August 27, 2025 • 41 mins
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is considering legislation that would ban local governments from contracting with federal agencies to detain immigrants for civil violations, potentially shutting down three detention facilities in New Mexico. Republican legislators who toured the Otero County Immigration Detention Facility found conditions to be humane and well-managed, contradicting claims used to justify closure.
• Shutting down detention centers would eliminate hundreds of well-paying jobs in rural communities
• Previous attempts by states to limit federal immigration enforcement have failed in court
• Governor opposes Trump's deployment of National Guard for immigration enforcement
• The Governor's Mansion now features pickleball courts open to the public by reservation
• Trump signed an executive order targeting cashless bail systems nationwide
• New Mexico's violent crime rate has skyrocketed since implementing bail reforms in 2016
• Voter registration trends show Republicans gaining ground in key swing states
• Electoral College projections suggest Democrats may face disadvantages by 2030
Like and subscribe on our YouTube channel. Your comments help our algorithms, and we truly appreciate your support!
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 (00:11):
all right boss go ahead go ahead.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Here we are everybody .
Thanks for uh joining us forour wednesday edition of the
know about it podcast.
Uh, coming to you pretty late.
Uh, ella had a volleyball games.
We're back to you producingback there because she's wiped
out, so we got to let her rallyfor tomorrow it's volleyball.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I mean, is she that tired?
She's pretty tired, okay.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Between school and volleyball.
She's tired.
Yeah, they won.
That's the bonus that we'revery excited about.
So, by the way, I just want tomake a quick comment for
everybody out there that tunedin last week and then have made
a lot of great comments on ourchannel for us.
We just appreciate it so much.
The support.
Some of the back and forth hasbeen hilarious and I really you
know what I mean if you've beenreading it, and we just want you
(01:00):
to know how much we appreciateour great uh, our supporters out
there.
You guys are our littlecommunity is awesome.
We're growing and we really,really appreciate it.
So continue to like andsubscribe on our youtube channel
.
That means the world to us andthose comments help for
algorithms, so we appreciate it.
So tune in.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate that.
Okay, so get to the to, to whatwe're going to talk about
tonight okay, so we do have alot to chat about.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
By the way, just as a background, uh, I erased the
program which records the showfor us.
It's called OBS.
I erased it off my computer andwe just found this out, so
we're actually doing this off ofa YouTube Well, not really
YouTube, it's.
It's really more of a zoommeeting that will go to YouTube.
(01:43):
So, sorry about that, I screwedthat up.
It's going to be just fine.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Things happen.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
So, okay, a lot going on here and we're going to go
hauling through this show, butthere's some interesting stuff
here.
Number one we have threeimmigrant detention centers in
the state of New Mexico and nowwe're seeing another showdown
because apparently, according tosources out of Santa Fe, the
governor wants to shut thosedown.
Legislators went and looked athim to see hey, what are these
(02:09):
things necessary?
Are they humane?
What's the deal with them?
And there's going to be a hugeshowdown on that.
So we're going to talk aboutthat.
In addition, the governor hasnow commented on President Trump
sending the National Guard intoNew Mexico.
We'll talk about that as well.
Commented on President Trumpsending the National Guard into
New Mexico We'll talk about thatas well.
By the way, if you'reinterested in a new spot to play
pickleball, we've got the spotfor you.
(02:30):
No question, gosh, okay, andit's going to surprise you where
it is.
And we're then going to get intoan executive order by the
President of the United Statestrying to get rid of, basically,
cashless bail which we havehere in the state of New Mexico,
which has been absolutelydevastating.
So yet another story out ofWashington DC that, if we're
(02:50):
paying attention to it and we'rehonest about it and we're going
to give you the numbers.
There is no question thisshould be shut down across the
country.
It's been devastating in NewMexico.
We'll talk about that.
And then we'll also talk aboutsome numbers as well that should
have, say, republicans worried,and we're going to talk about
numbers that have should haveDemocrats very worried as we
(03:13):
head through the next couple ofmonths and then couple of years.
And then, of course, we'regoing to talk about game cameras
, because we're not going to behere on Sunday.
I do have some game cameras,yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
I'm sure you do.
You do, I'm sure you do.
Hey, before we dive in, Iwanted to clarify really quickly
for folks from our last episode.
We got a lot of comments.
I think there was some confusionon us covering the fact that
Trump was sending the NationalGuard to New Mexico.
I think there was a lot of youknow some confusion.
Maybe people didn't watch thewhole story that we talked about
, but just for clarity purposes,trump sending the National
(03:47):
Guard is part of a 19-stateevent that Trump is doing to
support ICE and immigrationissues.
It's a federal situation, right, he is not sending in the
National Guard like he did in DC, for example.
That's different.
That's not what he's doing here.
So I just want to make surethat we're clear on that in our
(04:07):
delivery for you guys.
Yes, michelle Lujan Grisham, ourgovernor, did issue the
National Guard on an in-statesituation in Albuquerque and
Española.
That was another question thata lot of you asked.
Yes, we've covered thatnumerous times in previous
episodes, so if you want to findout more about that, go back to
those episodes.
But again, trump sending inNational Guard is not
(04:27):
necessarily to sweep the streetsof crime in the city of
Albuquerque.
It is to help with ICE andillegal immigration.
That's what's happening, andit's happening across 19 states,
not just New Mexico, so justwant to make sure we clear that
up for everybody.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Okay, no more.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
You're not allowed to do any more housekeeping stuff
at the top of the show so sorryit's too much housekeeping oh
well, you felt like you were itfelt like you were cleaning the
floors okay, you can, like house, go ahead and cut it out.
No, let's keep going.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Okay, all right, here we go.
So here we go, and this is thestory we've been talking about
right here.
Right gop legislators lawedconditions at the Otero County
Immigration Detention Facility.
There were eight legislatorswho were Republicans, one who
was a Democrat who went along tocheck out the Otero County
Detention Center, and here iswhy this is important and why
(05:17):
they went on this tour.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
The tour comes as lawmakers are preparing for a
possible special session inwhich legislation banning New
Mexico local governments fromentering into contracts with
federal agencies to detainimmigrants for civil violations
could be among the items on theagenda.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Okay, let me explain that real quickly, because I
know when we first read thisyou're like what in the world
does that even mean, right?
And how does the governor evenhave a say over it?
Well, what this is the governordoes have say over what local
municipalities can do in somecases, okay.
And so she would then say, ifthey wanted to try to pass this
law to be able to say, okay, asa local municipality in the
(05:53):
state of new mexico, you can'tenter into these contracts.
Now we'll get into whether thatis constitutional or not, we'll
absolutely touch on that in asecond.
But that is what they're tryingto do, so that everybody says
why do you have any sort ofpurview over this?
That's why, because thegovernor has purview over those
local governments, right?
So that's where the connectioncomes in.
(06:15):
And then we keep going.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Governor Michelle Michelle Lujan Grisham has not
yet set a date for the specialsession, but her chief legal
counsel told a legislative panellast month she was considering
adding such a bill to thespecial session mix.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
The governor did not attend monday's tour, citing
scheduling conflicts oh, by theway, first week of october is
when we hear that that's goingto be keep on going okay, of the
nine legislators who took partin monday's tour, eight were
republicans.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
The lone democrat was rep uh representative and
Andrea Romero.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Andrea Romero yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
From Santa Fe who was among the lead sponsors of
legislation during the years, uh, the this year 60 day session.
That would have forced the thethree immigrant detention
facilities in the state to closedown.
That bill past the house butultimately stalled in the city
committee and the Senatecommittee.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Yeah, so the thing is .
And give her credit I mean notcredit for for putting up a bill
that would have shut thesethings down, for reasons that
we'll get into in a second.
That's a terrible idea, but atleast she went on the tour, you
know.
At least she went on the tourto see what the deal is Right
and so.
So that part is at leastsomewhat of a positive in that
particular respect.
But still, I mean, the realityof the situation is you have no
(07:27):
Democrats that went on thisparticular tour.
Okay, but talking to people whowere on the tour, I can tell you
this they were incrediblyimpressed with the facility that
they do things like dietaryrestrictions If people are
gluten intolerant.
Actually, they try to accountfor that.
It was clean, it took good careof people.
Okay, people in this state havecompassion that they're not
Neanderthals who don't careabout people, okay, so that's
(07:51):
one of the cases you canactually make in all of this,
which is the state of New Mexicois not the kind of state where
you set up something to abusepeople.
It's just not something thestate does, okay.
So, therefore, why does it makesense to stop these facilities,
does, okay.
So therefore, why does it makesense to stop these facilities,
right?
I mean, reality of thesituation is in many cases, we
as a state are compassionate.
We should have these facilitiesbecause A you're going to have
(08:13):
these arrests, they're going tohappen, right, and why not have
them in a place where people areproperly cared for?
And you can absolutely makethat case.
There's a very interestingeditorial that came from the
Santa Fe New Mexican Senator,crystal Brantley, and Vince
Torres, who is a super smart guywho we're big fans of we had
him on our show and Vince isinvolved in all sorts of things
(08:36):
across the state of New Mexicothese two came together and they
wrote this no, governor, don'ttry to ban immigrant detention
facilities, and had some reallyinteresting points in all this.
So, christelle, you know youcan take us through this, but
it's pretty interesting stuffwhat they said.
They made some really valuablepoints.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
The intent behind this proposal isn't hard to see
by eliminating contracts withfederal agencies, the governor
is effectively attempting toshut down immigration detention
facilities in New Mexicoentirely.
Attempting to shut downimmigration detention facilities
in New Mexico entirely Becausethese facilities are typically
privately operated under federalcontracts.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Banning them would end our ability to detain those
who violate immigration law,including individuals with
serious criminal backgrounds,and again, don't forget, if we
don't put them in jail here,it's not that they're not going
to jail, by the way they likelyare.
It just won't be here and whoknows where they'll be going.
Okay, and they keep going.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Earlier this year, during a targeted week-long
operation in Albuquerque, santaFe, roswell Immigration and
Customs Enforcement arrested 20illegal immigrants charged with
or convicted of homicide, sexualassault, aggravated battery,
drug trafficking, burglary anddrunken driving.
