork over workers.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Okay, hold on right there.
That's the attitude of.
We want to fight with employersso that we have less jobs in
the state of New Mexico.
It's unbelievable.
This fight like this is whatthese activists do, and they
destroy the state.
They destroy it for all of us.
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
So her quote is I don't understand what it's going
to take to turn the tide onthat narrative.
The union is supporting therules due to what Holland
describes as, quote unfathomableworking conditions, with
schools starting earlier everyyear and some buildings not even
having air conditioning on yet.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Okay, you teach in a, in a portable classroom which
is hot.
Okay, are the conditionsunfathomable?
Speaker 3 (16:52):
No, it's just hot, so you do have to deal with that.
You bring in what you can totry to make the room cool which
is what.
I put up dark curtains on allthe windows conditioning unit.
Like a little window unit.
Yes, that can make air.
You can survive in it forcrying out loud.
And then you have fans.
We put fans in there and then Iput the darkening curtains up
(17:14):
there that I keep closed most ofthe time when it's super hot.
So there's a way to get aroundthis.
I mean, I'm not saying that I'myou know, there's no way that.
Maybe there's places that areeven hotter than this.
But give me a break on thiswhole and why she's in this.
Like, what are the teachersgoing to do?
Do they need to go and take 15minute water breaks during these
?
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Well, no, I agree, we don't want a classroom where
it's 80 degrees for kids.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Like you can't concentrate.
I totally agree with that.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
But that's not what this would do.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
No, and most teachers are smart Like if there's a way
that we can get morecirculation into a classroom, if
we need to take them to ashaded tree to talk about
something, we do those kind ofthings.
I mean there's different waysto work around this for crying
out loud.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Well, no.
Also, we have enough money inthis state to provide cooling
units for these.
That has nothing to do withmaking a new rule so that
everything stops down.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Notice in the quote.
It didn't say that they don'thave air conditioning.
She just said that the airconditioning units haven't been
turned on yet.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Well, okay, let's go ahead and turn them on earlier.
I totally agree.
We can all support that, butsupporting this is ridiculous.
So then we get back to thetimeline on this whole thing.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Okay, so NMED published the draft heat rule in
March and initially had a Julyhearing before the State
Environmental Improvement Board,the entity within NMED that
adopts rules like this.
But after several groupspresented strong support or
opposition to the rule, nmedextended the timeline for the
rulemaking and the EIB pushedthe hearing to November and then
(18:32):
again to January, due toscheduling conflicts, according
to the MNED spokesperson.
Okay, so they're pushing itback.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
By the way, okay, this is the author of the
article slamming the article alittle bit, but after several
groups presented strong supportor opposition, okay it is.
They did not push this backbecause they're getting strong
support for it.
No, they push it back becausethey're getting strong
opposition to it.
Again, a little disingenuousalways wanting to tweak this in
(18:57):
that direction, but the point isthis if you are a business
owner in this state, if you'resomebody who cares about working
families getting good jobs,contact the New Mexico
Environment Department andcontinue to give your opinion,
because it is making adifference.
It is absolutely making adifference.
So stand up and speak for thepeople of this state.
Again, nobody wants anyone tocollapse because of heat stroke.
(19:19):
There are things that can bedone.
This is the wrong thing to bedone.
Do not let people who want tokeep business and employees
fighting and so we don't havebusinesses anymore from
succeeding in this.
Don't let them do it.
It hurts the state.
It hurts families of everystripe.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
And we've had two other episodes where we have
discussed this in great detail,so you can go back and listen to
prior episodes on that as well.
Well, we talked about that aswell.
So, okay, let well where wetalked about that, um, as well.
So, okay, let's.
Let's get on to some moreinternational news, shall we?
Because this is definitely theleading story everywhere,
anywhere, any news station thatyou turn on, and this is um,
israel striking iran, and theniran coming back to israel.
(19:56):
I mean, this is, this isheating up very quickly, yeah,
so well.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
So, if you remember, back since October of 2023, when
Iran, basically, has beenIran's the number one state
sponsor of terror in the worldthey go and they prop up other
groups with arms and support totry to create terror.
That's what they do.
Their goal is to wipe out thenation of Israel.
Their goal is to wipe outAmerica.
That's their goal.
(20:21):
They've said it.
I'm not saying anything.
They haven't said themselves.
And so Israel really had neverresponded to Iran in any sort of
significant way.
Remember, iran launchedhundreds of missiles at Israel
during the Biden administration.
Israel and the United Statesbasically shot them all down,
and then Biden told Netanyahu,take the win.
(20:41):
And Netanyahu is like, no,because they are watching, and
the Israelis are watching, theMossad is watching what Iran is
doing with nuclear weapons, andso they see the progress they're
making.
Iran again, take them at theirword, because they say it.
They want to wipe Israel offthe map.
So when they get a nuclearweapon, that's what they will do
(21:01):
, and so Israel knows this.
And so they got down to a timeframe here where they were
continuing to enrich uranium ata frightening rate, to the point
where it was getting very, veryclose to them having a bomb.
So Benjamin Netanyahu stands upand says we're not going to let
that happen.
So here's what he said to BrettBaer on Fox News.
It is clip nine on why theystepped in now.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
That they intend to give these nuclear weapons to
their Houthi proxies and others.
And that's nuclear terrorism ona global scale.
It threatens everyone.
And the last thing is they haveplans to develop
intercontinental ballisticmissiles.
Right now, 8,000 kilometersvery soon.
Just add a little distance andthey can reach the eastern
seaboard of the United States.
(21:47):
These people who chant death toAmerica, try to assassinate
President Trump twice, kill 241of your Marines in Beirut,
killed and injured thousands ofAmerican soldiers in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Try to bomb a restaurant inWashington DC.
Chant death to America, burnthe American flag.
Do you want these people tohave nuclear weapons and the
(22:09):
means to deliver them to yourcities?
Of course not.
So we're defending ourselves,but we're also defending the
world.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
The world.
Okay.
So for those of you who think,do they really know this?
Do the Israelis really knowthis?
It's kind of a funny joke on X.
So look at this little tweet.
The joke among Iranians is thatno one knows in Iran where the
Ayatollah is, except Israel,because they have such good
intel in what's going on in Iran.
(22:36):
And again, you're talking abouta government that terrorizes
the Middle East.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Yeah, and explain that a little bit, just for the
people who don't know.
They have been fundingHezbollah and Hamas correct
Absolutely, absolutely and theHouthis, by the way, all three
of them Okay, all three of themattacked Israel.
So on top of building what webelieve, they have several
nuclear bombs.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
They're getting close to them right.
So, basically, they have toenrich the uranium to a certain
point and then, once they get itto that point which is that's
the big hurdle, because once youget it to that point, which is
that's the big hurdle, becauseonce you get it to that point,
once you, then you can get itonto a delivery system, a
warhead, basically, and so, andonce you do that, look out Right
, then it's Katie bar the doorand if you don't shoot that
thing down, you're looking at,you could be looking at millions
(23:19):
of people dead in one foulswoop, OK, ok, so that's why
it's so critical.
But you mentioned which is agood point it's the Houthis, you
know, hamas, all that stuff,right, I mean, they do
everything they can to spreadterror.
It's the reason that there'ssuch conflict between Saudi
Arabia and Iran and places.
A bunch of their neighbors areterrified of these guys because
(23:40):
of what they've done in theirslide into a country that most
of the people in this countrydon't want, the government that
they have, and we'll get to that, which is amazing stuff.
But I want to get to an opinionpiece on the Wall Street
Journal that you've talked about, and this is going to sort of
make some of this clear andreally what this gets to is the
incredible miscalculation of theleadership in Iran.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
So here's the headline.
It says one Iranianmiscalculation after another.
The Tehran regime pays theprice for underestimating
Netanyahu and Trump.
And then it says here how didTehran miscalculate so badly?
For months, president Trumpmade clear that he wanted to
avoid a military confrontationand make a nuclear deal.
He all but begged the regime tocome to terms and his envoy,
(24:24):
steve Witkoff, made a generousoffer too generous that would
have let Iran continue enrichinguranium domestically for some
years.
Atola Ali, yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Ayatollah Khamenei.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
Okay, dismissed it out of hand.
Who are you to decide whetherIran should have enrichment, he
asked?
The Iranians evidently thoughtthat they would pay no price for
blowing past the president's60-day ultimatum and his red
line on nuclear enrichment.
So long as they kept talking,they presumed they could string
along Mr Trump, who would shieldthem from Israel.
Tehran underestimated Mr Trump,who knew Israel's plan but
(24:58):
declined to expose or block it.
Democrats now criticize him forthat, and a different president
may well have preventedIsrael's campaign to eliminate
the Iranian sword of Damocles.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
I've read this like four times, so that's the only
reason I know that that loomsover its head in ours.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
Instead, mr Trump kept a flexible enough posture
to embrace the attack after itsearly success.
The Iranians also underestimatePrime Minister Netanyahu.
Who bet on Mr Trump has paidoff.
After direct ballistic missileattacks on Israel in April and
October of 2024 were parried, mrNetanyahu didn't quote take the
win, as President Biden hadadvised.
(25:35):
He knocked out Iran's key airdefenses, creating a window for
today's air campaign with MrTrump in power.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
OK, so right there, let's just start with the chain
of events here and just remembersomething and I want to get to
that they go on to talk about inthis quote.
They go on to talk about whatreally happened.
This is a good example of whathappens when you start stepping
into a war, you don't know whereit's going to go.
So when Hamas went over intoIsrael with a ragtag group of
(26:02):
people and absolutelyslaughtered more than a thousand
Israelis for absolutely noreason, when they did that, that
set into motion a chain ofevents that wiped out Hamas,
okay, that wiped out Hezbollah,because what happened was then
the Israelis went afterHezbollah and again they had
incredible intelligence and theywent.
You know the beepers exploding,the walkie-talkies exploding,
(26:26):
and they where all their, alltheir missiles were and they
wiped them out.
Ok, the biggest proxy, thebiggest fighter for Iran has
belonged, which Iran gave amissile after missile.
They were toast and they weregone.
Syria fell Right, assad's gone.
All of a sudden, they're notthere for Iran and then Iran
launches all these missilestoward Israel and the United
(26:48):
States, and especially Israelthemselves, shoot them all down.
All of a sudden Iran's lookingaround and then Israel says
let's find out how good theirair defenses are.
They go in there and find outtheir air defenses are terrible,
so they go wipe those out, andthen Israel knows, when we go in
there we've got air superiority.
So all of a sudden, these bigtough guys in Iran who are going
and pushing everybody aroundlet's be careful, let's cut a
(27:08):
deal with them.
All of a sudden, israel hasexposed them for the phonies
that they are, and now Iran'sgoing to have an issue, because
Iran's going to have a choice tomake, and we're going to get to
that in just a second.
