Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 02-28-25_FRIDAY_6AM

Episode Date: February 28, 2025

Morning news than swamp updating from DC with Rick Manning, much on DOGE, cutting the spending, the attacks.

The Bill Myers Show podcast is sponsored by Clouser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at clouserdrilling.com. Here's Bill Myers. Delighted to have you here this Friday morning. Find your phone Friday, 610-10 minutes after 6. Join in at 770-5633. 770-KMED, the email bill at billmyershow.com. Well, some common sense seems to be creeping into some of the news. Yesterday we were talking a little bit about Gene Hackman. They were talking about the discovery of Gene Hackman's body and that we didn't suspect anything.

There was no foul play suspected. Now they're saying, yeah, it seems kind of suspicious. Both of them dead and mummified and the dog was in the cage and and everything else and yeah i mean nothing to uh to to see move along yeah we still don't know a whole lot more than what we uh knew yesterday but at least they're finally saying yeah this is looking a little bit uh suspicious so anyway, some sensibility coming to a bit of the news here. Join in 770-563-3770-KMED. My email, by the way, is Bill at BillMeyersShow.com. Big local story.

We had Superintendent Brett Champion from the Medford School District popped everyone in the media an email yesterday afternoon saying that he was going to quit. End of June is when he is going to be quitting. And part of the statement, I ended up sharing this on social media yesterday, he says, it's with a heavy heart I announce my decision to resign effective June 30th. This was not an easy choice, but over the past year it's become increasingly clear that while our community expresses a desire to prioritize students too often a small loud contingency has continued to shift our focus to adult-centered issues something needs to change i'm willing to be that change i have decided that the best way to refocus on students is to step aside and you this community

has the power to impact the future of our school district i challenge you to get engaged and uh in other words he's just uh you know falling on his sword and saying okay he's going to i hope that um it gets better in the in the future at this point so that's where we find ourselves right now and what do you think this is a you think this is uh in reaction to the michael williams controversy over the last year or so the potential lawsuits maybe that were going on and i know that the critics of the medford 549c school district have more or less had a lot to say about they have felt that the school board has been a rubber stamp for Brett Champion rather than actually representing the students and the parents. And yet there are other people who I know who respect me

who were calling me up when I was talking with Michael Williams and other people involved with that situation and they were saying Bill Brett Champion's one of the best guys that we could have ever got and and and the way one person was putting it to me the idiots the idiots are going to uh to force this guy out so how do you see it it? Do you think it's a good thing that Brett Champion is... Now, I'm just talking about this one community leader. I'm just going to leave his name out of it. But he's pretty well known among the educational world. And, you know, he said they're just going to blow this up

and Medford 549C is not going to be in any better situation than it was before even after Brett leaves and I don't have a dog in this fight necessarily other than the fact that I pay lots of tax money into the Medford 549C school district you know every year I don't have any kids in this district so I couldn't really say what it's like for the average kid the one thing we can agree on though is that the school rankings for all of oregon public schools are still pretty much uh bouncing around the bottom so if you have some insight on this if you think it's a a good thing that uh that brett champion is going to step aside do you think that he was essentially making the school board a rubber stamp or the

school board was essentially acting as a rubber stamp and remember everything seemed to start going sideways when it came time to reassign officer donnie officer donnie there was a big difference of opinion here about what was going to be going on with the school resource officer. And then it was Ron Havineer getting sideways with Michael Williams, apparently. And, of course, we had Ron on a couple of weeks ago. He's talking about the roof collapse there. So I don't know. Maybe Brett has just haven't had enough,

or did you think maybe it really was a rubber stamp, school board, in his favor? Do you think he didn't have the support that he needed, or were the critics more correct on this? If you have some insight on this, I can't exactly say that I know, but he is quitting and he's taking his ball and he's going away, going to get another position elsewhere. 770-563-3770, KMED.

If you have an opinion on that, I would certainly appreciate that. If he's willing to come on, we'll certainly talk to the superintendent over time. Last year there was an Interstate 5 protest in Eugene. Remember that? They blocked it up, and they were doing all the protests and such. Had a Republican lawmaker, and this in the Registered Guard today, has introduced a bill that would allow district attorneys to prosecute protesters as rioters for impeding traffic. This is House Bill 2534, sponsored by Representative Shelley Bozart Davis from Albany.