These are violent criminals whothreaten the safety of our
(09:48):
neighborhoods and rural towns.
Yet the governor's plan wouldmake it harder, if not
impossible, for ICE to detainand remove them.
And let's be clear this isn'tabout fixing detention, it's
about eliminating it altogether.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Yeah, that is incredibly true.
Right, it's absolutely true.
But here's the other thing inall of this and they make
mention of this in theireditorial and that is that this
has been tried before.
Okay, there have been statesthat have tried to do this
before, and guess what happens?
Speaker 3 (10:19):
It doesn't hold up in court.
It doesn't hold up in court.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Why?
Because the state has nopurview over how to tell the
federal government how toenforce immigration law.
They just don't have a roleRight.
So the state of New Mexico, yetagain, could run headlong into
trying to pass something thatthe courts look at them and say,
no, can't do it, sorry, itdoesn't work.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
But in the meantime, could they potentially shut
these detention centers down,costing people their jobs and
then waiting and tying this upin court.
And then what do we do withthese folks that they're trying
to?
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Yes, they could create chaos for a short period
of time.
Yeah they could.
Well, it works its way onthrough.
So I want you to read one more,and that's the impact here,
because this is not somethingthat is just a law enforcement
issue as far as keeping peoplebehind bars.
This is also an issue of wehave three of these detention
facilities in the state of NewMexico.
Well, guess what?
We have hundreds of people thatwork at these.
(11:12):
So, in other words, you'regoing to have legislators show
up in Santa Fe and tell what 300new Mexicans Guess what.
You're out of work.
And that's exactly one of thethings that they mention in this
particular, or really at theend of this particular editorial
.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Locally.
In rural counties like Torrance, otero and Cibola, detention
centers are more than justfacilities they're economic
lifelines.
According to our state's ownfiscal analysis, banning ICE
contracts would jeopardizehundreds of well-paying, steady
jobs in these areas whereemployment options are limited.
Closing them would also striptens of millions of dollars from
(11:55):
local economies each year,money that supports small
communities and helps smallbusinesses afloat.
For a governor who claims tocare about rural investment,
this proposal is an astonishingact of economic sabotage.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
So this would be the governor effectively saying
learn to code.
Learn to code Guy who lives ingrants and works in a
correctional facility.
Learn to code the guy inAlamogordo who busts his butt
Monday through Friday at thefacility there, a facility that,
by all accounts, does a reallygood job.
Hey brother, guess what?
(12:21):
We'll see you at DeVry comingup here in a couple of weeks as
you learn the new computer.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
DeVry.
I mean, is DeVry even stilloperating?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
I don't know if DeVry is still operating, but it's
still.
You get the point.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Yeah, I get the point .
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Okay, so again, a horrible idea, not something we
should be doing.
This is something, though.
This is what happens when youdon't take the wellbeing, not
only of your citizens, becauseof detention facilities keeping
people off the streets that aredangerous.
Not only that, but you expandthat out and you say when all
(12:56):
you care about is politics, yougo do things like this.
It costs people their jobs, itcosts people their livelihoods
Heck.
It's even worse for the peoplethat end up behind bars.
But why do you do it?
Only reason you do it isbecause you care about politics
and optics, and that, to me, isridiculous.
It cannot be part of theequation in the special session.
(13:18):
If we're serious about doinggood things that people actually
need done, it's off the charts,stupid.
It really is, and I don't knowif they'll do it again.
We continue to see laws.
Past year that gets swattedaway constantly by the courts
that say what are you doing?
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Another example another example of that.
Well, speaking of just is it?
Is it more politics?
Is this what?
What's happening?
Lujan Grisham comes out againstusing the National Guard for
immigration enforcement.
Apparently, she's OK with usingin-state National Guard to help
us fight crime in Albuquerqueand Española, but not so much
when Trump wants to send aNational Guard here to help with
(13:58):
our immigration issues.
So this is the latest in theSanta Fe New Mexican.
It's talking.
We talked about her not makinga comment.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah, because she had not made a comment, we couldn't
find it, and now we have it now.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
It's here.
So here's what she's had to say.
Governor Lujan Grisham wouldoppose the deployment of
National Guard troops to NewMexico to conduct immigration
raids, and she certainlywouldn't order ours up for that
purpose, coleman.
She opposes sweeping raids anddeportations that terrorize
communities, break up familiesand harm local economies.
It's worth noting that GovernorLujan Grisham has long
(14:28):
supported and requestedadditional federal border
personnel and technology to helpcombat drug trafficking and
other serious crime.
Oh really, really, she stronglybelieves the best way to
improve immigration enforcementin our country is for Congress
to pass a bill that fixes thebroken system.
Ok, well, we'll wait for thatto happen, because, I mean,
we've only been waiting for thatfor, I don't know, 15, 20, 30
(14:50):
years.
Let's just keep waiting forthat and meanwhile, just keep
things just as they are Crazy,crazy, just let these folks come
in.
I you know.
I think what's interesting is Ihad a private conversation.
I didn't tell you about this,mark, that we're going to talk
about this right now, but had aprivate conversation with an FBI
agent who will remain nameless,but their number one job right
now and it's not here in NewMexico, that's not where this
(15:14):
person is based.
But they have been like kind ofcircled the wagons and been
told that their latest job ishere's the list of the most
dangerous people that are hereillegally, that these and this
person shared with me.
You would not believe howdangerous these people are that
are in our country, that youknow.
I don't care what politicalparty you're from, you don't
(15:36):
want these folks in our country,so we're not allowed there.
There's all these stipulationsabout how they are not allowed
to break up.
You know, go in and do all this, whatever they're talking about
, all this chaos and breaking upfamilies and boo-hoo, all that.
That's not what's happening.
What's happening is these very,very violent people that should
never have been allowed in ourcountry.
(15:57):
To begin with, that list ofthose folks, that's who these
folks are going after, our lawenforcement, those agencies,
that's who they're tracking downfirst and foremost.
So they just said you know theyshould be.
Everybody should be thankingthem really at this point.
I mean this person was notlooking for credit.
It was just more like you guysshould be understanding of how
serious this is and howdangerous these folks are that
(16:19):
we're trying to get and get outof here.
So again, sitting here andsaying I'm not going to.
We're not going to allow Trumpor National Guard to come in
here and help support.
That is insane.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Well, and I think one other thing that's interesting,
though, is in the governor'scomment.
She does the whole.
Trump terrorizes people.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Da, da, da da da Trump, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (16:38):
Expect all that.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
But then the second paragraph is I do want to
address the border.
It is so.
It's interesting because itisn't just this kind of oppose
Trump and then leave it.
There is another line in theresaying hey, wait a minute, I do
support, you know, a secureborder.
It's interesting.
It shows you that, that thatissue has serious salience.
So she can't just go in andgive a two line response Trump
(17:00):
bad, I oppose him, it's Trumpbad.
And, by the way, the border doesneed to be dealt with and I've
been trying to deal with it.
I'm just telling you all I'msaying in that I'm not giving
her cover for that.
All I'm saying is that bysaying that that shows you how
salient the issue is, sherealizes she can't just be one
of those.
Hey, hey, let's just say wedon't like Trump and Trump evil
and let's walk away.
That's not enough because ofwhat's happened with the border
(17:22):
and all the things that havecome since then.
It's an issue.
That's a very real issue and aproblem and therefore she can't
just leave it hanging out thereas Trump bad.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
OK, that's great, but she is the one that was
responsible for pulling back theNational Guard from our border
originally and making it lesssafe.
So again, you know you can sithere now and Okay.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Oh, no, no question, no question.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Why were you the one that pulled the National Guard
off there when we needed theirsupport down there anyway?
Like I don't understand that.
Like that to me is talking outof both sides of your mouth and
it's like you're trying toplease everybody.
I don't know what the point ofher even saying that is.
We don't have that sort of amemory.
We remember what she alreadydid, that she pulled that
National Guard off.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Well, did that with this.
She pulled that national guardoff.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Well, I think you're being all right.
I'm sorry, am I just trying totell the facts?
No, I think you're being toohard.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
I think you're being too hard, and so, because of
that, we're switching directionson stories and we're going to
do this story, which is I, youknow.
Look, I mean, the governor hasnow been nice enough, oh, to
open up the governor's mansionfor pickleball, oh so for
everybody, by the way, if I'mher.
I'm calling these photographersthe Mexican and saying stop it.
Hey, hey, jerk, don't take thispicture.
(18:33):
Okay, this is just outrageous,but I do love that she's got the
blades on go, blades from like1986, those glasses I like.
I like what she's doing here,I'm not going to listen.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
I I am laughing because it's a ridiculous
picture and we've all seenreally bad pictures.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Oh, we've all been part of really bad.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Yeah, agreed, and so I can't.
I can't mock it too badly, Idon't know, and here's the
funniest part too is I'm justlike looking at this going okay.
Well, I can't speak too much tothis because I'm so blind now
that you know when you and Iplay pickleball, often I can't
even know if the pickleball isclose to me or not.
I'm swinging anyway because Ican't tell depth perception.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
But, anyway.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
So is the pickleball open for anybody like you and I.
Should we give her a call?
As a matter of fact, it is.
We played pickleball.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
This is Daniel Chacon doing the story no-transcript
and has transformed the courtfor both tennis and pickleball
(19:36):
play.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
Oh, we have to sign up to go and do this.
I know we do.
You think you and I will get inthere.
You think they're going to letus in?
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Oh, I think they'd love to have us.
We play doubles against thegovernor and her husband.
We play doubles against thegovernor and her husband, and
it'd be fantastic.
She would love it.
By the way, if the firstpicture wasn't bad enough, would
you cut her some slack?
And we don't need to show thisone either.
An online reservation system isbeing developed and will be
launched soon, allowingresidents excuse me to easily
book court times and participatein activities, said Jody
(20:03):
McGinnis Porter, thespokesperson for Michelle Lujan
Grisham.