But let's go to clip 15, whichis toward the end here.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Do you want to add something?
No, no, no, okay.
Mr Trump says Iran has a lastchance for a deal.
So how about this?
Dismantle Firdo and the rest ofthe enrichment program right
now, or lose them, and much more, by force.
Iran doesn't hold the cardshere and its leaders would be
wise to take such a deal, and ifhistory is a guide, they will
refuse and suffer more defeat.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Yeah, so Firdo is the big, it's their big nuclear
facility, but it's underground.
Okay, so start doing a littleresearch here.
And what's it going to take?
So the Israelis have a bunch ofour fighter jets, the F-35s,
right, they have a bunch ofF-16s.
They have a bunch of greatmunitions I shouldn't say great,
but very effective munitionsthat can hit the target they
want to hit.
(28:02):
Okay, but what don't they have?
Oh, let's go to 16.
What they don't have is a planeto deliver a massive bomb, and
that is the B2.
Okay, this is our big bomber.
Our biggest one is still in,our B21 is still coming, but the
B2 is what basically wouldcarry, the type of bomb that
(28:23):
could go into the ground anddestroy everything that the
Iranians have with their nuclearprogram.
The bomb is called the GBU-57.
It's one of the munitions.
Okay, there's a bunch of thingsyou would do, but let's go to
clip 17.
So the GBU-57 is a massivebunker buster bomb, okay, and
this thing, it basically has setof little wings on it and they
(28:46):
drop.
You can only fit two of them,by the way, you can only fit two
of them in a B2.
That's how big they are, okay,but they drop them out, steer
them in, and they're a precisionguided munition and they go way
down into the ground likestories and stories down into
the ground.
Okay, they can.
They can go hundreds of feetinto the ground and explode.
So that would be what it wouldtake to finish this whole thing
(29:10):
off.
So for us in the United States,this thing can go 200 feet into
the ground and then explode.
So that is the kind of thingthat is exactly what is needed
to finish this whole thing off.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
These graphics are actually very helpful.
If you're listening, it mightbe worth tuning into our YouTube
channel to watch these missiles.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
And there are three different levels here.
Okay, the first one is theBLU-109, basically, or IO-9.
It's a 2,000-pound bomb, okay,that can be used as well, but
that was developed in the 1970sand it goes down into the ground
about five feet, okay, and thenwill'll, then we'll explode,
okay.
But then the second bomb, whichwas the GBU 28, that goes down
(29:53):
further.
There's no doubt.
It can go down up to like, Ibelieve, something like 20, 30
feet, okay, and that will thenexplode.
But and that's a two-storybuilding, by the way 20 feet,
okay, so don't lose sight ofthat.
But then the GBU 57 is a wholedifferent animal altogether.
This is the massive bomb thatwould go down down to 200 feet
(30:14):
down.
So, regardless of how deep thisbunker is, I mean yeah, I mean
it's a 20 story building.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
So there's no way they're deeper than that, I mean
they could be to some degreeright.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
But if you get down and they think that's enough,
put it that way Now.
Would they agree, right, but ifyou get down and they think
that's enough, put it that waynow, would they.
How many, you know?
What order would they go inwith these things?
How would it work?
I don't know any of that.
Okay, so I don't pretend to bean expert on it, but what this
tells you is we may well have toget involved right, that's what
I was gonna ask you is.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
So this is the, these are the bombs that we would be
supplying and we no, no we would.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
we would fly the plane like they don't have B-2s.
Okay, all right, we're the onlyones with a.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
B-2.
This is considered our stealthbomber.
Yeah, yeah, right.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
And the B-21 is the next generation of this which is
being developed right now.
That would not be involved inthis.
Speaker 8 (30:54):
Apparently, it's not ready yet, so let's start with
Tom Cotton on CBS' Face theNation this morning talking
about President Trump keepingoptions open for whatever the
United States may need to do Interms of the line he's drawing
on military force.
Should the US involvement bepurely defensive and deterrent,
(31:14):
or should the US be willing tobe engaged in these military
operations?
Speaker 11 (31:19):
Well, I don't think he's drawn that line.
He's been very clear that alloptions remain on the table to
defend our own people, tosupport Israel.
But he said well, he said thatfor 10 years and he said it for
months leading up to this moment.
He said that Iran can make adeal and live happily without
death or there will be bombing.
So I think he's appropriatelykept all options on the table.
(31:40):
He made clear in the early daysof this conflict, on Thursday
night and Friday morning, thatwe back Israel to the hilt.
There's almost 700,000Americans in Israel at any time,
so of course we're going toprotect Israel and that we have
the best military technology inthe world.
And he said that he has proudlyprovided Israel with those
weapons both in his first termand in this term as well.
(32:00):
So so we back Israel to thehilt all the way.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
But he's appropriately keeping all
options on the table to the hiltall the way, but he's
appropriately keeping alloptions on the table.
Okay, All options are on thetable.
Now one person who has beenvery clear on this, and he's
somebody that some people in theRepublican party have a problem
with, um, because they feelhe's too gung-ho to get into
military conflict, and that'sLindsey Graham.
But I think what Lindsey Grahamsays here is interesting.
(32:25):
Same deal face the nation.
He was on with SenatorBlumenthal of Connecticut who
we'll get to in a second, by theway who started to make a
little pivot here, which I thinkyou'll find to be interesting.
But here's what Graham saidabout what needs to be done and
how they've come this far.
The Israelis have come this far, We've supported them this far,
and to go this far withouteliminating Iran's nuclear
(32:47):
capability would be asignificant mistake.
Speaker 8 (32:51):
Senator Graham, you said you believe it's in
America's interest to go all into help Israel finish the job.
It sounds like you meanoffensive support.
Speaker 9 (33:00):
So the worst possible outcome for the world is for
the Iranian nuclear program tosurvive.
After all this, how do youdestroy their program?
Through diplomacy I prefer thator through military action?
If diplomacy is not successfuland we live with the option of
force, I would urge PresidentTrump to go all in to make sure
(33:23):
that, when this operation isover, there's nothing left
standing in Iran regarding theirnuclear program.
If that means providing bombs,provide bombs.
If that means flying Bombingbusting bombs.
Whatever bombs, If it meansflying with Israel, fly with
Israel.
The worst possible outcome forthe world is to take the Iranian
(33:45):
nuclear program on and leave itstanding.
That will be a disaster, yeah.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
I think it's pretty clear.
I mean you know I'm not quitesure why that would be
controversial I mean you, youit's.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
It's as controversial for some Republicans as it is
for Democrats and I, like theTucker Carlson's of the world
are going to lose their mind,and who cares if he loses his
mind?
But yeah, no, I agree.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
I guess I'm I'm.
I'm not clear on why we wouldallow them to keep this when we
don't, when they are the numberone terrorist.
Basically back terroristorganization, country, whatever
you want to call them in theworld.
Why are we like, yeah, sure, goahead and build those nukes.
I don't understand why we wouldbe okay with that.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
Well, you're right, I don't.
I don't think we would.
And so it will be a very simplechoice for them you either
destroy that nuclear program orwe'll destroy it for you.
So if you would like to destroythat's what he means by
diplomacy he means going inthere and saying to the mullahs
okay, this is over.
So if you would like to bringin inspectors, we'll dismantle
everything and you're done, orwe're going to destroy it for
(34:41):
you.
And that's what the wall streetjournal piece was saying.
They've shown no ability to beable to make that choice and say
okay, we're done here, let'sget rid of it.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Well, weren't they kind of hiding from the UN for
years?
Oh, well, yeah, and then we'rebeing as like transparent about
their operations to start with.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
So why?
Speaker 3 (34:57):
are they trustworthy to start with Like, are we like,
oh yeah, let's trust what?
Speaker 2 (35:00):
they say I think this situation would be, you'd bring
people right in on the groundand just dismantle the whole
thing.
I mean, this is a wholedifferent level of they're in a
spot now where they have nooptions.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Okay, well, I'm sorry .
Then why would Tucker Carlsonor any other folks, what, what?
I guess I'm missing.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
No, he has been.
He has totally changed his.
He's one of these people whoused to say Iran is is the
number one state sponsor ofterrorism in the world.
It's it government with greatpeople that have taken advantage
of their people for decades nowand created this terrorist
enabling state, which ishorrendous.
(35:38):
Remember, in Iran, you have aneconomy which has been destroyed
by sanctions.
The people of Iran aresuffering because the world as a
whole is like no, we're notdoing business with you, you're
done.
And so, yeah, china does andRussia does, because they're bad
actors.
But, as a general rule, if youcould welcome Iran into the
world community again and removeall the economic sanctions and
you have a government thatallows them freedom, holy cow.
(35:58):
Now we changed our thoughts inthis country that we can't go in
there and give them freedom.
Right, they have to go, theyhave to approach this and try to
do it themselves.
But that's what we're gettingto in all of this, that I think
(36:33):
we may be looking at a situationthe other side.
Well, blumenthal did not dothat with Iran.
There's no doubt which whichwas smart.
So he was.
He was more nuanced for theDemocratic response to this,
which I think made some sense.
Ok, let's listen to him.
Speaker 5 (36:52):
Blumenthal.
What's your view?
How involved should the US get?
Let's begin with the basicproposition that ought to
motivate American policy as wellas the world A nuclear-armed
Iran is an unacceptable threatto the world, not just to Israel
, but to the United States aswell, and I support Israel's
right to defend itself againstthis existential menace, and I
support Israel's right to defenditself against this existential
menace.
I'm very concerned right nowabout United States personnel in
the region, our servicemen andwomen, but also the civilians
(37:14):
that are there.
I'm getting phone calls fromfamilies in Connecticut who are
deeply worried about theirchildren who were there, about
the hostage families.
I support the president'seffort to prioritize diplomacy.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
He's played it.
So that's the kind of thing Ithink that's smart.
I mean, look, you're not saying, go President Trump because
they don't like him.
I get it Right, he's not yourguy, that's totally fine, that's
politics.
But at the same time saying,yeah, we support some of what
he's doing here, because downthe road, you know, again,
taking the opposite side ofTrump every time hasn't worked
(37:51):
for them.
It's been.
It's been a horrible approach.
So this is a little bit smarter.
No-transcript you cannot have anuclear, you know, armed Iran,
now some of the other stuff,with people there that are
concerned across across theworld.
Right, and if I'll tell youthis much, iran is not going to
attack any US interests out thatthey would be, like that would
(38:14):
be, it would be over within twohours.
Their, their nuclear programwould be toast.
And they not only have Israeliplanes flying with impunity over
Iran, which they are now,they'd have US planes doing it
too.
They are now, they'd have USplanes doing it too.
They, I think, must realizethat's not going to happen.
So I understand Blumenthal'sconcern, but I don't think
that's necessarily going tohappen.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Okay, well, here we go with John Fetterman again.
I'm kind of making some senseout there.