And she wants to modify the crime of rioting to include the cause of the use of a motor vehicle or a person's body to impede traffic, create a traffic hazard, or block the normal reasonable movement of traffic on public roads. What would you think about that? It seems like a pretty reasonable situation. You know, you're not supposed to be blocking stuff up. That sure would have been nice back in the summer of love time, wouldn't it? Unreasonable situation. You know, you're not supposed to be blocking stuff up. That sure would have been nice back in the summer of love time, wouldn't it?

Remember the summer of love time in which you had firearms owners that were getting all sorts of sideways with people. Remember when the crowds would go into them and start banging on their cars and all the rest of it. And not a whole lot was really done at that time, except going after some of the firearms owners who unwisely pulled their firearm because you're only supposed to have the firearm if someone's knifing you to death at that point. And then maybe you would still be no-billed by the DA. I'm being a little sarcastic, but sometimes it seems this way. Yeah, you can carry conceals, but God help you if you actually pull it out. You know, it is Oregon, you know, that kind of thing. But what did you think about that?

Extra penalties for blocking the roads? We can talk about that. Take your call, 770-5633. Oregon Public Broadcasting reporting this morning. Governor Kotick and a bunch of state agencies, you know, I was warning, I was saying, boy, they're getting ready to panic over this one. They're bracing for the Trump impact on the expanse of federal land in Oregon. Slightly more than half of all the land in Oregon is owned by the federal government, including 60% of Oregon.

Technically, it's managed, but the difference between ownership and management, I mean, whoever's managing it, I guess, is tactically running it as if they own it, right? And it is managed primarily by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service. And Governor Tina Kotak, her natural resource advisor, Huntington, and the heads of the Oregon Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Agency said they've been planning for the second trump presidency in interviews kotech and huntington telling capital chronicle they're hopeful for collaboration but prepared for conflict prepared for conflict i think overall i think if it's a conflict between the kotech lawyers and the trump lawyers my gut tells me the trump lawyers will probably have the upper hand on this particular one speaking of the Trump lawyers and what is going on here, New York Post reporting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts pumped the brakes on

a lower court order that gave the Trump administration a midnight deadline Wednesday into Thursday to unfreeze a couple billion dollars worth of foreign aid. Roberts pausing that order until further notice, giving plaintiffs suing the Trump administration until noon today to respond, marking the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with a case involving the president's push to overhaul government with Doge. So we got that. Governor J.B. Pritzker's $1.6 billion program to give health care to illegal aliens has failed its audit. This coming out of the Chicago Tribune today. I thought this was interesting.

It vastly underestimated the cost and attraction of a pair of controversial programs that provided state-funded health insurance for migrants who are not citizens. The programs have cost. Boy, is it any wonder that you have, I mean, we have the Greater Idaho Project that is gaining a little bit of traction here in Oregon. But is it any wonder that there are people in Illinois, counties in Illinois, talking about actually seceding from Illinois and forming a new state, not just joining Indiana? Oh, there's a little bit of that going on. Everyone's wanting to get out of Illinois.

But just the illegal alien programs alone have cost the state more than $1.6 billion over the four or five years. And even in Chicago and Illinois, that is some real money. In other words, if you feed the bears, you're going to get more homeless and illegal alien bears. There we go. All right, so we have these kind of stories there's other headlines we're going to be dumping into to including uh mint has bought the homeless navigation center near by mart i'm just kind of curious and this is over in uh in grants pass i'm kind of wondering what uh what by mart actually thinks about having the homeless navigation Navigation Center by Bi-Mart. I can almost see the employees.

And remember, Bi-Mart's an employee-owned company, right? And I like Bi-Mart. I'll just tell you, that's my dog in the fight. I like Bi-Mart. I've always liked Bi-Mart. I like to shop at Bi-Mart. So that is my dog in the fight. I just like Bi-Mart.