She said this on Wednesday, soyeah.
So, by the way, I will say this, and this does need to be
referenced here it was paid forprivate funds.
It was not paid for by public.
Public funds were not used tocrank up the old pickleball
tennis court.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Okay, I guess I'm just kind of confused.
How do you just open that upfor the public?
Is everybody going to have todo like background checks and
sweeps and all kinds of stuff?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Well, you're not going to have access, say to the
residents.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
They're not going to be like hey, come on into the
kitchen you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
And this isn't on the property, it is on the property
.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Yeah, I don't know how they dang, so who?
Speaker 3 (20:49):
knows, I mean, but Mark was a text, I mean was a
state champion tennis player.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
So yeah, no, it's a pretty good chance, I will admit
.
Yeah, uh, if, if we ever tanglewith her a second time, yes, we
will win.
If this is the tangle thatwe're on, the advantage will be
to us.
I will say that there is zerochance she'd have a chance to
win that.
But you know, in her defenseshe probably won the bigger of
(21:13):
the two contests.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Correct, correct, that's true.
That's a good point.
Okay, so let's let's catch upwith a bit more national news
now, on the national front.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Yeah.
So I want to do something and Iwant to tie it in, right?
So president Trump this weekstood up and said we're going to
try to get rid of cashless bailand basically what amounts to
catch and release.
Ok, so I want to play a littlebit of what was said when he
signed the executive order intothis, and then I want to turn it
back to New Mexico, because wehave cashless bail Effectively
(21:42):
we really do and we also havewhat really is catch and release
.
That applies to us.
Anyone who tells you it doesn'tis playing word games.
Ok, it's just ridiculous.
So here is what President Trumpsaid OK, let's go.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Could I ask you to say exactly what this is, of
course.
Speaker 7 (21:57):
So, as you've consistently identified, some
cashless bail policies are a keydriver of the disorder we see
on city streets all over America.
Catch and release system allowscriminals to keep going back
out onto the street andreoffending.
What this executive order does?
It charges your attorneygeneral with identifying
jurisdictions all over thecountry that have cashless bail
(22:17):
policies, and then it withholdsor revokes federal funds and
grants that are flowing to thosejurisdictions to ensure that
we're only supporting the peoplewho have reasonable common
sense policies around crime.
So what area does it cover?
Potentially anywhere that has acashless bail policy.
So some of the largest cities,some of the most left wing
states in America, Almost all ofthem right.
(22:39):
Illinois would be a greatexample of that, sir.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Oh, they have a great cashless bail.
You don't even have to go tocourt sometimes.
Illinois I love that state.
It's a great state, but it'srun so badly by Pritzker.
They threw him out of thefamily business and he becomes
governor.
Now he wants to run forpresident.
I don't think that's going tohappen.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Okay, okay, just adds his commentary.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
He just throws it in, but okay.
So here's the thing.
We squarely fit into this.
Okay, it, but OK.
So here's the thing, wesquarely fit into this.
Ok, it just is very clear thatthe state of New Mexico fits
into this.
So because of that, theAlbuquerque Journal writes this
article and the headline thatPresident Trump's executive
order on cash bail could affectNew Mexico.
(23:22):
Ok, so they go through and getsome response from this.
So, and the author says, notsurprisingly, new Mexico's
leaders largely reacted alongparty lines.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
And then here is what the governor had to say
Effective public safety requiresevidence based solutions
tailored to local needs, notfederal mandates that undermine
state sovereignty and threatensto politicize our judicial
systems.
Governor Michelle Lujan.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
Grisham's spokesman, michael Coleman, said in
response to Monday's orders Okay, that's a bunch of
gobbledygooks and we're notgonna spend much time on that,
Okay but Michael Coleman's beenvery busy this past year.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
I mean holy moly Coleman's been.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
He's been busy, yeah, Okay, and so now the one I
wanna focus on, cause that'sjust plather and whatever, all
right, so, but the one I want tofocus on is this one, and this
is Peter Wirth, from Santa Fe,and he's one of our esteemed
state senators.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
So this is, to me, a ridiculous comment and then
we'll talk about him, but whatdid he have to say?
The bail reforms votersoverwhelmingly approved in 2016
give judges the ability to holddangerous defendants in jail
before trial, were set in astatement.
Any punitive action from thefederal level is a clear
(24:35):
overreach and a misguidedattempt to undermine New
Mexico's constitution.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Okay, this is a ludicrous statement.
I mean, it's, first of all,it's a lie.
Okay, now, what happened in2016 was voters were told, if
they supported this new bailreform, that violent criminals
would be held behind bars.
They were told that that was alie.
It was a clear lie and now weknow we have lived through it
(25:03):
for nearly 10 years that we havea revolving door of justice
where violent criminals do notstay behind bars.
The proof is in the eating.
It is in the numbers.
Okay, so just to show you whata liar Senator Wirth was and he
is, there's no other way to sayit.
Okay, and he knows he's lying.
Okay, now, there's no one whocan look at this now and say
well, what do you mean?
The numbers are?
(25:33):
We are keeping all thoseviolent criminals behind bars.
Here is a look Again.
I'm a simple meteorologist.
All I do is look at a couple ofnumbers and throw a graph
together.
Okay, this is New Mexico'sviolent crime rate since 2010.
Okay, now, that violent crimerate was creeping up in 2016,
but it skyrocketed the minutethose reforms went into place
and it has been out of controlever since.
Okay, and let's not forget, asyou look at these numbers and
(25:56):
you see, what Senator Wirth issaying is ridiculous.
We all know we don't keepviolent criminals behind bars,
nearly like we should Heck.
Raul Torres and the governorhave even said we have a problem
because it's a revolving door.
Everybody's admitting it now.
Obviously, senator Wirth, thisis where we have problems in our
legislature, because these guyswon't be honest and they surely
(26:16):
won't look out for their ownconstituents, excuse me.
And so, by the way, just in caseyou've forgotten, okay, and in
case you think well, where do wesit?
As far as crime numbers goacross the nation, we're number
one.
We're the most violent state inthe country, and it has
happened since 2016.
It is a direct result of 2016.
(26:39):
It's a direct result of thevoters being lied to sold the
bill of goods, which is not true, and now it has to change.
President Trump is trying tochange it, but of course, trump
bad.
So whatever Trump you knowsupports, you know we can't
possibly support here, but thereality of the situation is this
has been devastating to thestate of New Mexico.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
Yeah, and I mean let's explain a little bit just
briefly on the cashless bailsystem why it was implemented.
I believe the whole theory wasthat it it punished those that
came from no money, right, theydidn't really have the means
necessary to post bail and itwas really just set aside for,
like well, it's like, yeah, theguy who had a dime bag a pot was
(27:19):
, was, was in jail, you know, ona on a on a bond that he
couldn't possibly, you know, hit, or even even he has no money.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
It's a hundred dollar bond and he couldn't, couldn
possibly, you know, hit, or eveneven he has no money, it's a
hundred dollar bond and hecouldn't, couldn't, reach it for
whatever that is.
But that's not what happened.
What happened was thatconstantly they use things like
the Arnold tool, right, and thisis one of those equations that
they pump, punch everything intoand they say, oh yeah, this
guy's accused of rape, let'sturn them back out on the street
.
It happened all the time.
It happens.
In Albuquerque, the Arnold toolwas used all the time.
Instead of just having a strongbail system in place, it took
(27:51):
all our bail bondsmen, destroyedtheir careers.
They're done, Right Right,there used to be bail bondsmen.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
Right, all those are closed down.
They're all shut down, yeahabsolutely.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
They're all shut down .
And so again, again, not caring.
You know about that portion ofit.
They clearly didn't.
But at the same time, theresults are very clear.
Everyone knows that.
You can't deny the results.
The results are that violentcrime is out of control, and
this is the reason why Nobody'sdisputing that.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
And so this is an executive order.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
I wonder when this would go into effect, say here
or Well, it goes into effectright away and what it will do
is it'll take funding right.
For example, if you havefederal funds that are earmarked
for stay the city ofAlbuquerque to do something,
whatever that might be, they maypull those funds back and say
until you start protecting yourown people, we're not giving you
more money.
I mean, that's the power of thepurse, right?
So that's that's where it comesin, so it could go at any time.
(28:41):
Basically.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
And see what happens.
Okay, you had another story inhere on Trump, so I'm going to
let you lead into this one aswell.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yeah, you know.
Okay, so at the risk of beinglook, this guy, howard Lutnick
bugs.
Okay, he's the commercesecretary.
Here's my problem and this ismy problem and it worries me on
the Republican side that if yougo and you think government
control now is okay because youhave a Republican president,
(29:11):
you're making a terrible mistake.
Okay, stuff like Intel, thegovernment taking 10% of Intel,
10% interest in Intel, I don'tlike it.
If you're going to loan Intelmoney or bail them out or
bailouts like we had with theauto industry or whatever, if
you're going to loan the money,they should pay the money back.
People shouldn't be giving awaymoney to corporate interests,
(29:32):
no question about that.
At the same time, variousschools okay, the federal
government gives money to thoseschools and, yes, there need to
be certain standards in placethat those schools adhere to.
But the government doesn't needto take them over.
The government doesn't need anoperating interest in them.
That gets into socialismterritory, which I am clearly
(29:54):
not comfortable with.
To me, this comment you'reabout to hear from Howard
Lutnick to me is dangerous and Iabsolutely don't like it.
Speaker 5 (30:04):
We have given tens, if not hundreds, of billions of
dollars to universities for themto do research and they invent
things.
And you know who owns thosepatents the universities.
So we are going to make a dealwith them all, which is, if we
give them the money, don't youthink it's fair that the United
(30:25):
States of America and thetaxpayers who funded it get a
piece of that right?
So we wrote a letter to Harvard.
So Linda and I, workingtogether, I mean it's so much
fun to work with everybody hereI mean we just have a blast, you
know, because Linda's hittingHarvard and she says what can we
do?
Now?
We send them a patent letterand we'll hit them again.
(30:45):
So we're having fun together.