Once again.
Our commitment to Israel mustbe absolute and I fully support
this attack.
Keep wiping out Iranianleadership and the nuclear
personnel.
We must provide whatever isnecessary military intelligence
weaponry to fully back Israel instriking Iran.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Smart.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
I mean our guy.
He's our guy now.
Speaker 3 (38:54):
I don't even know how he's ever said it.
It's kind of crazy because he'sstill such a he's such a
Democrat Like there is he, justhe really is.
So he's not like he's somemiddleman, but he seems to be
smart.
Speaker 2 (39:09):
And it's just well.
He just keeps making sense Likeit's kind of crazy.
So I just but that shows youwhere we are in our politics now
that it's so oppositional thatwhen you sit there and we used
to be like, hey look, politicsends at the water's edge, right.
That used to be a statement, itused to be real and it's not
anymore.
But but in this situation Ithink I'm just saying that we
take Blumenthal, you takeFetterman, you take those.
Now there are some other peoplewho are way out there that are,
I think you know, off thecharts and and there you know
(39:29):
there's some issues there.
But that does make some sense.
And when you look at thenumbers, the polling numbers on
this, if you look at it, thenumbers are very, very strong.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
Yeah, it says here.
The question was is, if noacceptable deal with Iran has
reached over its nuclear weapons, should the administration
support or oppose an Israelieffort to take out Iran's
nuclear weapons program?
60% are in support of doing so.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Yeah, it's very strong stuff.
I will say, you know, for allthe people that have a problem
with Trump or whatever, he hashandled this one to this point
masterfully, not jumping in tooquickly and not pulling back and
not letting Israel do what theyhave to do to keep themselves
safe.
Right, he has walked that linebrilliantly.
(40:12):
He deserves credit for that.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
Right, and especially since, I mean it is basically
been pinpointed that the attackson his, on him personally- they
tried to kill him.
They that it was Iran thatwanted him dead.
So, uh, you know he could belike oh look, oh, look out,
we're gonna just smoke you outand like right, he's not doing
that.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
No, he gave them every chance not to have this be
the result right he did, yeah,he did.
And you can say, I don't carewhat side of the political aisle
you're on if you don't see whathe's done here to this point
and like man, that is handledvery well, I, I you know, then
you just hate them so much youcan't see straight.
I don't know what to do for youon that Right.
All right, but that's what thatis.
So now the question becomeswhere do we go from here and
(40:52):
what could be the result ofright where we are now with the
Iranian government, and they'rekind of teetering a little bit
right.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
Well, netanyahu.
Netanyahu is a message for theIranian people.
He spoke very clearly hereagain with Brett Baier and he
wants a regime change to comefrom within.
That's kind of his endgame, sotake a listen to this one.
Speaker 12 (41:10):
Mr Prime Minister, very last thing.
I asked you how long this maylast.
You said it's up to theIranians.
If you had the opportunity andyou do now to speak directly to
the Supreme Leader and to speakdirectly to the Iranian people,
what are those two messagesyou'll send?
Speaker 1 (41:25):
What are those two messages you'll send?
Well, the Iranian dictator,really he's a dictator, he's a
tyrant.
He has sent us a message,calling just about every day for
the death of Israel, thedestruction of Israel and
America, but the death of Israel.
So my answer to him is withaction, not with words.
(41:46):
But to the people of Iran I sayyou're great people, you're
people of great talent andgenius who have been usurped by
this tyranny that has robbed youof hope, has robbed you of a
good life.
You know, I speak to theIranian people directly.
I don't know if you know this,brett, I do these videos.
I get to the Iranian peopledirectly.
I don't know if you know this,brett, I do these videos.
(42:07):
I get millions and millions ofresponses and they say viva
Israel, bravo Israel, free usfrom this tyranny.
And I say to them your hour offreedom is near.
Rise up, be free.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
Wow.
Powerful statement, right.
He's a tremendous communicator.
Rise up, be free.
Christiane Amanpour, who isfrom Iran.
She's no huge supporter ofIsrael and everything, but she
(42:52):
says some pretty interestingthings here about what the
people of Iran have been throughin the past 40 years and how
there is opposition in Iran.
There's one big oppositionalfigure who may have a chance at
seizing that moment to bring atype of government and a type of
life that is morerepresentative of the people of
Iran.
It was an interesting commentshe made earlier today.
Speaker 7 (43:10):
Difficult to rise up, actually being in the streets
while the bombs are falling andfighter jets you know with
missiles are coming down.
But there is no doubt andPahlavi is right and everybody
who was reported I grew up underthe Pahlavis in Iran and the
people, first of all, you know,chose the Islamic Republic
instead of them, but now haveseen that the Islamic Republic
(43:31):
is so much harsher, is so muchmore punitive, gives so much
fewer rights and is isolatedfrom the world and the economy
is appalling and it affects thepeople.
So, yes, I think from all myreporting, they want to change.
He's the only one with namerecognition and whether it's for
transitional or permanentleadership I don't know what he
(43:52):
wants but he's considered theonly one with any name
recognition and any kind ofsupport Inside.
He talked about the military.
We know the Bazaaris and peoplelike that potentially.
But one thing to Hugh, and youhave to say it the people of
Iran have been demonized anddehumanized, always associated
with their leadership.
The people of Gaza have beendehumanized and delegitimized.
(44:13):
They don't want Hamas there.
We've seen them on the streetsunder the hail of bombs.
So it's not fair to have thiscollective punishment and people
should have their rights.
Speaker 2 (44:24):
So I think some of that gets a little wonky on her
end.
But I do think and I do think alot of people have said the
Iranian people don't deservethis, and you talk about a
country with incrediblepotential if they get the
opportunity to go after that,and this could present that
moment.
So that's why we spent so muchtime on this today, because I
think it's a massive, massivething where there could be an
(44:46):
opportunity here going forward,where the Iranian people could
get freedom again.
But it's going to have to comewith our own effort.
You know we've learned thatenough in this world that we
can't, we can't come in and giveit to you.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
Well, I mean her, her last comment there.
You know, the folks in Gazavoted in favor of Hamas as their
political leader.
Yeah, well, and again.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
The Islamic Republic was chosen right, but people
make mistakes, yeah, and I thinkher point is they made a
mistake and they know it now.
They've known it for decadesnow and you have a huge
contingent of Iranians who lookat this and go this isn't right,
this isn't right, so we'll seewhat ends up happening with it.
It is something that's a changethat in our lifetimes, would be
(45:29):
massive.
If you took Iran as an enemyoff the table and you unleash
that country in a way where theycould take advantage of their
potential, it'd be really it'dbe amazing and the.
Israelis could be the centralportion that tipped the scale on
that and allowed it to happen.
So we are obviously bigZionists here.
We make no secret of that.
But seeing this happen andseeing what the Israelis have
(45:53):
done and seeing what theAmericans have done to bolster
the Israelis' ability to be ableto do this, I think is
something that I think God hasthe United States in the
position it does.
Part of that reason is to helpIsrael.
Speaker 3 (46:09):
I do believe that, and so one if you haven't read
your scriptures on on supportingIsrael.
You need to read yourscriptures because it's very
laid out very, very clearly.
Speaker 2 (46:18):
We're clear on that.
So you will be on the rightside of that one.
Speaker 3 (46:20):
I'm just saying, like there's a, if you believe in
scripture at all, if you uh,make sure you understand that
part of it.
Well, let's talk aboutsomething that maybe was a
nothing burger I don't know ifit was or not right?
Speaker 2 (46:30):
yeah, or just kind of a thing, right, or you know
it's a thing I don't know this,no king's protest took place, I
believe, in about 1800 cities, Ithink yeah, and they said, they
said five million people, whichyeah, okay okay.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
So, um, I still think what's interesting is a lot of
people, when asked, especiallyon X, I was looking at X, what
do you not like about Trump'spolicies?
What are you specificallyprotesting?
A lot of people that were askedthat question couldn't really
answer it, which I thought wassomewhat that stood out to me a
little bit.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
Yeah, it's interesting Right.
Speaker 3 (47:20):
And then again it's kind of you know, at least what
I keep seeing, and I think themayor of LA is just not helping
matters, quite frankly, withsome of her verbiage on just
saying, you know, even herFather's Day message today was
about she and the fathers thathave had to bury their loved
ones here that are, that havebeen killed by people here that
are here illegally, for instance, right, you know.
So I just feel like once again,you have certain leaders that
are propelling these type ofprotests.
Now I would say in most casesit seems to be fairly peaceful,
(47:44):
I would say.
Speaker 2 (47:44):
I think largely these largely were some of the stuff
we saw in LA got a little diceybut yeah, it's a general rule.
I think it was largely peacefulon this.
Speaker 3 (47:52):
You're right.
It kind of.
I think the one that I saw,mainly that got a little spicy
at the end was in LA, and that'sbecause they started going
after a federal building.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
And once that happened at the end, police
moved in and we're like no, no,no, no.
I think your description of itgetting spicy is funny.
Um, so, uh.
But so the other question wasin some of this is you know how
much of this is organic?
And you mentioned the hey,what's your biggest problem with
Trump?
And you're getting the answerof a blank stare and glossed
over.
The question becomes how, howorganic is it?
Speaker 3 (48:23):
Well, a vice reporter was actually on ABC this week
with Jonathan Karl and basicallyan answer kind of slipped in
there that I don't thinkJonathan was quite prepared for.
So take a listen to this andthen we'll talk about it.
Speaker 12 (48:36):
He's actually spent a lot of time with the
protesters over this past week.
We saw the president say theseare professional protesters paid
by George Soros, etc.
Etc.
Who were these people?
What was going?
Speaker 6 (48:47):
on of them were were normal people who are mad.
We we hung out with a groupfrom Alaska who was very
specifically talking to LisaMurkowski.
A lot of them were NativeAmericans, which also played
into Lisa Murkowski's decision.
They actually felt a lot ofrespect for her because she
brought them into their office.
She had a real conversationwith them.
And we also saw people who wereorganized.
And that moment, with JeffFlake on the Hill, we talked to
(49:10):
one woman who works forUltraviolet who was paid.
She helped steer people in theright ways to be able to
confront centers.
So there were paid.
There were people who were paidby organizations like
Ultraviolet to try to harnessthat energy in a way that would
make the viral moments that weended up seeing.
Speaker 2 (49:29):
So, rachel, Okay, so that is.
That is the most charitable wayyou can describe that.
She's like she was mildlyhonest about it.
Speaker 3 (49:37):
Mildly Right?
Speaker 2 (49:38):
Yes, they're absolutely did not anticipate
that answer You're right.
Speaker 3 (49:42):
He was like well, he was not expecting for her to say
that and she he probablythought she would just ignore
the fact, but it's so well knownthat a lot of these protesters
are paid.
A lot of the protesters werepaid in BLM movement there's.