I can't help but think that the employees running Bi-Mart are going like, Okay, you know, the retail environment is rough enough, but oh, great. Yeah, let's buy that center and have a prominent homeless navigation center, meaning that homeless bum traffic coming in right by the store. Can't wait. Yay. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I just know that's the way i would be looking at it because uh needless to say uh well at least though that law that we were talking about the other day that was going to allow homeless moms to essentially spit on the cops and steal

what they needed and everything else that that's not going anywhere but but still the state of oregon tends to have a light touch on such communities if you know what i'm saying okay uh 22 minutes after six all right coming up this morning some of the people will be talking with rick manning president of americans for a limited government dc swamp update dr carol lieberman md is going to talk with me about the epstein list being released and there seem to be a lot of people upset about a lot of this going on right now they're really not upset i have not looked at the lists or or anything else i just kind of wanted to get her take on it and some people are really angry at pam bondy about it i don't know um doge the truth about doge we'll talk about that with a manhattan legal attorney the truth about Doge, we'll talk about that with Manhattan legal attorney Ilya Shapiro.

Good brain. We'll talk with him about that, too. And I'm also looking forward to talking with Joe Henry. Joe Henry, you may know of his son, Franklin Henry. And people would think of him as this autistic guy running around in downtown Medford. He calls up media people all the time, and he's talking and saying hi. And, well, it's a bit more complex than this and today is uh is it's i think it's called rare disease day and his son franklin could be one in eight and a half billion people it's one of those kind of things there's a great article in today's road valley times about it but i will

talk with with joe henry about that 8, along with your calls and opinion. It's not all about you when it comes to your well water quality. There's a... Has purchased that building now. It's going to be a long-term homeless navigation center. It's over there by Bi-Mart. And you wanted to add some clarity to what's going on there in Grants Pass, right? Yeah.

I go by there pretty much every day to and from work. And I think one of the major issues is like you always have, the homeless don't really pay attention to vehicle traffic. And it's at a pretty dangerous intersection here in Grants Pass that they've already been a lot of almost accidents because the people, I mean, you know, like I hate to say it, but it seems like a lot of them are on drugs just the way they're standing around and walking, but they'll walk right out in front of traffic and expect people to stop. Yeah, that has been, I've received other reports like that too. That is one of the issues that you have almost in any homeless, if you want to call it service area, because, I mean, you can see just kind of walking across dangerous traffic activity at some of the missions here in Southern Oregon.

Or even there is some of the retail establishments the bicycles just cut across the uh the traffic and just zoom in front of people and run the lights and and nothing much seems to get done to that is it just me or no i mean and they're at a place where there's no real stoplights right in front of them for pedestrian walkways you have to go a little ways and they don't go to the spots you're supposed to go and they'll come right out in between cars that are parked and, you know, right into traffic. And they don't look. And, you know, I'm sure some of them do. Oh, yeah.

You know, it's a nice thing that they're trying to give them somewhere not to be outside. And at the parks, that really irritates me. But it's just not safe. It's in a bad spot just because the traffic and they won't go to, you know, where all the crosswalks are. You know something, Jeff? Sometimes I know this sounds like a little flippant response. There are times that I've wanted to, like you almost have to, if there's any area that has the homeless community, I'll put that in quotation marks around it, you know, the scary air quotes.

You know those, and I really hate these things, you know those plastic things that some people put on the street that have like the little kid holding out a flag saying, slow, right? Yeah. I don't know what those things are. I just find them irritating because there's a part of me that wants to say, hey, you know, don't have your children playing in the middle of the street would be, you know, my response to this. You've got houses and everything, but we'll set that aside. Maybe we have to start setting those up, kind of like those turtley, you know, things with the flags on it saying slow every time you're around the homeless community. Well, that would be nice, but I don't think anybody's going to adhere to it, especially

in our times when they're getting off work and, you know, rush hour. Yeah, exactly. Over there by that Y. Hey, do you think that the city is starting to get a handle on it overall, though? What is your over impression? I know it's a new city council and they're still probably trying to figure out the ins and outs of it all, but what are you thinking? They did really well when they kicked them out of the parks.