This is the greatest cabinetworking for the greatest
president, and I just want tosay thank you.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
I'm having the time of my life, uh, working for you,
mr president okay, I don't careif you're having the time of
your life working for him and Iunderstand the patent issue is a
little bit different but but atthe same time, this sort of
thing of like we're going to goin and it just I don't it is.
It is a slippery slope and letme tell you something you're
going to be okay with that whenthere's a democratic president
(31:16):
going in, so we're going to comeand take over.
We're going to take a piece ofthis, we're going to take a
piece of this.
Letnick to me is I would neverlet that guy speak in public.
I just wouldn't.
I think he comes off as a brashclown and I can't.
I watch him and it makes myskin crawl.
And so, as Republicans, I thinkyou better be careful.
I mean, this is the sort ofthing you do not want the
(31:37):
government diving into all thesethings saying we get this, we
get this, we get this.
All it is is bigger governmentby a different name, and so I
just I don't like it.
So it stuck out to me we get,you know, people saying hey,
when are you going to go and hitthis or that, or or go after
the president on this or that.
I'll tell you I don't like this, I don't like it at all.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
Yeah, well, we definitely don't, and there's
there's been, you know, talkback and forth about the
government basically owning someof the universities and I.
That, I think, is a terribleidea.
So yeah, I just think, all thisstuff, if we get into that and
and privately owned you know ourbusinesses.
I don't understand why thegovernment needs to be wholly
involved in those as it is, andbe an owner of them, right, or
(32:20):
uh?
I just I disagree with thatcompletely.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
So and again, this is some of that thing where you
have, where you have smallgovernment republicans.
Um, I think when you get thesesmall government Republicans
versus some of these people whoare either newer to the party or
who say, hey look, we'resupporting what the president
wants to do, no matter what,because he's the president now,
so we like what we see.
(32:42):
Well, you're just not going tolike it at a certain point
because of bigger and biggergovernment coming in and I think
I just I don't know that struckme when I watched him.
I was just like you know enough, and I've never been a fan,
admittedly I just thought it wastoo much.
Okay.
So I want to talk short-term,long-term political information
here.
In the short term, as we'vesaid, we think 2026 is not
(33:05):
necessarily going to be a greatyear for Republicans and as you
look at the job approval ratingsand some of the different
categories which Trump sitsright now, at least through
Gallup and the latest numbers,they don't look great.
Ok, job approval around 40percent.
Job approval in foreign affairsat 39 percent.
(33:26):
Ok, so the economy he gets a 37percent, 37 approval right now.
That's a huge problem okay,which we?
Speaker 3 (33:33):
I remember.
Uh, we talked about that early,early days.
Like you know, if he doesn'tstart to turn the economy very
quickly, that's going to be hisdownfall is potentially like, if
the economy can't turn, whathappens at that point?
Speaker 2 (33:46):
you, yeah, and I think just a couple other
numbers here.
Foreign affairs numbers aren'tgreat.
Education, the numbers aren'tnecessarily great, but here's
the biggest deal, and the bottomnumber is one I'd be most
concerned with.
Economic conditions are gettingbetter 35%.
Economic conditions gettingmore 63%.
And here's part of the problemthat Trump has is that the big
beautiful bill that took a taxcut that was already in place
(34:10):
and made it permanent, right.
So it's very hard to run onthat because you're not giving
someone something new.
They're not looking at theirpaycheck saying, oh my gosh, I
got more money on my paycheck.
What they're getting is theirpaycheck doesn't go way down on
them.
So you can so going and sort ofproving a negative, saying if
we hadn't done this, you'd hadmuch like.
You can't prove acounterfactual right Cause it
(34:32):
didn't happen.
They kept the tax cut.
So you can't say, well, itwould have been much worse, we
had the tax like.
You can't run on that.
So that's really hard andthere's no way around that for
Trump in this particular case.
So these numbers are tough asyou look at them right now for
the midterms for the midterm,yeah in the short term right now
.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
The point being, though, in the long term yeah,
in the long term, you know, 2028and beyond.
Uh it, it is looking better forthe republican party.
So let's take a look a littlebit at our boy over at cnn,
harry harry henton, do you lovehim?
I do, we.
We tend to follow this guy andall his.
You know his latest numbers, solet's take a look at what he's
(35:09):
saying right now.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
As far as numbers go in the swing states.
What's happening with voterregistration in some big swing
states Back in?
Speaker 6 (35:15):
2017,.
Look at this the RepublicanParty gains in party
registration compared to thispoint back in 2017, during the
Trump first administration.
In Arizona, you got aRepublican gain of three points.
Ok, how about Nevada?
Up the hill we go, even thoughwe're sticking in the Southwest
a gain of six points.
How about?
Again we come to the East Coast, north Carolina a gain of eight
points for the Republicans.
(35:36):
And in the Keystone State inthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
, again we're talking about again of eight points.
My goodness gracious forRepublicans, they are converting
old former Democrats to theirside of the ledger, as well as
picking up new voters,registering new voters, and it
absolutely paid off for themback in the 2024 election, ok so
(35:57):
that tells you overall numbers.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Republicans feel pretty good about the numbers.
They are moving in thatdirection.
Maybe not in 26.
I think 26 can be close, butwe'll see Right.
So because it's a midterm of apresident, it always goes
against the party in power.
That's kind of how it goes.
But if you look at the broadertrends here and this is a
broader trend he's talking aboutthings are moving okay.
Then no other than the New YorkTimes, or none other than the
(36:22):
New York Times, comes out withthis article how the electoral
college College could tiltfurther from Democrats.
Ok, fascinating article.
It was a long, long read here,but I just want to read you a
couple of things here.
And there's a very simpletakeaway from all of this.
But it does show that there arethe Republicans in the
Electoral College are likely tobe looking at a very, very
(36:46):
beneficial scenario, especiallyby 2030.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
That is the nightmare scenario many Democratic Party
insiders see playing out ifcurrent US population
projections hold.
After every decennial census,like the one coming up in 2030,
congressional seats arereallocated among the states
based on population shifts.
Those seats in turn affect howbig a prize each state is within
the electoral college or how acandidate actually wins the
(37:12):
presidency.
In the next decade, theelectoral college will tilt
significantly away fromDemocrats.
Deeply conservative Texas andFlorida could gain a total of
five congressional seats, andthe red states of Utah and Idaho
are each expected to add a seat.
Going on a little bit long here, it says.
You know these gains will comeat the expense of major
(37:33):
democratic states like New Yorkand California.
According to the New York Timesanalysis of population
projections by Esri, anonpartisan company who's
mapping software and demographicdata are widely used by
businesses and governmentsacross the world.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
Yeah, so that's interesting stuff.
So, just so you know, andhere's the bottom line on this
whole thing it's that red statesare growing fast and blue
states aren't giving up.
It's that simple, right.
And so if you look at the mapsand everything else, the fastest
growing states are Texas andFlorida.
Okay, they're going to grow by13%.
They're going to add millionsof voters.
(38:10):
The fastest growing democraticstate is Colorado.
It's going to add less than 10%growth.
Okay, and as you look at someof these numbers here, it's
interesting because you look atthe changes.
So if you look at soliddemocratic states, california
likely to lose three seats.
Illinois likely to lose twoseats.
New York likely to lose a seatand Rhode Island likely to lose
(38:32):
a seat.
Battleground states Arizona's aRepublican state.
It's going to add one.
Georgia, close but still mildlyRepublican, they're going to
add one.
Minnesota, clearly Democrat,going to lose one.
Pennsylvania, completely swing,going to lose one.
Solid red states Texas addsthree.
Florida adds two.
Idaho adds one.
Utah adds one.
(38:54):
That's interesting, so that'swhy those broader issues that we
talk about, those bigger trends, are still very strong for
Republicans.
Democrats have to get moresolid footing on what they're
trying to do.
But it's interesting.
Speaker 3 (39:07):
Okay, it's.
It's a very interesting littleforecast coming down, Like maybe
2026 is not as great, you know,for the Republicans but, it's
not like a completely a lostsituation.
It's, in fact, it's the oppositeright, like, keep hanging on
because the good news is coming,kind of deal.
So, yeah, okay, I know you wantto end on your game camera
video and I apologize, folks,because we normally only have
(39:29):
those on Sundays Sunday game daybut since we will not be here
for the Sundays episode, um,because it's a holiday weekend,
so we're going to take it off.
Mark has peppered in some ofhis favorites uh, from our, from
our game camera properties.
Speaker 2 (39:43):
Look at this buck, though.
Look at this guy.
I mean the antlers on this guy.
Look that, he's a beauty, he'sgood looking.
I mean he's good looking.
Now, the thing about this timeof year, uh, before the rut and
things like that and everythingelse.
Uh, you know, you get the boys,they hang out together.
So then we got two of themhanging out.
Yeah, right here.
(40:04):
Look at these guys.
Both look pretty good justpanel around.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
Yeah, that one guy though in the in the front.
Speaker 2 (40:09):
Come on, fella.
Speaker 3 (40:10):
Yeah, he's a gold picture, he looks perfect.
We need to get those littlebaby deer that I've been seeing
up there.
Like I want them to show up onour camera.
They look like Bambi with theirlittle polka dots.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
Then I'd be like, let's go back here.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
This is a bigger bear than the one that was on the
porch, by the way yes, he ishuge just walking on by.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
I put, by the way, new position of the camera here.
I moved it.
See, we got kind of an openfield there, yeah, so I'm hoping
we're gonna get more peoplecoming right by yeah, but this
bear, people are bears uh bearsactually.
Uh, there he goes.
He's a good looking guy, looksgood, so there we go, so there,
it is.
Speaker 7 (40:48):
So there it is.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
And, yeah, we've got a lot going on here, so we will
not be here on Sunday.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
Right, but again, thank you guys, so much for your
comments.
Please keep them going.
If you'd like to sign up forour email, which is a great way
to make sure you know when ournext show will be all of our
shows will be go to no doubtabout it podcast uh website and
sign up for our email there.