I mean, that's all come tolight now.
So this is a.
This should not shock anybodythat a lot of these people are
paid to show up to create viralmoments right To create viral
moments, other ways known asprotesting.
(50:02):
I mean, we even know that someof the people that were on UNM's
campus during some of theprotests going on there, they
were also paid.
They're not even from here,they're brought in and they're
paid hourly to protest.
So at that point I feel likeyou lose the feel of the 1960s
protest when people start tocomparing this to Hand out the
cash.
Yeah, to the 1960s, you knowCrosby, stills and Nash days, I
(50:24):
mean.
Speaker 2 (50:24):
I'm sorry, but.
Speaker 3 (50:25):
I'm like this is not even remotely the same.
This is like how much chaos canwe create?
What is the motive?
The motive is we hate Americanine times out of 10, or we
don't like Trump nine times.
Why do we not like Trump?
We don't really know.
We're paid to be here and wedon't like Trump, right, and so
we're just going to protest forthe sake of protesting.
So I think I hope people arereally waking up and are more
(50:45):
aware of what's actually takingplace at these little, at these
protests, you know.
Speaker 2 (50:50):
And it gets to a broader point, which is what to
believe anymore, because it's sohard when you're watching
things, you don't know what tobelieve, and so that's what
makes a media structure thattries to get to the bottom of
the fact, the true set of facts,important.
And again, there's now a whitering ecosphere where we're where
we definitely see moreconservatives having a voice
(51:10):
saying here's what's reallygoing on, and that's definitely
helped conservatives to be moreinformed and in some places,
it's definitely helped moderatesbecome more informed, to be
like okay, I get it, like thiswhole media narrative is not
right and that's why it's.
I think down the road there'sstill going to be an avenue for
a media structure that is solelyinterested in the truth, and as
that happens, I think it willbe helpful.
(51:31):
So that's what we have fortoday.
It's interesting to see how itall shakes out and we'll see
what happens with it, butultimately, at the end of the
day, I still think you have tohave a media that is interested
in the truth and still, far toooften, they're interested in
pushing their own politicalideology versus getting the
(51:53):
truth out there.
And the more you get the truthout there, I still think there's
a sustainable path for media,but for plenty of them it's not
working out.
So that's where we're at andthat's what we got.
So again, we will not be hereon Wednesday, but we will be
back on Sunday.
So we hope you will join usthen.
And then do you have some?
Speaker 3 (52:10):
well, I was trying to find this comment that I wanted
us to talk about, but it'sgoing to take you a minute to
find it.
So, no, don't worry about it,we'll bring it up next time.
We'll save it up.
It just dawned on me.
But you guys have a great weekand don't forget, if you have
any comments that you want tomake right on our YouTube
channel, you can do that, or youcan send us an email at info at
NoDoubtAboutItPodcastcom.
(52:31):
Also, make sure to sign up forour emails on our website, which
is NoDoubtAboutItPodcastcom.
Thanks so much.
You guys have a great rest ofyour week.
Speaker 10 (52:48):
You've been listening to the no Doubt about
it podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
instagram and facebook at nodoubt about it podcast.
No doubt about it.
All right, it's the no doubt.
Whoa Ella, wait, there you go.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Okay, all right, a little jarring there on this
Father's Day Unbelievable what aday it is Well and, speaking of
Father's Day, we're going tostart the show with something
just a little different and it'sgoing to be really quick
because we only have a second,but we have your daughter, ava,
calling in from Africa and she'son here.
(00:30):
I think we've been able tocatch her through.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Ava.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Hello guys, Can you hear me?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yes, we can Hello.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
Hello.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Okay, well, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Thank you for having me.
It's an honor to be on the show.
Hey, how are you?
I've always wanted to be on ano Doubt About it.
Podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Yeah, How's it going in Africa?
Ava?
Speaker 4 (00:57):
It's good.
It's really late here.
It's almost 9 pm.
I'm just chilling.
I've been here since May.
I don't know.
I've been here for like twoweeks.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Well, I think you've actually been there a little
longer, but that's okay, that'sno problem.
Give us a quick, just recap,for those of us who are
interested in knowing just what,like what, have you been seeing
and doing since you've beenthere on the mission trip?
Speaker 4 (01:25):
And knowing just what , like what have you been seeing
and doing since you've beenthere on the mission trip?
Yeah, so I'm staying in-housewith about 20 other people Every
weekday, or pretty often on theweekdays.
We go out to the local collegecampus and we talk to the
students there about God, andthen we come back here and we
eat home-cooked meals, which areall really really good, and
then we'll go out and do funstuff as a group.
(01:47):
We'll go shopping or we'll godo touristy stuff.
It's been really, really fun.
I've been to an orphanage a fewtimes.
I really enjoy it.
Yeah, that's the basic review.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Okay, well, and we actually had you patch in today
for a special Father's Daymessage.
So anything you'd like to sayto your dad today?
Yeah, Hello dad.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
You are such a wonderful dad and I'm sorry that
I'm not there.
I know that you have to havekind of a second great father's
day, with me being across theworld and as wonderful as Ella
and mom are, I know that theydon't it's just not the same and
I apologize for my absence.
Speaker 7 (02:35):
But I miss you.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
And I love you and I'm really excited to see you
just take off and soar podcastwise well, no, thank you, ava,
and thank you for taking thetime from Africa to join us.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
That is very sweet yeah, I'm really busy.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
People really need me , but I'm here with you because
I love you, so you're welcome,you are loved as well.
Love you too, kiddo you.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
You're welcome.
You are loved as well.
Love you too, kiddo.
You're doing great work, goodjob.
Keep going to the orphanage.
I know you guys have a lot ofplans to do some more work there
.
Thank you for calling in.
We love you and we miss you.
We can't wait to see you whenyou get back.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
All right, I love you .
All right Love you too.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Talk soon, au revoir.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Au revoir, au revoir, okay, all right, oh, ava, very
nice.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Yes, see, a little surprise for you.
Yes, thank you very much I knowit's hard when she's not home.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
I mean we talked about it last night that it's
getting ready to go to college.
She's going to college out ofstate, so you know she's going
to be going to college inVirginia at Liberty, so she's
going to be a ways away.
So this is kind of a littlepractice run.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
It's something.
Yeah, it is something.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
We'll see how it shakes out.
Ella, you hanging in, okay,with Ava not being around, you
being the center of attention.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Yeah, I'm fine.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I yeah, I'm fine, I'm doing well, you're doing great,
it's not a problem.
She's struggling real hard.
Everybody, okay of course.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Now I didn't line up the cameras right for the show,
so we're going to do a littleproducing on the fly.
So, if you don't mind justtightening the shot up on me
just a bit so we don't seerandom cameras in the background
, see the camera in mybackground, your camera, okay,
camera has made an appearance inmy shot.
(04:26):
Oh, and that's heaven forbid,oh heavens, yeah.
Well, you got to have a, yougot to execute.
So now what Ella didn't do wasactually put up our shot so we
could see how it looks.
She's going to take a guess.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
She's just going to do it for you.
She's going to do it Okay.
So why don't you give us alittle bit of a uh tell?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
everybody.
What's going on on the show nowthat we a couple of things.
First of all, a story we havebeen talking about for more than
a month, and that's the heatrule in New Mexico.
Ludicrous situation, but enoughpeople have stood up to the
environment board and said waita minute, this is crazy town.
What are you guys trying to do?
That's starting to push backnow, so there's been a decision
(05:00):
delayed and so we'll talk aboutthat and what they're going to
do.
We're going to talk.
The most of the show is going totalk about what is going on
here with Israel and Iran, andit's a massive story.
It really is.
It's staggering to watch howeverything has sort of changed
since October 7th 2023.
And that chain of events hasled to, I think, something that
(05:20):
was probably unimaginable beforethat point.
So we are looking at a regimein Iran that not only is going
to eventually lose its nuclearcapability that's happening
right now and they're likely tocompletely lose it one way or
another but could theadministration not really the
administration, but I guess themullahs fall in Iran?
It's a possibility, okay, sowe're going to talk about that,
(05:41):
and then we're going to talk alittle bit about what went on
with the protests across thecountry on Saturday the no kings
protest I think you saw mostand I will say I mean the vast
majority of it was really quietstuff and the kind of protests
that there should be.
You know, no matter what yourthoughts are on what they were
protesting, but there was a fewthings got a little spicy, but
we'll talk a little bit aboutthat as well.
(06:02):
And, by the way, just so youknow, we will not have a show on
Wednesday.
We have some significantobligations we have to attend to
this week but we'll be back aweek from today.
So just realize that this showwill be up for a week, that's
right and it was going to be adelicious show.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
And if you haven't had a chance to watch some of
our previous shows, because nowthis is officially our 201
episode, 201 first episode 201episode.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
That's good stuff 201 , everybody by the way, I want
to give you some quick credit.
Yeah, this is my Father's Daycard and yes, it does have a
beaver.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
It has a beaver, your biggest nemesis, on the planet.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
That is my, yeah.
Speaker 9 (06:37):
I found a card that had your nemesis on it.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
It was either going to be that or like a
Philadelphia Eagles card.
I mean, I don't know which oneyou hate worse, the Eagles or a
Beaver?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Well, no, Beavers and I.
We're respectful nemesis, allright, like all, the Beavers are
my personal nemesis.
The Eagles is not a goodsituation.
It's not one of thoserespectful things.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
What if I could have drawn like an Eagles little
football helmet on the?
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Beaver.
That would be a terriblecombination.
It really would be the worst ofboth worlds.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
And Ella, maybe at some point you could think of
something to say to your dadabout Father's Day as well.
I mean, I'm just saying we justgive all the oxygen to Ava.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
Well, I don't know if that's right now or later.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
I don't know what's going on, go ahead, go ahead and
say a few words to dad.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Unlike Avava, I am here I felt like it was more
important for me to make anappearance than to be gone, so
that's why I'm here.
Yeah, it's more important toyou obviously and thank you for
all that you do and thank youfor being a great dad, thank you
very much.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
It's getting emotional in here.
Speaker 4 (07:40):
I'm very emotional.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I'm very into this yes, I can tell, we can always
tell.
Thanks so much.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Let's, let's get right to this headline from the
Albuquerque journal on Sunday.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Okay.
Well, it basically is talkingabout this heat roll again and
it says extended process pusheshearing on New Mexico worker
heat protection rule to 2026.
If we don't have an answer forit, kick it down the curb, I
guess.
Is that kind of the takeaway?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, you get enough pushback and all of a sudden to
the credit of people in thebusiness community here they've
gone to the political types andsaid what are you doing?
So, let's start breaking downthis article.
You've got a bunch of clips onit and we'll just kind of walk
you through it, but basically,and give you a little bit of a
background here.
So here's what the rule wouldbe about, as stated in this
article by Megan Gleason.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Okay.