I was happy with that. But then they went to the areas on J Street and over by the courthouse and they were, you know, it's just the same stuff. They're doing drugs there and doing everything else. And I'm not, you know, of course it's not all of them, but they're, they were cutting holes in fences and going into buildings. They, you know, it's, it's just not a good thing. They need to make it to where, you know, people actually have to go get help or need to find a job or leave. They need to do something because it doesn't work out. I had a friend that went to the park and picked up needles back when they first were kicked out of the park,

and it took him a long time, and he picked up a lot of needles. And it's just that's where that are going into the NGOs such as Stab and Wagons that are bringing these needles to the community, too, for that matter, under the guise of, well, you know, making sure that these homeless drug addicts don't cause harm to themselves, but it ends up causing harm to the community or at least additional harm, right? Yeah, I always made the joke, I said, why don't they give new knives and guns to all the poor people that are robbing because they ran out of them and they need to rob more people because they need stuff. They should help them. You're enabling bad behavior

and I understand drug addiction is hard to get off of. It is. Homelessness is hard to get off of, but you have to do something. And you're probably not going to get off of homelessness if you're still into the drug addiction, and that is the bottom line. And the state of Oregon seems to be having a tough time grokking that and figuring out that there really is a root cause for many. Now, it doesn't take care of the expense problem of homes that we're having around here. It doesn't fix that.

But I assure you that if your next urge in life is to find out where can I get my next hit, whether it's heroin or fentanyl or methamphetamine or whatever it is, chances are you're not working, and if you're not working, you couldn't afford any kind of home that might come your way. And there's plenty of beds at the Gospel Rescue Mission, but they don't want to go there because they're required to be clean, not do drugs, and they act like they're infringing on their freedoms. Well, I'm sorry, if I became homeless, and even if I was atheist, I would go to church services to be off the street. I would do whatever it takes to get my foot back in the door, get jobs, and do whatever I can.

They don't. But you see, you're also thinking rationally, Jeff. And I have a feeling that when you're drug addicted, the whole thing about rational thinking probably goes sideways, I guess. Yeah, because you're not slapped in the face because you're given everything. Yeah, exactly. And I'm not talking literally slapped in the face. I'm talking tough times. You have to buckle down and all that stuff.

You have to make a decision. They don't have to. They're given everything for free yeah appreciate the call thanks for sharing your experience around the by mart neighborhood you have a good day and weekend sir all right you too now 6 31 at kmed dc swamp update we'll have that uh rolling in here in just a moment and uh dr carol lieberman on the epstein files. And like I said, everyone's angry at Pam Bondi this morning. I'm not exactly sure if I understand that, but at least we should probably address that. Maybe she did it wrong, or maybe the Trump administration is going to have to back.

I don't know. I don't know. But we'll talk about that. We'll also talk about Doge a bunch more. And Franklin Henry's father, Joe Henry, is going to be in town, too. We're going to be talking about rare disease, International Rare Disease Day, all coming up. Winter weather is here, and your roof is your first line of defense. At Pressure Point Roofing, we know that small issues can quickly be... Got something on your mind?

Give Bill a shout at 541-770-5633. 770-KMED. This is the craziest party there could ever be. Don't turn on the lights because I don't want to see. I'm not tall and let's go. Maybe hold the call still for right now. We will get some call time in there a little bit. But because we got to do it, it's D.C. Swampin' Time.

And boy, the swamp is deeper than ever. All right. Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government. Now, I'm talking about when I say the swamp is deeper, it's not the Trump administration piling the swamp I'm talking about. It's almost like a Star Wars movie. The swamp fights back. Right, Rick?

Maybe that's a way of looking at it. Yeah, well, it is the swamp fights back. It's what you, it's the swamp fights back. It's the most predictable thing in the world. The difference here is that they are not going to be operating in a vacuum. And what you see is when the swamp fights back in terms of people on the public payroll, there are repercussions, and there are real repercussions, and they're trying to... So one of the things that the swamp's trying to do most is reinstate the office of the whistleblower, or the guy who has the office of whistleblowers, who was put in there by