That would be super helpful forus and we will make sure that
you don't miss any of our shows.
(41:14):
Also, if you want to support usfurther, tell your friends
about us or you can make adonation on our website to keep
supporting our podcast.
Speaker 1 (41:21):
Thanks so much for joining us, you guys and have a
great rest of your week and ahappy Labor Day weekend.
You've been listening to the noDoubt About it podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
(41:43):
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it podcast.
No doubt about it.
The no Doubt About it podcastis a Choose Adventure Media
production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
There is no doubt about it.
all right boss go ahead go ahead.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Here we are everybody .
Thanks for uh joining us forour wednesday edition of the
know about it podcast.
Uh, coming to you pretty late.
Uh, ella had a volleyball games.
We're back to you producingback there because she's wiped
out, so we got to let her rallyfor tomorrow it's volleyball.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I mean, is she that tired?
She's pretty tired, okay.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Between school and volleyball.
She's tired.
Yeah, they won.
That's the bonus that we'revery excited about.
So, by the way, I just want tomake a quick comment for
everybody out there that tunedin last week and then have made
a lot of great comments on ourchannel for us.
We just appreciate it so much.
The support.
Some of the back and forth hasbeen hilarious and I really you
know what I mean if you've beenreading it, and we just want you
(01:00):
to know how much we appreciateour great uh, our supporters out
there.
You guys are our littlecommunity is awesome.
We're growing and we really,really appreciate it.
So continue to like andsubscribe on our youtube channel
.
That means the world to us andthose comments help for
algorithms, so we appreciate it.
So tune in.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate that.
Okay, so get to the to, to whatwe're going to talk about
tonight okay, so we do have alot to chat about.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
By the way, just as a background, uh, I erased the
program which records the showfor us.
It's called OBS.
I erased it off my computer andwe just found this out, so
we're actually doing this off ofa YouTube Well, not really
YouTube, it's.
It's really more of a zoommeeting that will go to YouTube.
(01:43):
So, sorry about that, I screwedthat up.
It's going to be just fine.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Things happen.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
So, okay, a lot going on here and we're going to go
hauling through this show, butthere's some interesting stuff
here.
Number one we have threeimmigrant detention centers in
the state of New Mexico and nowwe're seeing another showdown
because apparently, according tosources out of Santa Fe, the
governor wants to shut thosedown.
Legislators went and looked athim to see hey, what are these
(02:09):
things necessary?
Are they humane?
What's the deal with them?
And there's going to be a hugeshowdown on that.
So we're going to talk aboutthat.
In addition, the governor hasnow commented on President Trump
sending the National Guard intoNew Mexico.
We'll talk about that as well.
Commented on President Trumpsending the National Guard into
New Mexico We'll talk about thatas well.
By the way, if you'reinterested in a new spot to play
pickleball, we've got the spotfor you.
(02:30):
No question, gosh, okay, andit's going to surprise you where
it is.
And we're then going to get intoan executive order by the
President of the United Statestrying to get rid of, basically,
cashless bail which we havehere in the state of New Mexico,
which has been absolutelydevastating.
So yet another story out ofWashington DC that, if we're
(02:50):
paying attention to it and we'rehonest about it and we're going
to give you the numbers.
There is no question thisshould be shut down across the
country.
It's been devastating in NewMexico.
We'll talk about that.
And then we'll also talk aboutsome numbers as well that should
have, say, republicans worried,and we're going to talk about
numbers that have should haveDemocrats very worried as we
(03:13):
head through the next couple ofmonths and then couple of years.
And then, of course, we'regoing to talk about game cameras
, because we're not going to behere on Sunday.
I do have some game cameras,yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
I'm sure you do.
You do, I'm sure you do.
Hey, before we dive in, Iwanted to clarify really quickly
for folks from our last episode.
We got a lot of comments.
I think there was some confusionon us covering the fact that
Trump was sending the NationalGuard to New Mexico.
I think there was a lot of youknow some confusion.
Maybe people didn't watch thewhole story that we talked about
, but just for clarity purposes,trump sending the National
(03:47):
Guard is part of a 19-stateevent that Trump is doing to
support ICE and immigrationissues.
It's a federal situation, right, he is not sending in the
National Guard like he did in DC, for example.
That's different.
That's not what he's doing here.
So I just want to make surethat we're clear on that in our
(04:07):
delivery for you guys.
Yes, michelle Lujan Grisham, ourgovernor, did issue the
National Guard on an in-statesituation in Albuquerque and
Española.
That was another question thata lot of you asked.
Yes, we've covered thatnumerous times in previous
episodes, so if you want to findout more about that, go back to
those episodes.
But again, trump sending inNational Guard is not
(04:27):
necessarily to sweep the streetsof crime in the city of
Albuquerque.
It is to help with ICE andillegal immigration.
That's what's happening, andit's happening across 19 states,
not just New Mexico, so justwant to make sure we clear that
up for everybody.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Okay, no more.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
You're not allowed to do any more housekeeping stuff
at the top of the show so sorryit's too much housekeeping oh
well, you felt like you were itfelt like you were cleaning the
floors okay, you can, like house, go ahead and cut it out.
No, let's keep going.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Okay, all right, here we go.
So here we go, and this is thestory we've been talking about
right here.
Right gop legislators lawedconditions at the Otero County
Immigration Detention Facility.
There were eight legislatorswho were Republicans, one who
was a Democrat who went along tocheck out the Otero County
Detention Center, and here iswhy this is important and why
(05:17):
they went on this tour.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
The tour comes as lawmakers are preparing for a
possible special session inwhich legislation banning New
Mexico local governments fromentering into contracts with
federal agencies to detainimmigrants for civil violations
could be among the items on theagenda.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Okay, let me explain that real quickly, because I
know when we first read thisyou're like what in the world
does that even mean, right?
And how does the governor evenhave a say over it?
Well, what this is the governordoes have say over what local
municipalities can do in somecases, okay.
And so she would then say, ifthey wanted to try to pass this
law to be able to say, okay, asa local municipality in the
(05:53):
state of new mexico, you can'tenter into these contracts.
Now we'll get into whether thatis constitutional or not, we'll
absolutely touch on that in asecond.
But that is what they're tryingto do, so that everybody says
why do you have any sort ofpurview over this?
That's why, because thegovernor has purview over those
local governments, right?
So that's where the connectioncomes in.
(06:15):
And then we keep going.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Governor Michelle Michelle Lujan Grisham has not
yet set a date for the specialsession, but her chief legal
counsel told a legislative panellast month she was considering
adding such a bill to thespecial session mix.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
The governor did not attend monday's tour, citing
scheduling conflicts oh, by theway, first week of october is
when we hear that that's goingto be keep on going okay, of the
nine legislators who took partin monday's tour, eight were
republicans.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
The lone democrat was rep uh representative and
Andrea Romero.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Andrea Romero yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
From Santa Fe who was among the lead sponsors of
legislation during the years, uh, the this year 60 day session.
That would have forced the thethree immigrant detention
facilities in the state to closedown.
That bill past the house butultimately stalled in the city
committee and the Senatecommittee.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Yeah, so the thing is .
And give her credit I mean notcredit for for putting up a bill
that would have shut thesethings down, for reasons that
we'll get into in a second.
That's a terrible idea, but atleast she went on the tour, you
know.
At least she went on the tourto see what the deal is Right
and so.
So that part is at leastsomewhat of a positive in that
particular respect.
But still, I mean, the realityof the situation is you have no
(07:27):
Democrats that went on thisparticular tour.
Okay, but talking to people whowere on the tour, I can tell you
this they were incrediblyimpressed with the facility that
they do things like dietaryrestrictions If people are
gluten intolerant.
Actually, they try to accountfor that.
It was clean, it took good careof people.
Okay, people in this state havecompassion that they're not
Neanderthals who don't careabout people, okay, so that's
(07:51):
one of the cases you canactually make in all of this,
which is the state of New Mexicois not the kind of state where
you set up something to abusepeople.
It's just not something thestate does, okay.
So, therefore, why does it makesense to stop these facilities,
does, okay.
So therefore, why does it makesense to stop these facilities,
right?
I mean, reality of thesituation is in many cases, we
as a state are compassionate.
We should have these facilitiesbecause A you're going to have
(08:13):
these arrests, they're going tohappen, right, and why not have
them in a place where people areproperly cared for?
And you can absolutely makethat case.
There's a very interestingeditorial that came from the
Santa Fe New Mexican Senator,crystal Brantley, and Vince
Torres, who is a super smart guywho we're big fans of we had
him on our show and Vince isinvolved in all sorts of things
(08:36):
across the state of New Mexicothese two came together and they
wrote this no, governor, don'ttry to ban immigrant detention
facilities, and had some reallyinteresting points in all this.
So, christelle, you know youcan take us through this, but
it's pretty interesting stuffwhat they said.
They made some really valuablepoints.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
The intent behind this proposal isn't hard to see
by eliminating contracts withfederal agencies, the governor
is effectively attempting toshut down immigration detention
facilities in New Mexicoentirely.
Attempting to shut downimmigration detention facilities
in New Mexico entirely Becausethese facilities are typically
privately operated under federalcontracts.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Banning them would end our ability to detain those
who violate immigration law,including individuals with
serious criminal backgrounds,and again, don't forget, if we
don't put them in jail here,it's not that they're not going
to jail, by the way they likelyare.
It just won't be here and whoknows where they'll be going.
Okay, and they keep going.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Earlier this year, during a targeted week-long
operation in Albuquerque, santaFe, roswell Immigration and
Customs Enforcement arrested 20illegal immigrants charged with
or convicted of homicide, sexualassault, aggravated battery,
drug trafficking, burglary anddrunken driving.
These are violent criminals whothreaten the safety of our
(09:48):
neighborhoods and rural towns.
Yet the governor's plan wouldmake it harder, if not
impossible, for ICE to detainand remove them.
And let's be clear this isn'tabout fixing detention, it's
about eliminating it altogether.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Yeah, that is incredibly true.
Right, it's absolutely true.