It says the rule would requirea slew of control measures when
the heat index, which is ameasure of how hot it feels to
the human body, taking intoaccount temperature, humidity
and type of clothing, exceeds 80degrees.
The measure includes regularrespite breaks, provided shade
or cooled areas, free andaccessible drinking water,
acclimatized working schedulesand monitoring for heat-related
(08:46):
illnesses.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Okay, and so a couple things.
First of all, what you havehere is a battle between people
who have to live with theserules and activists who want to
put these rules on top ofbusiness owners.
That's the battle.
So you have these activists who, far too often in the state of
New Mexico, have been able toget lawmakers to do what they
want at the expense of smallbusiness owners.
(09:07):
That's how it works in thestate too often, but I give some
credit to the pushback on thisbecause that's critical, and
then maybe we'll see what theEnvironment Board does here.
You know they've made somedubious decisions in the past,
but hopefully they will make thedecision that.
Wait a minute.
We can't continue to heap onour business owners all these
rules that are ridiculous andover the top.
(09:29):
And it's not that you don'tneed to look out for people that
are working in hot conditionsEverybody knows you do but if
you put out these rules above 80degrees, some of this stuff is
craziness, especially dependingon the type of work that you
have to do and that's broughtout in this article.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
So first let's start with the activists who have no
idea but just want more rules.
And they had quite a quote inthis story.
It's a no-brainer for CarlosMatutis, state director of the
national nonprofit Green Latinos.
Matutis grew up in San Antonioworking in the industrial light
repair industry before travelingto South Texas to work in oil
and gas industry and auto bodyshops.
He says, quote I lived workingin extreme heat.
I know what it's like to not beable to think clearly or maybe
(10:11):
even make good decisions becauseyou're so overheated.
I know what it's like to feelso drained at the end of the day
because you've been working insuch hot conditions that you're
not able to do anything.
End quote.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Okay, again, while I appreciate the pure emotion of
this and no logic whatsoever,the reality of the situation is
that if this is all you'reoperating off, if it was hot
when I was a kid in San Antonio,okay, I get it, but that's not
a serious discussion.
A serious discussion is whatline of work are you in?
What temperatures are welooking at?
What mitigation factors can wetake to help people along the
(10:43):
way to make sure we're good withthis?
All right, and again, is this aproblem we've talked about
before, where people are justdropping like flies and all
these businesses?
The answer is no.
But do we still need to makesure we're good?
Yes, and Carla Kugler, whoworks with especially builders
in New Mexico right RightConstruction New Mexico brings
up a very fair point as shestarts to discuss all of this.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
So she says.
Industry officials agree thatthere needs to be heat safety in
workplace, as Carla Kugler,president and CEO of Associated
Builders and Contractors of NewMexico, but they disagree on
whether this is how the stateshould go about it.
Quote you can't afford to haveyour employees become ill from
heat stress.
We want to keep them safe, butthe way in which the rule
describes it, we're having adifficult time seeing how
(11:25):
anybody's going to get any workdone.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Okay, and what she means by that is and we've
talked about this on this showyou get up over 100 degrees.
You start basically tipping thefact that, for example, oil and
gas great example.
Road work great example.
Okay, you go down toSoutheastern New Mexico.
You have an average of 50 plusdays a year where you have over
100 degree temperatures.
Okay, you're going to end uphaving people spending more time
in the heat tent than they areactually working.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Okay, so it's don't forget, it was like a liter of
water every 15 minutes every 50,every eight ounces every 15
minutes.
You're just like and then yougot to figure out how to get
them to the bathroom faster thanany time.
Right, right, you're spendingconstantly the balance is off
right.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
you're just pulling people out of the work, just
with no thought of actualreality.
It's just, let's make a rule,because I've never owned a
business in my life, I have noidea what it's like to operate
these people's businesses, butI'm an activist and I think you
should do this.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
And I would.
I would think that largely mostpeople that employ people in
the heat have have a game planto protect people from heat.
It's like starting work earlierin the day, or maybe they work
later when the sun's gone, yeah,or overnight, yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
All kinds of different stuff.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Overnight, those kind of things where the heat you
know they can manage thisthemselves, but yet we have an
environmental group decides hey,no, no, no, no, let's make some
more rules and regulations onthis.
We'll do it for you.
We're going to take.
Environmental departmentdoesn't have enough to do well,
or these activists, theseactivists who push them?
Speaker 2 (12:44):
yeah, who push them, and when you have an
environmental board who doesn'tunderstand what it is to operate
business in this state, thatyou have to work together on
this.
And this is what I do like iscarla coming out with her
comment and then jim garcia, whodoes, you know, has a similar
take on this thing and he did areally good job of laying this
out.
He works with the associatedcontractors of new mexico and
(13:06):
jim's been around this stateforever with his brother.
They understand these things.
They're not activists, they'renot trying to push.
You know sticking workers outand you know heat conditions
that could get them hurt.
Obviously, as Carla said in hercomment, she's like we don't
want our workers out of the mix.
We can't afford that.
We can't afford our workers tobe overwhelmed by the heat.
Then they're not working.
So they understand that samething.
(13:27):
So there cannot be this thoughtof oh, we're in direct
opposition to the businesses onthis.
We're going to fight thebusinesses on this.
The businesses aren't theseevil entities that are trying to
destroy their employees.
They can't do anything withouttheir employees.
They get that.
So if you have a cooperativethought in all of this, then it
can work.
But again, a lot of theseactivists, by the way, in the
(13:49):
article and you go read it inthe journal.
They're very angry that this isbeing pushed back because, they
want to stick it to businessesright now because, a they have
no clue what they're talkingabout and, b to them this is
about power, and if they havethe power to stick it to a
business, they will.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
But Jim Garcia says this he says, for example, he
brought up a hypotheticalconstruction project 30 dump
trucks are coming down the roadlaying out 300 degree asphalt
which requires specificconditions to be laid, held and
cooled, he said.
But suddenly operations mustcome to a halt.
He said, so workers can takethat mandatory 15 minute break.
He adds on you are on acritical path for keeping up at
(14:23):
that schedule and if you don'tkeep up with that schedule
you're assessed late days.
He says how do you bid on a jobknowing it's going to take you
through the May, june and JulyAugust timeframe in a heat
environment where you could befacing 90, 95 degrees, with a
heat index schedule putting youwell over 100 degrees?
That means there will be nowork done in the state of New
Mexico outside from June untilSeptember.
(14:44):
So it's wrought with all kindsof problems.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Yeah, I mean, that's just the simple things, when
actually people on the groundwho are working have a say in
this.
And again, the reason we bringthis story up and the reason I
think it's so important, isbecause it's emblematic of a
bigger issue in the state thatwe have to get our arms around,
and that is that we have to workwith our business community to
make this state more competitive, because if the activists get
(15:07):
to come in and say we're makinga million rules, then guess what
?
All the big businesses, all thebig employers, all the people
that can take low-incomefamilies and lift them up to the
middle class are going to goaway, and then all that's going
to be left are the rule makersand the nags to tell everyone
you don't get to do that here,and if you do that to enough
people, you don't havehealthcare, you don't have jobs,
(15:28):
you do not have a life whereyou can build it with your
family, and so that's just afact, and I hope we're waking up
to that in this state becauseit affects people of every
single political party.
So we move on.
The next person, by the way.
More activists.
Let's get a taste of moreactivism.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Okay, I have no idea why this person.
I can't wait for you to commenton this.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
I know, no, no, okay, let's let you comment on this.
Here's what I mean again by theactivists.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
They keep going.
They're mad about this.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Why do we have a comment from the this is the
verbiage used here by this?
This union rep is unbelievable.
Okay so.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
Whitney Holland.
She's the president of theAmerican Federation of Teachers,
new Mexico described thepushback as typical from
industries that are prioritizingwork over workers.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Okay, hold on right there.
That's the attitude of.
We want to fight with employersso that we have less jobs in
the state of New Mexico.
It's unbelievable.
This fight like this is whatthese activists do, and they
destroy the state.
They destroy it for all of us.
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
So her quote is I don't understand what it's going
to take to turn the tide onthat narrative.
The union is supporting therules due to what Holland
describes as, quote unfathomableworking conditions, with
schools starting earlier everyyear and some buildings not even
having air conditioning on yet.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Okay, you teach in a, in a portable classroom which
is hot.
Okay, are the conditionsunfathomable?
Speaker 3 (16:52):
No, it's just hot, so you do have to deal with that.
You bring in what you can totry to make the room cool which
is what.
I put up dark curtains on allthe windows conditioning unit.
Like a little window unit.
Yes, that can make air.
You can survive in it forcrying out loud.
And then you have fans.
We put fans in there and then Iput the darkening curtains up
(17:14):
there that I keep closed most ofthe time when it's super hot.
So there's a way to get aroundthis.
I mean, I'm not saying that I'myou know, there's no way that.
Maybe there's places that areeven hotter than this.
But give me a break on thiswhole and why she's in this.
Like, what are the teachersgoing to do?
Do they need to go and take 15minute water breaks during these
?
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Well, no, I agree, we don't want a classroom where
it's 80 degrees for kids.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Like you can't concentrate.
I totally agree with that.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
But that's not what this would do.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
No, and most teachers are smart Like if there's a way
that we can get morecirculation into a classroom, if
we need to take them to ashaded tree to talk about
something, we do those kind ofthings.
I mean there's different waysto work around this for crying
out loud.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Well, no.
Also, we have enough money inthis state to provide cooling
units for these.
That has nothing to do withmaking a new rule so that
everything stops down.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Notice in the quote.
It didn't say that they don'thave air conditioning.
She just said that the airconditioning units haven't been
turned on yet.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Well, okay, let's go ahead and turn them on earlier.
I totally agree.
We can all support that, butsupporting this is ridiculous.
So then we get back to thetimeline on this whole thing.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Okay, so NMED published the draft heat rule in
March and initially had a Julyhearing before the State
Environmental Improvement Board,the entity within NMED that
adopts rules like this.
But after several groupspresented strong support or
opposition to the rule, nmedextended the timeline for the
rulemaking and the EIB pushedthe hearing to November and then
(18:32):
again to January, due toscheduling conflicts, according
to the MNED spokesperson.
Okay, so they're pushing itback.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
By the way, okay, this is the author of the
article slamming the article alittle bit, but after several
groups presented strong supportor opposition, okay it is.
They did not push this backbecause they're getting strong
support for it.
No, they push it back becausethey're getting strong
opposition to it.
Again, a little disingenuousalways wanting to tweak this in
(18:57):
that direction, but the point isthis if you are a business
owner in this state, if you'resomebody who cares about working
families getting good jobs,contact the New Mexico
Environment Department andcontinue to give your opinion,
because it is making adifference.
It is absolutely making adifference.
So stand up and speak for thepeople of this state.