Biden last February, about a year ago, where they're supposed to be protecting whistleblower, or the guy who has the Office of Whistleblowers, who was put into it by Biden last February, about a year ago, where they're supposed to be protecting whistleblowers. But if you remember, that office didn't protect the whistleblowers on the Hunter Biden case from the IRS. They didn't protect any of the whistleblowers who were coming forward to a Congress complaint and talking about things that were going, the abuse and basically the power grab that was done where the Department of Justice buried the Hunter Biden investigation and delayed it. So much of it was past the expiration date, past the time when you could file a charge. And whistleblowers who were Democrats who were coming forward and saying, this is wrong, and the Office of the Whistleblower to protect them

as they got abused in their offices, as they got, as essentially they were isolated and put in a box in their own offices. Didn't help an Adam Lovinger who went and poked a hole in the whole Russia gate, the whole fake Russia gate thing, when he pointed out that one of the key elements of it, Stephen Halper, was doing work for the Department of Defense with actually no product. And so he was just being paid by the Department of Defense to take down Trump. It didn't help him because he got his security clearance pulled and lost his job as a result and couldn't find new work for three years. So, yeah, but now they're concerned about whistleblowers.

Well, yeah, now they're concerned about it. All right. What would you say would be, if you were to have a report card, what were the biggest wins of the Trump administration over the last week or two? And, I mean, real wins, and which ones are kind of looking a little shaky at this point? Because one thing which is really starting to disturb me is getting the impression that federal judges in fact district federal judges i think i think you're going down to the district level seem to be controlling national policy on what

the president is able to do with executive branches that are supposedly in his branch of government. And, you know, and he's supposed to be the one that is choosing what the policy is there, including the people who are hired and or fired there. What would you say? Yeah, well, that's a that's a pretty big concern. And there's a case that was filed in trying to force the president to release USAID funds and not allow them to hold them back. And, of course, USAID is where so much of the corruption they were fighting out, so much of the ideological push in foreign policy, right? Right. So apparently the president's not allowed to run foreign policy. But so a local D.C. federal judge

issued an injunction. In fact, a couple of them did. One of those got appealed to John Roberts, who oversees the district court. Every Supreme Court justice has a jurisdiction that they particularly oversee. So they and John Roberts, chief Justice, naturally will oversee the D.C. District Court. And so he took the, he's taking the appeal of the judge's order to release the money. Judge is trying to tell the president, you have to send money for transgender dance classes in Estonia and stuff like that, not to mention the money that was being targeted for Hamas and others. So they're trying to say – a judge, a local federal judge here in D.C. – actually a couple of them – are trying to say that the president has to release that money.

And the president is saying, well, actually, I don't. And so Roberts is taking up the case. I mean, it just astounds me that you could be forced to release money, right? You know, rather than choosing not to spend something. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. I mean, that's a genie you can't put back in the bottle. Once the billions are out the door, you can't put it back in the bottle. And the reason that case matters, and this is the bigger reason I bring that case up,

the entirety of the Doge effort hinges on the president's ability to say, I'm not spending money that is wrongfully allocated or that's being stolen. And so it's whether or not Congress's authorization is, in fact, a mandate. All the president is is the guy who signs the checks and has absolutely no power as to whether the checks get sent out or not. And this goes back to something called the impoundment clause, impoundment law, which for the first 150, 160 years of our country, presidents would regularly impound funds that they thought were stupid, wasteful, or fraudulent. And that was essentially the executive checking congress's power of the purse right 100 and so that is a that was you know part of the you know the accepted power of the presidency and during i think the nixon administration the democrats passed something called the

impoundment act and uh that made it so it was more much that basically said the president kind of had to spend the money. And it never really went to the Supreme Court. And it should have. So now that that concept of whether or not the president as the person tasked in the Constitution with very specific with executing the laws of the country, but also managing the country. And, you know, the spending all comes out of Treasury, which is under the president.

And all the spending is done by agencies that are directed by the president. And so the question is, does the president have the capacity, do his appointees have the capacity to say, wait a second, this money doesn't this isn't this doesn't follow our policy. This is not this is not what needs to be done and have the capacity to change the direction. So up until Nixon, up until the Nixon administration, presidents did have, it was unquestioned that presidents could sit there and say, hey, screw this. This is bad money. This is a horrible thing. And they could check Congress's spending authority. Now what the president is never able to do is appropriate money, right? So all money has to be appropriated by Congress. Then you have the president that would then administer it, right, through the executive branch.