But here's the other thing inall of this and they make
mention of this in theireditorial and that is that this
has been tried before.
Okay, there have been statesthat have tried to do this
before, and guess what happens?
Speaker 3 (10:19):
It doesn't hold up in court.
It doesn't hold up in court.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Why?
Because the state has nopurview over how to tell the
federal government how toenforce immigration law.
They just don't have a roleRight.
So the state of New Mexico, yetagain, could run headlong into
trying to pass something thatthe courts look at them and say,
no, can't do it, sorry, itdoesn't work.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
But in the meantime, could they potentially shut
these detention centers down,costing people their jobs and
then waiting and tying this upin court.
And then what do we do withthese folks that they're trying
to?
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Yes, they could create chaos for a short period
of time.
Yeah they could.
Well, it works its way onthrough.
So I want you to read one more,and that's the impact here,
because this is not somethingthat is just a law enforcement
issue as far as keeping peoplebehind bars.
This is also an issue of wehave three of these detention
facilities in the state of NewMexico.
Well, guess what?
We have hundreds of people thatwork at these.
(11:12):
So, in other words, you'regoing to have legislators show
up in Santa Fe and tell what 300new Mexicans Guess what.
You're out of work.
And that's exactly one of thethings that they mention in this
particular, or really at theend of this particular editorial
.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Locally.
In rural counties like Torrance, otero and Cibola, detention
centers are more than justfacilities they're economic
lifelines.
According to our state's ownfiscal analysis, banning ICE
contracts would jeopardizehundreds of well-paying, steady
jobs in these areas whereemployment options are limited.
Closing them would also striptens of millions of dollars from
(11:55):
local economies each year,money that supports small
communities and helps smallbusinesses afloat.
For a governor who claims tocare about rural investment,
this proposal is an astonishingact of economic sabotage.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
So this would be the governor effectively saying
learn to code.
Learn to code Guy who lives ingrants and works in a
correctional facility.
Learn to code the guy inAlamogordo who busts his butt
Monday through Friday at thefacility there, a facility that,
by all accounts, does a reallygood job.
Hey brother, guess what?
(12:21):
We'll see you at DeVry comingup here in a couple of weeks as
you learn the new computer.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
DeVry.
I mean, is DeVry even stilloperating?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
I don't know if DeVry is still operating, but it's
still.
You get the point.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Yeah, I get the point .
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Okay, so again, a horrible idea, not something we
should be doing.
This is something, though.
This is what happens when youdon't take the wellbeing, not
only of your citizens, becauseof detention facilities keeping
people off the streets that aredangerous.
Not only that, but you expandthat out and you say when all
(12:56):
you care about is politics, yougo do things like this.
It costs people their jobs, itcosts people their livelihoods
Heck.
It's even worse for the peoplethat end up behind bars.
But why do you do it?
Only reason you do it isbecause you care about politics
and optics, and that, to me, isridiculous.
It cannot be part of theequation in the special session.
(13:18):
If we're serious about doinggood things that people actually
need done, it's off the charts,stupid.
It really is, and I don't knowif they'll do it again.
We continue to see laws.
Past year that gets swattedaway constantly by the courts
that say what are you doing?
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Another example another example of that.
Well, speaking of just is it?
Is it more politics?
Is this what?
What's happening?
Lujan Grisham comes out againstusing the National Guard for
immigration enforcement.
Apparently, she's OK with usingin-state National Guard to help
us fight crime in Albuquerqueand Española, but not so much
when Trump wants to send aNational Guard here to help with
(13:58):
our immigration issues.
So this is the latest in theSanta Fe New Mexican.
It's talking.
We talked about her not makinga comment.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah, because she had not made a comment, we couldn't
find it, and now we have it now.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
It's here.
So here's what she's had to say.
Governor Lujan Grisham wouldoppose the deployment of
National Guard troops to NewMexico to conduct immigration
raids, and she certainlywouldn't order ours up for that
purpose, coleman.
She opposes sweeping raids anddeportations that terrorize
communities, break up familiesand harm local economies.
It's worth noting that GovernorLujan Grisham has long
(14:28):
supported and requestedadditional federal border
personnel and technology to helpcombat drug trafficking and
other serious crime.
Oh really, really, she stronglybelieves the best way to
improve immigration enforcementin our country is for Congress
to pass a bill that fixes thebroken system.
Ok, well, we'll wait for thatto happen, because, I mean,
we've only been waiting for thatfor, I don't know, 15, 20, 30
(14:50):
years.
Let's just keep waiting forthat and meanwhile, just keep
things just as they are Crazy,crazy, just let these folks come
in.
I you know.
I think what's interesting is Ihad a private conversation.
I didn't tell you about this,mark, that we're going to talk
about this right now, but had aprivate conversation with an FBI
agent who will remain nameless,but their number one job right
now and it's not here in NewMexico, that's not where this
(15:14):
person is based.
But they have been like kind ofcircled the wagons and been
told that their latest job ishere's the list of the most
dangerous people that are hereillegally, that these and this
person shared with me.
You would not believe howdangerous these people are that
are in our country, that youknow.
I don't care what politicalparty you're from, you don't
(15:36):
want these folks in our country,so we're not allowed there.
There's all these stipulationsabout how they are not allowed
to break up.
You know, go in and do all this, whatever they're talking about
, all this chaos and breaking upfamilies and boo-hoo, all that.
That's not what's happening.
What's happening is these very,very violent people that should
never have been allowed in ourcountry.
(15:57):
To begin with, that list ofthose folks, that's who these
folks are going after, our lawenforcement, those agencies,
that's who they're tracking downfirst and foremost.
So they just said you know theyshould be.
Everybody should be thankingthem really at this point.
I mean this person was notlooking for credit.
It was just more like you guysshould be understanding of how
serious this is and howdangerous these folks are that
(16:19):
we're trying to get and get outof here.
So again, sitting here andsaying I'm not going to.
We're not going to allow Trumpor National Guard to come in
here and help support.
That is insane.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Well, and I think one other thing that's interesting,
though, is in the governor'scomment.
She does the whole.
Trump terrorizes people.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Da, da, da da da Trump, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (16:38):
Expect all that.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
But then the second paragraph is I do want to
address the border.
It is so.
It's interesting because itisn't just this kind of oppose
Trump and then leave it.
There is another line in theresaying hey, wait a minute, I do
support, you know, a secureborder.
It's interesting.
It shows you that, that thatissue has serious salience.
So she can't just go in andgive a two line response Trump
(17:00):
bad, I oppose him, it's Trumpbad.
And, by the way, the border doesneed to be dealt with and I've
been trying to deal with it.
I'm just telling you all I'msaying in that I'm not giving
her cover for that.
All I'm saying is that bysaying that that shows you how
salient the issue is, sherealizes she can't just be one
of those.
Hey, hey, let's just say wedon't like Trump and Trump evil
and let's walk away.
That's not enough because ofwhat's happened with the border
(17:22):
and all the things that havecome since then.
It's an issue.
That's a very real issue and aproblem and therefore she can't
just leave it hanging out thereas Trump bad.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
OK, that's great, but she is the one that was
responsible for pulling back theNational Guard from our border
originally and making it lesssafe.
So again, you know you can sithere now and Okay.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Oh, no, no question, no question.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Why were you the one that pulled the National Guard
off there when we needed theirsupport down there anyway?
Like I don't understand that.
Like that to me is talking outof both sides of your mouth and
it's like you're trying toplease everybody.
I don't know what the point ofher even saying that is.
We don't have that sort of amemory.
We remember what she alreadydid, that she pulled that
National Guard off.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Well, did that with this.
She pulled that national guardoff.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Well, I think you're being all right.
I'm sorry, am I just trying totell the facts?
No, I think you're being toohard.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
I think you're being too hard, and so, because of
that, we're switching directionson stories and we're going to
do this story, which is I, youknow.
Look, I mean, the governor hasnow been nice enough, oh, to
open up the governor's mansionfor pickleball, oh so for
everybody, by the way, if I'mher.
I'm calling these photographersthe Mexican and saying stop it.
Hey, hey, jerk, don't take thispicture.
(18:33):
Okay, this is just outrageous,but I do love that she's got the
blades on go, blades from like1986, those glasses I like.
I like what she's doing here,I'm not going to listen.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
I I am laughing because it's a ridiculous
picture and we've all seenreally bad pictures.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Oh, we've all been part of really bad.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Yeah, agreed, and so I can't.
I can't mock it too badly, Idon't know, and here's the
funniest part too is I'm justlike looking at this going okay.
Well, I can't speak too much tothis because I'm so blind now
that you know when you and Iplay pickleball, often I can't
even know if the pickleball isclose to me or not.
I'm swinging anyway because Ican't tell depth perception.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
But, anyway.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
So is the pickleball open for anybody like you and I.
Should we give her a call?
As a matter of fact, it is.
We played pickleball.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
This is Daniel Chacon doing the story no-transcript
and has transformed the courtfor both tennis and pickleball
(19:36):
play.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
Oh, we have to sign up to go and do this.
I know we do.
You think you and I will get inthere.
You think they're going to letus in?
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Oh, I think they'd love to have us.
We play doubles against thegovernor and her husband.
We play doubles against thegovernor and her husband, and
it'd be fantastic.
She would love it.
By the way, if the firstpicture wasn't bad enough, would
you cut her some slack?
And we don't need to show thisone either.
An online reservation system isbeing developed and will be
launched soon, allowingresidents excuse me to easily
book court times and participatein activities, said Jody
(20:03):
McGinnis Porter, thespokesperson for Michelle Lujan
Grisham.
She said this on Wednesday, soyeah.
So, by the way, I will say this, and this does need to be
referenced here it was paid forprivate funds.
It was not paid for by public.
Public funds were not used tocrank up the old pickleball
tennis court.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Okay, I guess I'm just kind of confused.
How do you just open that upfor the public?
Is everybody going to have todo like background checks and
sweeps and all kinds of stuff?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Well, you're not going to have access, say to the
residents.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
They're not going to be like hey, come on into the
kitchen you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
And this isn't on the property, it is on the property
.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Yeah, I don't know how they dang, so who?