Again, nobody wants anyone tocollapse because of heat stroke.
(19:19):
There are things that can bedone.
This is the wrong thing to bedone.
Do not let people who want tokeep business and employees
fighting and so we don't havebusinesses anymore from
succeeding in this.
Don't let them do it.
It hurts the state.
It hurts families of everystripe.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
And we've had two other episodes where we have
discussed this in great detail,so you can go back and listen to
prior episodes on that as well.
Well, we talked about that aswell.
So, okay, let well where wetalked about that, um, as well.
So, okay, let's.
Let's get on to some moreinternational news, shall we?
Because this is definitely theleading story everywhere,
anywhere, any news station thatyou turn on, and this is um,
israel striking iran, and theniran coming back to israel.
(19:56):
I mean, this is, this isheating up very quickly, yeah,
so well.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
So, if you remember, back since October of 2023, when
Iran, basically, has beenIran's the number one state
sponsor of terror in the worldthey go and they prop up other
groups with arms and support totry to create terror.
That's what they do.
Their goal is to wipe out thenation of Israel.
Their goal is to wipe outAmerica.
That's their goal.
(20:21):
They've said it.
I'm not saying anything.
They haven't said themselves.
And so Israel really had neverresponded to Iran in any sort of
significant way.
Remember, iran launchedhundreds of missiles at Israel
during the Biden administration.
Israel and the United Statesbasically shot them all down,
and then Biden told Netanyahu,take the win.
(20:41):
And Netanyahu is like, no,because they are watching, and
the Israelis are watching, theMossad is watching what Iran is
doing with nuclear weapons, andso they see the progress they're
making.
Iran again, take them at theirword, because they say it.
They want to wipe Israel offthe map.
So when they get a nuclearweapon, that's what they will do
(21:01):
, and so Israel knows this.
And so they got down to a timeframe here where they were
continuing to enrich uranium ata frightening rate, to the point
where it was getting very, veryclose to them having a bomb.
So Benjamin Netanyahu stands upand says we're not going to let
that happen.
So here's what he said to BrettBaer on Fox News.
It is clip nine on why theystepped in now.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
That they intend to give these nuclear weapons to
their Houthi proxies and others.
And that's nuclear terrorism ona global scale.
It threatens everyone.
And the last thing is they haveplans to develop
intercontinental ballisticmissiles.
Right now, 8,000 kilometersvery soon.
Just add a little distance andthey can reach the eastern
seaboard of the United States.
(21:47):
These people who chant death toAmerica, try to assassinate
President Trump twice, kill 241of your Marines in Beirut,
killed and injured thousands ofAmerican soldiers in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Try to bomb a restaurant inWashington DC.
Chant death to America, burnthe American flag.
Do you want these people tohave nuclear weapons and the
(22:09):
means to deliver them to yourcities?
Of course not.
So we're defending ourselves,but we're also defending the
world.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
The world.
Okay.
So for those of you who think,do they really know this?
Do the Israelis really knowthis?
It's kind of a funny joke on X.
So look at this little tweet.
The joke among Iranians is thatno one knows in Iran where the
Ayatollah is, except Israel,because they have such good
intel in what's going on in Iran.
(22:36):
And again, you're talking abouta government that terrorizes
the Middle East.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Yeah, and explain that a little bit, just for the
people who don't know.
They have been fundingHezbollah and Hamas correct
Absolutely, absolutely and theHouthis, by the way, all three
of them Okay, all three of themattacked Israel.
So on top of building what webelieve, they have several
nuclear bombs.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
They're getting close to them right.
So, basically, they have toenrich the uranium to a certain
point and then, once they get itto that point which is that's
the big hurdle, because once youget it to that point, which is
that's the big hurdle, becauseonce you get it to that point,
once you, then you can get itonto a delivery system, a
warhead, basically, and so, andonce you do that, look out Right
, then it's Katie bar the doorand if you don't shoot that
thing down, you're looking at,you could be looking at millions
(23:19):
of people dead in one foulswoop, OK, ok, so that's why
it's so critical.
But you mentioned which is agood point it's the Houthis, you
know, hamas, all that stuff,right, I mean, they do
everything they can to spreadterror.
It's the reason that there'ssuch conflict between Saudi
Arabia and Iran and places.
A bunch of their neighbors areterrified of these guys because
(23:40):
of what they've done in theirslide into a country that most
of the people in this countrydon't want, the government that
they have, and we'll get to that, which is amazing stuff.
But I want to get to an opinionpiece on the Wall Street
Journal that you've talked about, and this is going to sort of
make some of this clear andreally what this gets to is the
incredible miscalculation of theleadership in Iran.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
So here's the headline.
It says one Iranianmiscalculation after another.
The Tehran regime pays theprice for underestimating
Netanyahu and Trump.
And then it says here how didTehran miscalculate so badly?
For months, president Trumpmade clear that he wanted to
avoid a military confrontationand make a nuclear deal.
He all but begged the regime tocome to terms and his envoy,
(24:24):
steve Witkoff, made a generousoffer too generous that would
have let Iran continue enrichinguranium domestically for some
years.
Atola Ali, yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Ayatollah Khamenei.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
Okay, dismissed it out of hand.
Who are you to decide whetherIran should have enrichment, he
asked?
The Iranians evidently thoughtthat they would pay no price for
blowing past the president's60-day ultimatum and his red
line on nuclear enrichment.
So long as they kept talking,they presumed they could string
along Mr Trump, who would shieldthem from Israel.
Tehran underestimated Mr Trump,who knew Israel's plan but
(24:58):
declined to expose or block it.
Democrats now criticize him forthat, and a different president
may well have preventedIsrael's campaign to eliminate
the Iranian sword of Damocles.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
I've read this like four times, so that's the only
reason I know that that loomsover its head in ours.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
Instead, mr Trump kept a flexible enough posture
to embrace the attack after itsearly success.
The Iranians also underestimatePrime Minister Netanyahu.
Who bet on Mr Trump has paidoff.
After direct ballistic missileattacks on Israel in April and
October of 2024 were parried, mrNetanyahu didn't quote take the
win, as President Biden hadadvised.
(25:35):
He knocked out Iran's key airdefenses, creating a window for
today's air campaign with MrTrump in power.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
OK, so right there, let's just start with the chain
of events here and just remembersomething and I want to get to
that they go on to talk about inthis quote.
They go on to talk about whatreally happened.
This is a good example of whathappens when you start stepping
into a war, you don't know whereit's going to go.
So when Hamas went over intoIsrael with a ragtag group of
(26:02):
people and absolutelyslaughtered more than a thousand
Israelis for absolutely noreason, when they did that, that
set into motion a chain ofevents that wiped out Hamas,
okay, that wiped out Hezbollah,because what happened was then
the Israelis went afterHezbollah and again they had
incredible intelligence and theywent.
You know the beepers exploding,the walkie-talkies exploding,
(26:26):
and they where all their, alltheir missiles were and they
wiped them out.
Ok, the biggest proxy, thebiggest fighter for Iran has
belonged, which Iran gave amissile after missile.
They were toast and they weregone.
Syria fell Right, assad's gone.
All of a sudden, they're notthere for Iran and then Iran
launches all these missilestoward Israel and the United
(26:48):
States, and especially Israelthemselves, shoot them all down.
All of a sudden Iran's lookingaround and then Israel says
let's find out how good theirair defenses are.
They go in there and find outtheir air defenses are terrible,
so they go wipe those out, andthen Israel knows, when we go in
there we've got air superiority.
So all of a sudden, these bigtough guys in Iran who are going
and pushing everybody aroundlet's be careful, let's cut a
(27:08):
deal with them.
All of a sudden, israel hasexposed them for the phonies
that they are, and now Iran'sgoing to have an issue, because
Iran's going to have a choice tomake, and we're going to get to
that in just a second.
But let's go to clip 15, whichis toward the end here.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Do you want to add something?
No, no, no, okay.
Mr Trump says Iran has a lastchance for a deal.
So how about this?
Dismantle Firdo and the rest ofthe enrichment program right
now, or lose them, and much more, by force.
Iran doesn't hold the cardshere and its leaders would be
wise to take such a deal, and ifhistory is a guide, they will
refuse and suffer more defeat.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Yeah, so Firdo is the big, it's their big nuclear
facility, but it's underground.
Okay, so start doing a littleresearch here.
And what's it going to take?
So the Israelis have a bunch ofour fighter jets, the F-35s,
right, they have a bunch ofF-16s.
They have a bunch of greatmunitions I shouldn't say great,
but very effective munitionsthat can hit the target they
want to hit.
(28:02):
Okay, but what don't they have?
Oh, let's go to 16.
What they don't have is a planeto deliver a massive bomb, and
that is the B2.
Okay, this is our big bomber.
Our biggest one is still in,our B21 is still coming, but the
B2 is what basically wouldcarry, the type of bomb that
(28:23):
could go into the ground anddestroy everything that the
Iranians have with their nuclearprogram.
The bomb is called the GBU-57.
It's one of the munitions.
Okay, there's a bunch of thingsyou would do, but let's go to
clip 17.
So the GBU-57 is a massivebunker buster bomb, okay, and
this thing, it basically has setof little wings on it and they
(28:46):
drop.
You can only fit two of them,by the way, you can only fit two
of them in a B2.
That's how big they are, okay,but they drop them out, steer
them in, and they're a precisionguided munition and they go way
down into the ground likestories and stories down into
the ground.
Okay, they can.
They can go hundreds of feetinto the ground and explode.
So that would be what it wouldtake to finish this whole thing
(29:10):
off.
So for us in the United States,this thing can go 200 feet into
the ground and then explode.
So that is the kind of thingthat is exactly what is needed
to finish this whole thing off.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
These graphics are actually very helpful.
If you're listening, it mightbe worth tuning into our YouTube
channel to watch these missiles.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
And there are three different levels here.
Okay, the first one is theBLU-109, basically, or IO-9.
It's a 2,000-pound bomb, okay,that can be used as well, but
that was developed in the 1970sand it goes down into the ground
about five feet, okay, and thenwill'll, then we'll explode,
okay.
But then the second bomb, whichwas the GBU 28, that goes down
(29:53):
further.
There's no doubt.
It can go down up to like, Ibelieve, something like 20, 30
feet, okay, and that will thenexplode.
But and that's a two-storybuilding, by the way 20 feet,
okay, so don't lose sight ofthat.
But then the GBU 57 is a wholedifferent animal altogether.
This is the massive bomb thatwould go down down to 200 feet
(30:14):
down.
So, regardless of how deep thisbunker is, I mean yeah, I mean
it's a 20 story building.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
So there's no way they're deeper than that, I mean
they could be to some degreeright.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
But if you get down and they think that's enough,
put it that way Now.
Would they agree, right, but ifyou get down and they think
that's enough, put it that waynow, would they.
How many, you know?