And we kind of ran into that in the first Trump administration. By the way, don't hold me to the Nixon timeline. It might be a little before that. But I know for the first 150, 160 years of the country, this was the way it was. Could be 175 but anyhow the bottom line is they during the first trump administration there was a um a fight over whether or not donald trump could move funds that were allocated in the defense department to border security oh yeah like putting up the wall that sort of thing right and they had a they had a court fight, and the president just finally said, you know, I'm going to do it this way,

and figured out a different way to do it, and used the same kind of funds, just from a different pot of money, that were defense-oriented, and put it into what he was trying to do with the wall. And it was a – but there's a big court fight as to whether or not you could use Department of Defense funds to defend our border. Well, we can use Department of Defense funds to defend Ukraine's border. We know that. Right. Well, that's obvious. Yeah. So we could defend everybody's border. We know that. Right. Well, that's obvious.

We can defend everybody's border but our own. That was a case, that was a fight in the first Trump go-around. Over the past four years, the Trump people, I would not have approached it this way. Let's just be clear.

This is a decision they made, and it's the decision that we're going with. They made a decision to say, we have this power. We're going to exercise this power. And we have an emergency in this country, a debt emergency in this country. And if we don't exercise this power, then we're responsible for the failure of this country, the financial failure of the country. And so we're going to go and we're going to move forward. We're going to impound funds. We're going to do a complete review of the entirety of all the spending. And where the spending is inappropriate, we're going to just say no. And let some, and force people to have us spend that money at their own political peril.

And that is – so that was a choice. And it was a choice that a lot of people would have preferred to say, well, go to Congress and get it reallocated and the like. Yeah, get Congress to do its job essentially, right? Well, and that's a – he tried that for four years. You know, it was, he discovered that that, that didn't exactly work. So, so since Congress wouldn't do this, wouldn't actually reallocate, then he's just doing it through the back door then, through the actual administrative aspect. Well, so much of the money is allocated in just broad strokes. Very little of the money is actually allocated specifically.

Yeah, Congress doesn't say, Congress never told USAID, for example, that we need to have a transgender opera sent to Ireland, right? And I remember something like that. It was Ireland or Scotland, if I recall. Yeah, they didn't

decide that. Now, the truth is, what Congress should be doing is they should be looking at the appropriations for those things and saying we're not spending money on that and cutting budgets and cutting spending as a result of that. But that's for that's something that the House needs to figure out how to do. So Trump's actions, though, but Trump's actions, in essence, are in reaction to Congress's irresponsibility. Well, and I would argue that the open-endedness of the spending allows the president to make a decision whether the spending is necessary or not. Yeah, that makes sense. And so that's kind to have a number of cases before the Supreme Court that are going to be about whether or not the president has any power at all. Because if you go down and you just look, the reason the USAID case is so important is because it is foreign policy.

There is no doubt that the president of the United States has primary control over foreign policy. And the spending at USAID is supposed to advance American interest in foreign policy. And he controls foreign policy. And he controls foreign policy. That's the whole deal. The president of the United States, no matter who it is, the Article II power of the executive branch does not put the president's primary control of foreign policy, which means allocating spending as he sees it to be needed and to meet different criteria. You know, that's something that you look at and you say that he either has that power or he doesn't have that power. If he doesn't have that power, we've just gone, essentially they keep saying they're going to a monarchy.

But no, we're going to essentially an administrative state-run government where the elected officials really don't matter. I find it fascinating because all of the left-wing politicians in Oregon are sending emails breathlessly talking about how the dictatorship, the Trump dictatorship, are using terms like that, are saying that the autocracy, you know, that sort of thing. And, of course, the autocracy is about where the money is not going to be spent, not where it is being spent. You know, it's not going to go here. You know, that's essentially what uh what trump is uh is saying but really what uh what the oregon politicians and everybody else who's criticizing what's happening right now are up to is that the administrative state is the one that's supposed to be deciding all of this and uh elected politicians don't matter is essentially what they're trying to push right that's the swamp the swamp, really. That's 100%. That's 100%. We have a remote-controlled government that the administrative

state just keeps pushing forward. They can't be questioned by politicians. The politicians, whether in Congress or President of the United States or his appointees, are essentially nothing more than nuisances that can be outweighed. It's the whole idea when they talk about the Justice Department is supposed to be independent. Well, the Justice Department is not independent, and every time we have a Democratic administration, we discover just how non-independent they are. The Justice Department sets priorities based on what, like everybody, there's a zillion laws being broken, which ones are you going to look at? And so they said they set their own priorities. And the Democrat Justice Department might have had a priority that we're going to try to overturn