Speaker 3 (20:49):
knows, I mean, but Mark was a text, I mean was a
state champion tennis player.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
So yeah, no, it's a pretty good chance, I will admit
.
Yeah, uh, if, if we ever tanglewith her a second time, yes, we
will win.
If this is the tangle thatwe're on, the advantage will be
to us.
I will say that there is zerochance she'd have a chance to
win that.
But you know, in her defenseshe probably won the bigger of
(21:13):
the two contests.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Correct, correct, that's true.
That's a good point.
Okay, so let's let's catch upwith a bit more national news
now, on the national front.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Yeah.
So I want to do something and Iwant to tie it in, right?
So president Trump this weekstood up and said we're going to
try to get rid of cashless bailand basically what amounts to
catch and release.
Ok, so I want to play a littlebit of what was said when he
signed the executive order intothis, and then I want to turn it
back to New Mexico, because wehave cashless bail Effectively
(21:42):
we really do and we also havewhat really is catch and release
.
That applies to us.
Anyone who tells you it doesn'tis playing word games.
Ok, it's just ridiculous.
So here is what President Trumpsaid OK, let's go.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Could I ask you to say exactly what this is, of
course.
Speaker 7 (21:57):
So, as you've consistently identified, some
cashless bail policies are a keydriver of the disorder we see
on city streets all over America.
Catch and release system allowscriminals to keep going back
out onto the street andreoffending.
What this executive order does?
It charges your attorneygeneral with identifying
jurisdictions all over thecountry that have cashless bail
(22:17):
policies, and then it withholdsor revokes federal funds and
grants that are flowing to thosejurisdictions to ensure that
we're only supporting the peoplewho have reasonable common
sense policies around crime.
So what area does it cover?
Potentially anywhere that has acashless bail policy.
So some of the largest cities,some of the most left wing
states in America, Almost all ofthem right.
(22:39):
Illinois would be a greatexample of that, sir.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Oh, they have a great cashless bail.
You don't even have to go tocourt sometimes.
Illinois I love that state.
It's a great state, but it'srun so badly by Pritzker.
They threw him out of thefamily business and he becomes
governor.
Now he wants to run forpresident.
I don't think that's going tohappen.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Okay, okay, just adds his commentary.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
He just throws it in, but okay.
So here's the thing.
We squarely fit into this.
Okay, it, but OK.
So here's the thing, wesquarely fit into this.
Ok, it just is very clear thatthe state of New Mexico fits
into this.
So because of that, theAlbuquerque Journal writes this
article and the headline thatPresident Trump's executive
order on cash bail could affectNew Mexico.
(23:22):
Ok, so they go through and getsome response from this.
So, and the author says, notsurprisingly, new Mexico's
leaders largely reacted alongparty lines.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
And then here is what the governor had to say
Effective public safety requiresevidence based solutions
tailored to local needs, notfederal mandates that undermine
state sovereignty and threatensto politicize our judicial
systems.
Governor Michelle Lujan.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
Grisham's spokesman, michael Coleman, said in
response to Monday's orders Okay, that's a bunch of
gobbledygooks and we're notgonna spend much time on that,
Okay but Michael Coleman's beenvery busy this past year.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
I mean holy moly Coleman's been.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
He's been busy, yeah, Okay, and so now the one I
wanna focus on, cause that'sjust plather and whatever, all
right, so, but the one I want tofocus on is this one, and this
is Peter Wirth, from Santa Fe,and he's one of our esteemed
state senators.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
So this is, to me, a ridiculous comment and then
we'll talk about him, but whatdid he have to say?
The bail reforms votersoverwhelmingly approved in 2016
give judges the ability to holddangerous defendants in jail
before trial, were set in astatement.
Any punitive action from thefederal level is a clear
(24:35):
overreach and a misguidedattempt to undermine New
Mexico's constitution.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Okay, this is a ludicrous statement.
I mean, it's, first of all,it's a lie.
Okay, now, what happened in2016 was voters were told, if
they supported this new bailreform, that violent criminals
would be held behind bars.
They were told that that was alie.
It was a clear lie and now weknow we have lived through it
(25:03):
for nearly 10 years that we havea revolving door of justice
where violent criminals do notstay behind bars.
The proof is in the eating.
It is in the numbers.
Okay, so just to show you whata liar Senator Wirth was and he
is, there's no other way to sayit.
Okay, and he knows he's lying.
Okay, now, there's no one whocan look at this now and say
well, what do you mean?
The numbers are?
(25:33):
We are keeping all thoseviolent criminals behind bars.
Here is a look Again.
I'm a simple meteorologist.
All I do is look at a couple ofnumbers and throw a graph
together.
Okay, this is New Mexico'sviolent crime rate since 2010.
Okay, now, that violent crimerate was creeping up in 2016,
but it skyrocketed the minutethose reforms went into place
and it has been out of controlever since.
Okay, and let's not forget, asyou look at these numbers and
(25:56):
you see, what Senator Wirth issaying is ridiculous.
We all know we don't keepviolent criminals behind bars,
nearly like we should Heck.
Raul Torres and the governorhave even said we have a problem
because it's a revolving door.
Everybody's admitting it now.
Obviously, senator Wirth, thisis where we have problems in our
legislature, because these guyswon't be honest and they surely
(26:16):
won't look out for their ownconstituents, excuse me.
And so, by the way, just in caseyou've forgotten, okay, and in
case you think well, where do wesit?
As far as crime numbers goacross the nation, we're number
one.
We're the most violent state inthe country, and it has
happened since 2016.
It is a direct result of 2016.
(26:39):
It's a direct result of thevoters being lied to sold the
bill of goods, which is not true, and now it has to change.
President Trump is trying tochange it, but of course, trump
bad.
So whatever Trump you knowsupports, you know we can't
possibly support here, but thereality of the situation is this
has been devastating to thestate of New Mexico.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
Yeah, and I mean let's explain a little bit just
briefly on the cashless bailsystem why it was implemented.
I believe the whole theory wasthat it it punished those that
came from no money, right, theydidn't really have the means
necessary to post bail and itwas really just set aside for,
like well, it's like, yeah, theguy who had a dime bag a pot was
(27:19):
, was, was in jail, you know, ona on a on a bond that he
couldn't possibly, you know, hit, or even even he has no money.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
It's a hundred dollar bond and he couldn't, couldn
possibly, you know, hit, or eveneven he has no money, it's a
hundred dollar bond and hecouldn't, couldn't, reach it for
whatever that is.
But that's not what happened.
What happened was thatconstantly they use things like
the Arnold tool, right, and thisis one of those equations that
they pump, punch everything intoand they say, oh yeah, this
guy's accused of rape, let'sturn them back out on the street
.
It happened all the time.
It happens.
In Albuquerque, the Arnold toolwas used all the time.
Instead of just having a strongbail system in place, it took
(27:51):
all our bail bondsmen, destroyedtheir careers.
They're done, Right Right,there used to be bail bondsmen.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
Right, all those are closed down.
They're all shut down, yeahabsolutely.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
They're all shut down .
And so again, again, not caring.
You know about that portion ofit.
They clearly didn't.
But at the same time, theresults are very clear.
Everyone knows that.
You can't deny the results.
The results are that violentcrime is out of control, and
this is the reason why Nobody'sdisputing that.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
And so this is an executive order.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
I wonder when this would go into effect, say here
or Well, it goes into effectright away and what it will do
is it'll take funding right.
For example, if you havefederal funds that are earmarked
for stay the city ofAlbuquerque to do something,
whatever that might be, they maypull those funds back and say
until you start protecting yourown people, we're not giving you
more money.
I mean, that's the power of thepurse, right?
So that's that's where it comesin, so it could go at any time.
(28:41):
Basically.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
And see what happens.
Okay, you had another story inhere on Trump, so I'm going to
let you lead into this one aswell.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yeah, you know.
Okay, so at the risk of beinglook, this guy, howard Lutnick
bugs.
Okay, he's the commercesecretary.
Here's my problem and this ismy problem and it worries me on
the Republican side that if yougo and you think government
control now is okay because youhave a Republican president,
(29:11):
you're making a terrible mistake.
Okay, stuff like Intel, thegovernment taking 10% of Intel,
10% interest in Intel, I don'tlike it.
If you're going to loan Intelmoney or bail them out or
bailouts like we had with theauto industry or whatever, if
you're going to loan the money,they should pay the money back.
People shouldn't be giving awaymoney to corporate interests,
(29:32):
no question about that.
At the same time, variousschools okay, the federal
government gives money to thoseschools and, yes, there need to
be certain standards in placethat those schools adhere to.
But the government doesn't needto take them over.
The government doesn't need anoperating interest in them.
That gets into socialismterritory, which I am clearly
(29:54):
not comfortable with.
To me, this comment you'reabout to hear from Howard
Lutnick to me is dangerous and Iabsolutely don't like it.
Speaker 5 (30:04):
We have given tens, if not hundreds, of billions of
dollars to universities for themto do research and they invent
things.
And you know who owns thosepatents the universities.
So we are going to make a dealwith them all, which is, if we
give them the money, don't youthink it's fair that the United
(30:25):
States of America and thetaxpayers who funded it get a
piece of that right?
So we wrote a letter to Harvard.
So Linda and I, workingtogether, I mean it's so much
fun to work with everybody hereI mean we just have a blast, you
know, because Linda's hittingHarvard and she says what can we
do?
Now?
We send them a patent letterand we'll hit them again.
(30:45):
So we're having fun together.
This is the greatest cabinetworking for the greatest
president, and I just want tosay thank you.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
I'm having the time of my life, uh, working for you,
mr president okay, I don't careif you're having the time of
your life working for him and Iunderstand the patent issue is a
little bit different but but atthe same time, this sort of
thing of like we're going to goin and it just I don't it is.
It is a slippery slope and letme tell you something you're
going to be okay with that whenthere's a democratic president
(31:16):
going in, so we're going to comeand take over.