What order would they go inwith these things?
How would it work?
I don't know any of that.
Okay, so I don't pretend to bean expert on it, but what this
tells you is we may well have toget involved right, that's what
I was gonna ask you is.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
So this is the, these are the bombs that we would be
supplying and we no, no we would.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
we would fly the plane like they don't have B-2s.
Okay, all right, we're the onlyones with a.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
B-2.
This is considered our stealthbomber.
Yeah, yeah, right.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
And the B-21 is the next generation of this which is
being developed right now.
That would not be involved inthis.
Speaker 8 (30:54):
Apparently, it's not ready yet, so let's start with
Tom Cotton on CBS' Face theNation this morning talking
about President Trump keepingoptions open for whatever the
United States may need to do Interms of the line he's drawing
on military force.
Should the US involvement bepurely defensive and deterrent,
(31:14):
or should the US be willing tobe engaged in these military
operations?
Speaker 11 (31:19):
Well, I don't think he's drawn that line.
He's been very clear that alloptions remain on the table to
defend our own people, tosupport Israel.
But he said well, he said thatfor 10 years and he said it for
months leading up to this moment.
He said that Iran can make adeal and live happily without
death or there will be bombing.
So I think he's appropriatelykept all options on the table.
(31:40):
He made clear in the early daysof this conflict, on Thursday
night and Friday morning, thatwe back Israel to the hilt.
There's almost 700,000Americans in Israel at any time,
so of course we're going toprotect Israel and that we have
the best military technology inthe world.
And he said that he has proudlyprovided Israel with those
weapons both in his first termand in this term as well.
(32:00):
So so we back Israel to thehilt all the way.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
But he's appropriately keeping all
options on the table to the hiltall the way, but he's
appropriately keeping alloptions on the table.
Okay, All options are on thetable.
Now one person who has beenvery clear on this, and he's
somebody that some people in theRepublican party have a problem
with, um, because they feelhe's too gung-ho to get into
military conflict, and that'sLindsey Graham.
But I think what Lindsey Grahamsays here is interesting.
(32:25):
Same deal face the nation.
He was on with SenatorBlumenthal of Connecticut who
we'll get to in a second, by theway who started to make a
little pivot here, which I thinkyou'll find to be interesting.
But here's what Graham saidabout what needs to be done and
how they've come this far.
The Israelis have come this far, We've supported them this far,
and to go this far withouteliminating Iran's nuclear
(32:47):
capability would be asignificant mistake.
Speaker 8 (32:51):
Senator Graham, you said you believe it's in
America's interest to go all into help Israel finish the job.
It sounds like you meanoffensive support.
Speaker 9 (33:00):
So the worst possible outcome for the world is for
the Iranian nuclear program tosurvive.
After all this, how do youdestroy their program?
Through diplomacy I prefer thator through military action?
If diplomacy is not successfuland we live with the option of
force, I would urge PresidentTrump to go all in to make sure
(33:23):
that, when this operation isover, there's nothing left
standing in Iran regarding theirnuclear program.
If that means providing bombs,provide bombs.
If that means flying Bombingbusting bombs.
Whatever bombs, If it meansflying with Israel, fly with
Israel.
The worst possible outcome forthe world is to take the Iranian
(33:45):
nuclear program on and leave itstanding.
That will be a disaster, yeah.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
I think it's pretty clear.
I mean you know I'm not quitesure why that would be
controversial I mean you, youit's.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
It's as controversial for some Republicans as it is
for Democrats and I, like theTucker Carlson's of the world
are going to lose their mind,and who cares if he loses his
mind?
But yeah, no, I agree.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
I guess I'm I'm.
I'm not clear on why we wouldallow them to keep this when we
don't, when they are the numberone terrorist.
Basically back terroristorganization, country, whatever
you want to call them in theworld.
Why are we like, yeah, sure, goahead and build those nukes.
I don't understand why we wouldbe okay with that.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
Well, you're right, I don't.
I don't think we would.
And so it will be a very simplechoice for them you either
destroy that nuclear program orwe'll destroy it for you.
So if you would like to destroythat's what he means by
diplomacy he means going inthere and saying to the mullahs
okay, this is over.
So if you would like to bringin inspectors, we'll dismantle
everything and you're done, orwe're going to destroy it for
(34:41):
you.
And that's what the wall streetjournal piece was saying.
They've shown no ability to beable to make that choice and say
okay, we're done here, let'sget rid of it.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Well, weren't they kind of hiding from the UN for
years?
Oh, well, yeah, and then we'rebeing as like transparent about
their operations to start with.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
So why?
Speaker 3 (34:57):
are they trustworthy to start with Like, are we like,
oh yeah, let's trust what?
Speaker 2 (35:00):
they say I think this situation would be, you'd bring
people right in on the groundand just dismantle the whole
thing.
I mean, this is a wholedifferent level of they're in a
spot now where they have nooptions.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Okay, well, I'm sorry .
Then why would Tucker Carlsonor any other folks, what, what?
I guess I'm missing.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
No, he has been.
He has totally changed his.
He's one of these people whoused to say Iran is is the
number one state sponsor ofterrorism in the world.
It's it government with greatpeople that have taken advantage
of their people for decades nowand created this terrorist
enabling state, which ishorrendous.
(35:38):
Remember, in Iran, you have aneconomy which has been destroyed
by sanctions.
The people of Iran aresuffering because the world as a
whole is like no, we're notdoing business with you, you're
done.
And so, yeah, china does andRussia does, because they're bad
actors.
But, as a general rule, if youcould welcome Iran into the
world community again and removeall the economic sanctions and
you have a government thatallows them freedom, holy cow.
(35:58):
Now we changed our thoughts inthis country that we can't go in
there and give them freedom.
Right, they have to go, theyhave to approach this and try to
do it themselves.
But that's what we're gettingto in all of this, that I think
(36:33):
we may be looking at a situationthe other side.
Well, blumenthal did not dothat with Iran.
There's no doubt which whichwas smart.
So he was.
He was more nuanced for theDemocratic response to this,
which I think made some sense.
Ok, let's listen to him.
Speaker 5 (36:52):
Blumenthal.
What's your view?
How involved should the US get?
Let's begin with the basicproposition that ought to
motivate American policy as wellas the world A nuclear-armed
Iran is an unacceptable threatto the world, not just to Israel
, but to the United States aswell, and I support Israel's
right to defend itself againstthis existential menace, and I
support Israel's right to defenditself against this existential
menace.
I'm very concerned right nowabout United States personnel in
the region, our servicemen andwomen, but also the civilians
(37:14):
that are there.
I'm getting phone calls fromfamilies in Connecticut who are
deeply worried about theirchildren who were there, about
the hostage families.
I support the president'seffort to prioritize diplomacy.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
He's played it.
So that's the kind of thing Ithink that's smart.
I mean, look, you're not saying, go President Trump because
they don't like him.
I get it Right, he's not yourguy, that's totally fine, that's
politics.
But at the same time saying,yeah, we support some of what
he's doing here, because downthe road, you know, again,
taking the opposite side ofTrump every time hasn't worked
(37:51):
for them.
It's been.
It's been a horrible approach.
So this is a little bit smarter.
No-transcript you cannot have anuclear, you know, armed Iran,
now some of the other stuff,with people there that are
concerned across across theworld.
Right, and if I'll tell youthis much, iran is not going to
attack any US interests out thatthey would be, like that would
(38:14):
be, it would be over within twohours.
Their, their nuclear programwould be toast.
And they not only have Israeliplanes flying with impunity over
Iran, which they are now,they'd have US planes doing it
too.
They are now, they'd have USplanes doing it too.
They, I think, must realizethat's not going to happen.
So I understand Blumenthal'sconcern, but I don't think
that's necessarily going tohappen.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Okay, well, here we go with John Fetterman again.
I'm kind of making some senseout there.
Once again.
Our commitment to Israel mustbe absolute and I fully support
this attack.
Keep wiping out Iranianleadership and the nuclear
personnel.
We must provide whatever isnecessary military intelligence
weaponry to fully back Israel instriking Iran.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Smart.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
I mean our guy.
He's our guy now.
Speaker 3 (38:54):
I don't even know how he's ever said it.
It's kind of crazy because he'sstill such a he's such a
Democrat Like there is he, justhe really is.
So he's not like he's somemiddleman, but he seems to be
smart.
Speaker 2 (39:09):
And it's just well.
He just keeps making sense Likeit's kind of crazy.
So I just but that shows youwhere we are in our politics now
that it's so oppositional thatwhen you sit there and we used
to be like, hey look, politicsends at the water's edge, right.
That used to be a statement, itused to be real and it's not
anymore.
But but in this situation Ithink I'm just saying that we
take Blumenthal, you takeFetterman, you take those.
Now there are some other peoplewho are way out there that are,
I think you know, off thecharts and and there you know
(39:29):
there's some issues there.
But that does make some sense.
And when you look at thenumbers, the polling numbers on
this, if you look at it, thenumbers are very, very strong.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
Yeah, it says here.
The question was is, if noacceptable deal with Iran has
reached over its nuclear weapons, should the administration
support or oppose an Israelieffort to take out Iran's
nuclear weapons program?
60% are in support of doing so.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Yeah, it's very strong stuff.
I will say, you know, for allthe people that have a problem
with Trump or whatever, he hashandled this one to this point
masterfully, not jumping in tooquickly and not pulling back and
not letting Israel do what theyhave to do to keep themselves
safe.
Right, he has walked that linebrilliantly.
(40:12):
He deserves credit for that.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
Right, and especially since, I mean it is basically
been pinpointed that the attackson his, on him personally- they
tried to kill him.
They that it was Iran thatwanted him dead.
So, uh, you know he could belike oh look, oh, look out,
we're gonna just smoke you outand like right, he's not doing
that.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
No, he gave them every chance not to have this be
the result right he did, yeah,he did.
And you can say, I don't carewhat side of the political aisle
you're on if you don't see whathe's done here to this point
and like man, that is handledvery well, I, I you know, then
you just hate them so much youcan't see straight.
I don't know what to do for youon that Right.
All right, but that's what thatis.
So now the question becomeswhere do we go from here and
(40:52):
what could be the result ofright where we are now with the
Iranian government, and they'rekind of teetering a little bit
right.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
Well, netanyahu.
Netanyahu is a message for theIranian people.
He spoke very clearly hereagain with Brett Baier and he
wants a regime change to comefrom within.
That's kind of his endgame, sotake a listen to this one.
Speaker 12 (41:10):
Mr Prime Minister, very last thing.
I asked you how long this maylast.
You said it's up to theIranians.
If you had the opportunity andyou do now to speak directly to
the Supreme Leader and to speakdirectly to the Iranian people,
what are those two messagesyou'll send?
Speaker 1 (41:25):
What are those two messages you'll send?
Well, the Iranian dictator,really he's a dictator, he's a
tyrant.