laws, overturn redistricting maps in Alabama and Texas and elsewhere. And the... Even though these are perfectly legal political questions that are under the purview. Trump would have, Trump might say, you know, my civil rights division is going to make certain that every vote, the one person, one vote principle is upheld and that they're only registered people who are registered to vote or eligible to vote or allowed to vote in all 50 states and we're going to and we're going to enforce that motor voter law which is was used for the entire you know registering people through the department of motor vehicles has a very specific provision that the voters have that the actual voter rolls

have to be cleaned and that hasn't been followed by many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many states. And when they do, they don't do a very good job of it. So the Justice Department, under President Trump, might choose to say, well, we're going to defend the one vote man, one vote principle that's fundamental to our law and make sure that the voter rolls are clean. That would be a perfectly legitimate decision in terms of priorities for the civil rights division of the Department of Justice. And so that's where you get. So so it's not independent. It's saying here are priorities that we have and we're going to go, we're going to do those priorities.

In the Justice Department under Biden, the priority was to not prosecute anybody who was an illegal alien. In the Department of Justice, they're going to get after the rings that have been running, the cartels and the various human trafficking rings that have been running, the cartels and the various human trafficking rings have been running these operations, and they're going to try to unwind those and prosecute those responsible. Those are two different approaches. That's prosecutorial discretion. Who do you prosecute? Who do you don't prosecute?

Which laws do you enforce fully? Which laws do you kind of say that's not a priority? And this is still a law. If you break it and you're caught, we'll still prosecute you, but we're not going to put an emphasis on it. That's how government works. It's just how government works.

Every aspect of government works that way. If you were a betting man, do you think Trump ultimately prevails on the Doge cuts and elsewhere, because I'm thinking even with the so-called buyout employees and things, it's obvious that come later in the year, there are funding cuts coming one way in one form or the other, I would think. The president has a... Some he'll win some, some he'll lose on others, I think. But I don't think it's going to be a clean sweep. He's pushing some of the things that he's pushing are going to be't determine who's in the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy refuses to do what they – show up to work or do what they do, then I have a right to fire them because my job as an American people is to make sure this government runs right.

Right. And the civil service laws may not agree with that. So you sit there and you look at it and you say, well, is the president's constitutional responsibilities and power being encroached upon by these laws, which have effectively created an unaccountable branch of government, another branch of government? So essentially we are actually finally getting maybe a better referendum, I guess, on the administrative state's power, you know, the power of the bureaucracy, right? Correct. And that's been needed for, I guess, what, about 100 years? Yeah, it's been a problem for a while.

But particularly since FDR, when, you know, the administrative state grew so dramatically, you know, the administrative state really began to grow under Witter Wilson, who was kind of the first mover in terms of creating kind of a permanent bureaucracy and a large permanent bureaucracy. And then FDR with the New Deal kind of blew it out. All the agencies and all that stuff all blew out. And so you ended up with a massive bureaucracy. And then under LBJ, you created the mandatory spending bureaucracy, which Congress was divorced from, although Social Security obviously came during FDR. And so you had this dramatic

expansion of government over time. And quite honestly, our health care system is now being run because of Obamacare. It's being run by federal bureaucrats who are working with insurance companies. So that's how the federal, that's how our funding mechanism for health care is. It's not health care, it's just funding health care. But that's where the money goes is who controls the protocols. So anyway, that's your so all that's the expansion timeline. Trump's trying to blow that all up. And it's a. And it is. Even judges appointed by Ronald Reagan.

They they look at they say, oh, well, what's the history? And they say, well, it's been allowed. And Trump's saying, but it shouldn't have been allowed. And it's going to be interesting to see which jurists agree with Trump and which don't. Because it is a... Just because something bad has been allowed to happen for 40 or 50 or 60 years but but of course you know there's a lot of inertia that has uh that has built up that has been driving uh federal spending i mean you know the good news yeah the good news

on it bill is that the supreme court has ruled in multiple cases that if the administrative state goes beyond the executive branch, which is represented by the administrative state, goes beyond congressional intent on regulations, those regulations are unconstitutional. And as a result of that, another executive order that hasn't gotten any attention at all that Trump did about a week ago. He said, we have these Supreme Court cases. I want every single agency to be evaluating every regulation they have and determine if those regulations fall within the purview of the Supreme Court's decision. If they go beyond the intent of Congress, I want them eliminated. I want them ended, which would, in one fell swoop, I mean, it's kind of like my dream come true.