We're going to take a piece ofthis, we're going to take a
piece of this.
Letnick to me is I would neverlet that guy speak in public.
I just wouldn't.
I think he comes off as a brashclown and I can't.
I watch him and it makes myskin crawl.
And so, as Republicans, I thinkyou better be careful.
I mean, this is the sort ofthing you do not want the
(31:37):
government diving into all thesethings saying we get this, we
get this, we get this.
All it is is bigger governmentby a different name, and so I
just I don't like it.
So it stuck out to me we get,you know, people saying hey,
when are you going to go and hitthis or that, or or go after
the president on this or that.
I'll tell you I don't like this, I don't like it at all.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
Yeah, well, we definitely don't, and there's
there's been, you know, talkback and forth about the
government basically owning someof the universities and I.
That, I think, is a terribleidea.
So yeah, I just think, all thisstuff, if we get into that and
and privately owned you know ourbusinesses.
I don't understand why thegovernment needs to be wholly
involved in those as it is, andbe an owner of them, right, or
(32:20):
uh?
I just I disagree with thatcompletely.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
So and again, this is some of that thing where you
have, where you have smallgovernment republicans.
Um, I think when you get thesesmall government Republicans
versus some of these people whoare either newer to the party or
who say, hey look, we'resupporting what the president
wants to do, no matter what,because he's the president now,
so we like what we see.
(32:42):
Well, you're just not going tolike it at a certain point
because of bigger and biggergovernment coming in and I think
I just I don't know that struckme when I watched him.
I was just like you know enough, and I've never been a fan,
admittedly I just thought it wastoo much.
Okay.
So I want to talk short-term,long-term political information
here.
In the short term, as we'vesaid, we think 2026 is not
(33:05):
necessarily going to be a greatyear for Republicans and as you
look at the job approval ratingsand some of the different
categories which Trump sitsright now, at least through
Gallup and the latest numbers,they don't look great.
Ok, job approval around 40percent.
Job approval in foreign affairsat 39 percent.
(33:26):
Ok, so the economy he gets a 37percent, 37 approval right now.
That's a huge problem okay,which we?
Speaker 3 (33:33):
I remember.
Uh, we talked about that early,early days.
Like you know, if he doesn'tstart to turn the economy very
quickly, that's going to be hisdownfall is potentially like, if
the economy can't turn, whathappens at that point?
Speaker 2 (33:46):
you, yeah, and I think just a couple other
numbers here.
Foreign affairs numbers aren'tgreat.
Education, the numbers aren'tnecessarily great, but here's
the biggest deal, and the bottomnumber is one I'd be most
concerned with.
Economic conditions are gettingbetter 35%.
Economic conditions gettingmore 63%.
And here's part of the problemthat Trump has is that the big
beautiful bill that took a taxcut that was already in place
(34:10):
and made it permanent, right.
So it's very hard to run onthat because you're not giving
someone something new.
They're not looking at theirpaycheck saying, oh my gosh, I
got more money on my paycheck.
What they're getting is theirpaycheck doesn't go way down on
them.
So you can so going and sort ofproving a negative, saying if
we hadn't done this, you'd hadmuch like.
You can't prove acounterfactual right Cause it
(34:32):
didn't happen.
They kept the tax cut.
So you can't say, well, itwould have been much worse, we
had the tax like.
You can't run on that.
So that's really hard andthere's no way around that for
Trump in this particular case.
So these numbers are tough asyou look at them right now for
the midterms for the midterm,yeah in the short term right now
.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
The point being, though, in the long term yeah,
in the long term, you know, 2028and beyond.
Uh it, it is looking better forthe republican party.
So let's take a look a littlebit at our boy over at cnn,
harry harry henton, do you lovehim?
I do, we.
We tend to follow this guy andall his.
You know his latest numbers, solet's take a look at what he's
(35:09):
saying right now.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
As far as numbers go in the swing states.
What's happening with voterregistration in some big swing
states Back in?
Speaker 6 (35:15):
2017,.
Look at this the RepublicanParty gains in party
registration compared to thispoint back in 2017, during the
Trump first administration.
In Arizona, you got aRepublican gain of three points.
Ok, how about Nevada?
Up the hill we go, even thoughwe're sticking in the Southwest
a gain of six points.
How about?
Again we come to the East Coast, north Carolina a gain of eight
points for the Republicans.
(35:36):
And in the Keystone State inthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
, again we're talking about again of eight points.
My goodness gracious forRepublicans, they are converting
old former Democrats to theirside of the ledger, as well as
picking up new voters,registering new voters, and it
absolutely paid off for themback in the 2024 election, ok so
(35:57):
that tells you overall numbers.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Republicans feel pretty good about the numbers.
They are moving in thatdirection.
Maybe not in 26.
I think 26 can be close, butwe'll see Right.
So because it's a midterm of apresident, it always goes
against the party in power.
That's kind of how it goes.
But if you look at the broadertrends here and this is a
broader trend he's talking aboutthings are moving okay.
Then no other than the New YorkTimes, or none other than the
(36:22):
New York Times, comes out withthis article how the electoral
college College could tiltfurther from Democrats.
Ok, fascinating article.
It was a long, long read here,but I just want to read you a
couple of things here.
And there's a very simpletakeaway from all of this.
But it does show that there arethe Republicans in the
Electoral College are likely tobe looking at a very, very
(36:46):
beneficial scenario, especiallyby 2030.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
That is the nightmare scenario many Democratic Party
insiders see playing out ifcurrent US population
projections hold.
After every decennial census,like the one coming up in 2030,
congressional seats arereallocated among the states
based on population shifts.
Those seats in turn affect howbig a prize each state is within
the electoral college or how acandidate actually wins the
(37:12):
presidency.
In the next decade, theelectoral college will tilt
significantly away fromDemocrats.
Deeply conservative Texas andFlorida could gain a total of
five congressional seats, andthe red states of Utah and Idaho
are each expected to add a seat.
Going on a little bit long here, it says.
You know these gains will comeat the expense of major
(37:33):
democratic states like New Yorkand California.
According to the New York Timesanalysis of population
projections by Esri, anonpartisan company who's
mapping software and demographicdata are widely used by
businesses and governmentsacross the world.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
Yeah, so that's interesting stuff.
So, just so you know, andhere's the bottom line on this
whole thing it's that red statesare growing fast and blue
states aren't giving up.
It's that simple, right.
And so if you look at the mapsand everything else, the fastest
growing states are Texas andFlorida.
Okay, they're going to grow by13%.
They're going to add millionsof voters.
(38:10):
The fastest growing democraticstate is Colorado.
It's going to add less than 10%growth.
Okay, and as you look at someof these numbers here, it's
interesting because you look atthe changes.
So if you look at soliddemocratic states, california
likely to lose three seats.
Illinois likely to lose twoseats.
New York likely to lose a seatand Rhode Island likely to lose
(38:32):
a seat.
Battleground states Arizona's aRepublican state.
It's going to add one.
Georgia, close but still mildlyRepublican, they're going to
add one.
Minnesota, clearly Democrat,going to lose one.
Pennsylvania, completely swing,going to lose one.
Solid red states Texas addsthree.
Florida adds two.
Idaho adds one.
Utah adds one.
(38:54):
That's interesting, so that'swhy those broader issues that we
talk about, those bigger trends, are still very strong for
Republicans.
Democrats have to get moresolid footing on what they're
trying to do.
But it's interesting.
Speaker 3 (39:07):
Okay, it's.
It's a very interesting littleforecast coming down, Like maybe
2026 is not as great, you know,for the Republicans but, it's
not like a completely a lostsituation.
It's, in fact, it's the oppositeright, like, keep hanging on
because the good news is coming,kind of deal.
So, yeah, okay, I know you wantto end on your game camera
video and I apologize, folks,because we normally only have
(39:29):
those on Sundays Sunday game daybut since we will not be here
for the Sundays episode, um,because it's a holiday weekend,
so we're going to take it off.
Mark has peppered in some ofhis favorites uh, from our, from
our game camera properties.
Speaker 2 (39:43):
Look at this buck, though.
Look at this guy.
I mean the antlers on this guy.
Look that, he's a beauty, he'sgood looking.
I mean he's good looking.
Now, the thing about this timeof year, uh, before the rut and
things like that and everythingelse.
Uh, you know, you get the boys,they hang out together.
So then we got two of themhanging out.
Yeah, right here.
(40:04):
Look at these guys.
Both look pretty good justpanel around.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
Yeah, that one guy though in the in the front.
Speaker 2 (40:09):
Come on, fella.
Speaker 3 (40:10):
Yeah, he's a gold picture, he looks perfect.
We need to get those littlebaby deer that I've been seeing
up there.
Like I want them to show up onour camera.
They look like Bambi with theirlittle polka dots.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
Then I'd be like, let's go back here.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
This is a bigger bear than the one that was on the
porch, by the way yes, he ishuge just walking on by.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
I put, by the way, new position of the camera here.
I moved it.
See, we got kind of an openfield there, yeah, so I'm hoping
we're gonna get more peoplecoming right by yeah, but this
bear, people are bears uh bearsactually.
Uh, there he goes.
He's a good looking guy, looksgood, so there we go, so there,
it is.
Speaker 7 (40:48):
So there it is.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
And, yeah, we've got a lot going on here, so we will
not be here on Sunday.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
Right, but again, thank you guys, so much for your
comments.
Please keep them going.
If you'd like to sign up forour email, which is a great way
to make sure you know when ournext show will be all of our
shows will be go to no doubtabout it podcast uh website and
sign up for our email there.
That would be super helpful forus and we will make sure that
you don't miss any of our shows.
(41:14):
Also, if you want to support usfurther, tell your friends
about us or you can make adonation on our website to keep
supporting our podcast.
Speaker 1 (41:21):
Thanks so much for joining us, you guys and have a
great rest of your week and ahappy Labor Day weekend.
You've been listening to the noDoubt About it podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
(41:43):
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it podcast.
No doubt about it.
The no Doubt About it podcastis a Choose Adventure Media
production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
There is no doubt about it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.