He has sent us a message,calling just about every day for
the death of Israel, thedestruction of Israel and
America, but the death of Israel.
So my answer to him is withaction, not with words.
(41:46):
But to the people of Iran I sayyou're great people, you're
people of great talent andgenius who have been usurped by
this tyranny that has robbed youof hope, has robbed you of a
good life.
You know, I speak to theIranian people directly.
I don't know if you know this,brett, I do these videos.
I get to the Iranian peopledirectly.
I don't know if you know this,brett, I do these videos.
(42:07):
I get millions and millions ofresponses and they say viva
Israel, bravo Israel, free usfrom this tyranny.
And I say to them your hour offreedom is near.
Rise up, be free.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
Wow.
Powerful statement, right.
He's a tremendous communicator.
Rise up, be free.
Christiane Amanpour, who isfrom Iran.
She's no huge supporter ofIsrael and everything, but she
(42:52):
says some pretty interestingthings here about what the
people of Iran have been throughin the past 40 years and how
there is opposition in Iran.
There's one big oppositionalfigure who may have a chance at
seizing that moment to bring atype of government and a type of
life that is morerepresentative of the people of
Iran.
It was an interesting commentshe made earlier today.
Speaker 7 (43:10):
Difficult to rise up, actually being in the streets
while the bombs are falling andfighter jets you know with
missiles are coming down.
But there is no doubt andPahlavi is right and everybody
who was reported I grew up underthe Pahlavis in Iran and the
people, first of all, you know,chose the Islamic Republic
instead of them, but now haveseen that the Islamic Republic
(43:31):
is so much harsher, is so muchmore punitive, gives so much
fewer rights and is isolatedfrom the world and the economy
is appalling and it affects thepeople.
So, yes, I think from all myreporting, they want to change.
He's the only one with namerecognition and whether it's for
transitional or permanentleadership I don't know what he
(43:52):
wants but he's considered theonly one with any name
recognition and any kind ofsupport Inside.
He talked about the military.
We know the Bazaaris and peoplelike that potentially.
But one thing to Hugh, and youhave to say it the people of
Iran have been demonized anddehumanized, always associated
with their leadership.
The people of Gaza have beendehumanized and delegitimized.
(44:13):
They don't want Hamas there.
We've seen them on the streetsunder the hail of bombs.
So it's not fair to have thiscollective punishment and people
should have their rights.
Speaker 2 (44:24):
So I think some of that gets a little wonky on her
end.
But I do think and I do think alot of people have said the
Iranian people don't deservethis, and you talk about a
country with incrediblepotential if they get the
opportunity to go after that,and this could present that
moment.
So that's why we spent so muchtime on this today, because I
think it's a massive, massivething where there could be an
(44:46):
opportunity here going forward,where the Iranian people could
get freedom again.
But it's going to have to comewith our own effort.
You know we've learned thatenough in this world that we
can't, we can't come in and giveit to you.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
Well, I mean her, her last comment there.
You know, the folks in Gazavoted in favor of Hamas as their
political leader.
Yeah, well, and again.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
The Islamic Republic was chosen right, but people
make mistakes, yeah, and I thinkher point is they made a
mistake and they know it now.
They've known it for decadesnow and you have a huge
contingent of Iranians who lookat this and go this isn't right,
this isn't right, so we'll seewhat ends up happening with it.
It is something that's a changethat in our lifetimes, would be
(45:29):
massive.
If you took Iran as an enemyoff the table and you unleash
that country in a way where theycould take advantage of their
potential, it'd be really it'dbe amazing and the.
Israelis could be the centralportion that tipped the scale on
that and allowed it to happen.
So we are obviously bigZionists here.
We make no secret of that.
But seeing this happen andseeing what the Israelis have
(45:53):
done and seeing what theAmericans have done to bolster
the Israelis' ability to be ableto do this, I think is
something that I think God hasthe United States in the
position it does.
Part of that reason is to helpIsrael.
Speaker 3 (46:09):
I do believe that, and so one if you haven't read
your scriptures on on supportingIsrael.
You need to read yourscriptures because it's very
laid out very, very clearly.
Speaker 2 (46:18):
We're clear on that.
So you will be on the rightside of that one.
Speaker 3 (46:20):
I'm just saying, like there's a, if you believe in
scripture at all, if you uh,make sure you understand that
part of it.
Well, let's talk aboutsomething that maybe was a
nothing burger I don't know ifit was or not right?
Speaker 2 (46:30):
yeah, or just kind of a thing, right, or you know
it's a thing I don't know this,no king's protest took place, I
believe, in about 1800 cities, Ithink yeah, and they said, they
said five million people, whichyeah, okay okay.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
So, um, I still think what's interesting is a lot of
people, when asked, especiallyon X, I was looking at X, what
do you not like about Trump'spolicies?
What are you specificallyprotesting?
A lot of people that were askedthat question couldn't really
answer it, which I thought wassomewhat that stood out to me a
little bit.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
Yeah, it's interesting Right.
Speaker 3 (47:20):
And then again it's kind of you know, at least what
I keep seeing, and I think themayor of LA is just not helping
matters, quite frankly, withsome of her verbiage on just
saying, you know, even herFather's Day message today was
about she and the fathers thathave had to bury their loved
ones here that are, that havebeen killed by people here that
are here illegally, for instance, right, you know.
So I just feel like once again,you have certain leaders that
are propelling these type ofprotests.
Now I would say in most casesit seems to be fairly peaceful,
(47:44):
I would say.
Speaker 2 (47:44):
I think largely these largely were some of the stuff
we saw in LA got a little diceybut yeah, it's a general rule.
I think it was largely peacefulon this.
Speaker 3 (47:52):
You're right.
It kind of.
I think the one that I saw,mainly that got a little spicy
at the end was in LA, and that'sbecause they started going
after a federal building.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
And once that happened at the end, police
moved in and we're like no, no,no, no.
I think your description of itgetting spicy is funny.
Um, so, uh.
But so the other question wasin some of this is you know how
much of this is organic?
And you mentioned the hey,what's your biggest problem with
Trump?
And you're getting the answerof a blank stare and glossed
over.
The question becomes how, howorganic is it?
Speaker 3 (48:23):
Well, a vice reporter was actually on ABC this week
with Jonathan Karl and basicallyan answer kind of slipped in
there that I don't thinkJonathan was quite prepared for.
So take a listen to this andthen we'll talk about it.
Speaker 12 (48:36):
He's actually spent a lot of time with the
protesters over this past week.
We saw the president say theseare professional protesters paid
by George Soros, etc.
Etc.
Who were these people?
What was going?
Speaker 6 (48:47):
on of them were were normal people who are mad.
We we hung out with a groupfrom Alaska who was very
specifically talking to LisaMurkowski.
A lot of them were NativeAmericans, which also played
into Lisa Murkowski's decision.
They actually felt a lot ofrespect for her because she
brought them into their office.
She had a real conversationwith them.
And we also saw people who wereorganized.
And that moment, with JeffFlake on the Hill, we talked to
(49:10):
one woman who works forUltraviolet who was paid.
She helped steer people in theright ways to be able to
confront centers.
So there were paid.
There were people who were paidby organizations like
Ultraviolet to try to harnessthat energy in a way that would
make the viral moments that weended up seeing.
Speaker 2 (49:29):
So, rachel, Okay, so that is.
That is the most charitable wayyou can describe that.
She's like she was mildlyhonest about it.
Speaker 3 (49:37):
Mildly Right?
Speaker 2 (49:38):
Yes, they're absolutely did not anticipate
that answer You're right.
Speaker 3 (49:42):
He was like well, he was not expecting for her to say
that and she he probablythought she would just ignore
the fact, but it's so well knownthat a lot of these protesters
are paid.
A lot of the protesters werepaid in BLM movement there's.
I mean, that's all come tolight now.
So this is a.
This should not shock anybodythat a lot of these people are
paid to show up to create viralmoments right To create viral
moments, other ways known asprotesting.
(50:02):
I mean, we even know that someof the people that were on UNM's
campus during some of theprotests going on there, they
were also paid.
They're not even from here,they're brought in and they're
paid hourly to protest.
So at that point I feel likeyou lose the feel of the 1960s
protest when people start tocomparing this to Hand out the
cash.
Yeah, to the 1960s, you knowCrosby, stills and Nash days, I
(50:24):
mean.
Speaker 2 (50:24):
I'm sorry, but.
Speaker 3 (50:25):
I'm like this is not even remotely the same.
This is like how much chaos canwe create?
What is the motive?
The motive is we hate Americanine times out of 10, or we
don't like Trump nine times.
Why do we not like Trump?
We don't really know.
We're paid to be here and wedon't like Trump, right, and so
we're just going to protest forthe sake of protesting.
So I think I hope people arereally waking up and are more
(50:45):
aware of what's actually takingplace at these little, at these
protests, you know.
Speaker 2 (50:50):
And it gets to a broader point, which is what to
believe anymore, because it's sohard when you're watching
things, you don't know what tobelieve, and so that's what
makes a media structure thattries to get to the bottom of
the fact, the true set of facts,important.
And again, there's now a whitering ecosphere where we're where
we definitely see moreconservatives having a voice
(51:10):
saying here's what's reallygoing on, and that's definitely
helped conservatives to be moreinformed and in some places,
it's definitely helped moderatesbecome more informed, to be
like okay, I get it, like thiswhole media narrative is not
right and that's why it's.
I think down the road there'sstill going to be an avenue for
a media structure that is solelyinterested in the truth, and as
that happens, I think it willbe helpful.
(51:31):
So that's what we have fortoday.
It's interesting to see how itall shakes out and we'll see
what happens with it, butultimately, at the end of the
day, I still think you have tohave a media that is interested
in the truth and still, far toooften, they're interested in
pushing their own politicalideology versus getting the
(51:53):
truth out there.
And the more you get the truthout there, I still think there's
a sustainable path for media,but for plenty of them it's not
working out.
So that's where we're at andthat's what we got.
So again, we will not be hereon Wednesday, but we will be
back on Sunday.
So we hope you will join usthen.
And then do you have some?
Speaker 3 (52:10):
well, I was trying to find this comment that I wanted
us to talk about, but it'sgoing to take you a minute to
find it.
So, no, don't worry about it,we'll bring it up next time.
We'll save it up.
It just dawned on me.
But you guys have a great weekand don't forget, if you have
any comments that you want tomake right on our YouTube
channel, you can do that, or youcan send us an email at info at
NoDoubtAboutItPodcastcom.
(52:31):
Also, make sure to sign up forour emails on our website, which
is NoDoubtAboutItPodcastcom.
Thanks so much.
You guys have a great rest ofyour week.
Speaker 10 (52:48):
You've been listening to the no Doubt about
it podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
instagram and facebook at nodoubt about it podcast.
No doubt about it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!