I wanted Congress to do this, and they did. The Speaker did send out something to all the committees asking to look at all the regulations that are under the purview and make a list of the ones that went outside the constitutional barriers. But like a lot of things, I don't think it really happened. Trump's saying – telling his appointees, go and find these regulations and let's destroy them. It is, nobody's talking about it, but at the end of the day. That could be administrative kryptonite, couldn't it? It could be. It should be.

Here's the thing. I always talk about the size and scope of government. Trump's personnel stuff is dealing with the size of government, okay? How many people can we afford and we're going to make it more efficient, and all that kind of junk. Okay? The scope of government, the regulatory review and pullback

is dealing with the scope of government. And a simple example of something that happened out of the HUD just a couple days ago is they announced a regulation that i fought for 10 years called affirmatively furthering fair housing which allowed federal bureaucrats to determine local zoning decisions that's right i remember that they were they were telling our cities what we had to do yeah and we and we got it defunded in it defunded

and then finally after three and a half years of fighting with Ben Carson, we got it pulled, got it yanked by President Trump at the end of his administration. Biden revised it, revamped it. Congress put the defund back into place. And so the first two weeks of Scott Turner being at HUD, they looked at what Biden was doing on that. They said, we're not doing that. And they eliminated it. That is a, you know, that's an example of what can be done when somebody is looking at regulations that go beyond the anything Congress ever intended and creating and creating kind of new laws and new powers with that. So this is actually a game changer that's not being paid much attention to.

Nobody's paid much attention to it because we're fighting over it. And one of the great things about creating so much so much disruption is it's hard for the left to know what to fight over. But this is the thing that at the end of four, if you get a J.D. Vance and is following up end of eight, 12 years, you have completely deconstructed the administrative state. I hope you're right about this because— You need 12 years to do it. Yeah, I know. I know that right now in Oregon, I was just reading a story from OPB here a little earlier on the air.

And I was just sharing how the state of Oregon is just kind of the Democrats in charge are really just kind of semi terrified about what's going on. They're seeing, I think, the end of the grand stream gravy train here and and and of course the attorney general here dan rayfield says well i'm just going to sue for our money you know you know all these sort of things and i think that ultimately they may get some wins or some pushback there but ultimately you know you look at that that debt that 36 trillion dollar national debt not getting any smaller and it's even going to be going higher here in the near future, the money ain't there. That's just our bottom line. It isn't there.

Well, one of the things that's a contention, I haven't some of the states have been scamming the federal government on some of the health care health programs like Medicaid. Yeah, Medicaid. Yeah, and that's Oregon Health Plan for us, and that's like one-third of the people on it. Right, and it's been a—for all intents and purposes, they have been charging the federal government significantly more than the federal government is contractually obligated to pay under the laws of the land. And so when those kind of audits are done, it's going to create a significant disruption

in the force. Ultimately, since so much of the federal – about 30 percent of federal money flows to state and local government, it's reasonable to assume if there's going to be significant cuts in federal spending that state and local governments should be – are going to have to determine whether they're going to tax their people more or they're going to cut their budgets. And that is what we're looking at here in Oregon. And in some respects, I look forward to this, and I know it could be causing some tax hikes or they're going to try to force more tax hikes on the situation here. But I want to see Oregon less able to use federal money to go after and screw with us. And that's what they do here in Southern Oregon, in rural areas. You know, attacks within the school and in the social policies and the transgender this

and the school that and the pollution this. It just gets to the point where, and it's all through grant stream funding. You know, that's the hammer that gets used everywhere we go. I would love to see a lot of that go away. It's really easy to do crazy if somebody else is paying for it. Exactly. And if Oregon had to pay for crazy, there could be a little less crazy. Just saying.

Okay? The people of Portland might run out of money. Yeah. Yay.