Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 03-14-25_FRIDAY_6AM

Episode Date: March 14, 2025

Morning news and the DC swamp update with Rick Manning, how Trump admin will look in Oregon. BTW, Rick joins the administration Monday in the Labor Department!

The Bill Meyer Show podcast is sponsored by Clauser Drilling. They've been leading the way in southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at Clauser Drilling.com. Here's Bill Meyer. Good morning and welcome to Find Your Phone Friday 770-5633-770KMED. The email bill at Bill Meyer Show.com Facebook.com slash Bill Meyer Show feed is up for those that like to watch the show. Of course, it's just me and other people come in. But hey, you know, uh,

Viva LaDiffarones, whatever you're looking to do here. All right. Hey, a question for you this morning. Josephine County has had to have a Parks Watch. Remember, Brian Weldon will call in and you'll hear him talk about Parks Watch and they're doing their best to try to reduce the amount of dirtbagginess in Josephine County parks and of course this having to do with the prevalence of homelessness in southern Oregon, which really means the prevalence of drug addicted craziness is really what we're talking about. Drug addicted, and yes I know that there are some homeless people who are definitely down on their luck having a rough time and I'm not criticizing that.

But more often than not it's either mentally ill, drunk, drug addicted, combination of three. Okay? That's a lot of it. But do we need a Jackson County Parks Watch? When I say Jackson County, I'm not talking about county parks, but do we need a Jackson County Parks Watch? And this is the reason why I'm bringing this up. This is in the Rogue Valley Times. Story broke there last night. Central Point police encouraging residents to take extra precautions at city parks after a man was trespassed for aggressively approaching and following women and children. At least a dozen reports online related to interactions with the man seen mostly at Flanagan Park off Beale Lane But also downtown Fath Park and at a handful of businesses, too

Central Point police chief Scott Logue ended up confirming numerous reports about the man whom he declined to describe because he had not been charged with a crime and Said the man was recently trespassed from Flanagan Park for 30 days. So he's being told he can't go, this man can't go, in the park for at least a month. We've identified the person, spoken with him, told him that the behavior is alarming, pretty concerning. Now, the park goers are reporting this according to Buffy Pollock's story. Report being approached by the man described as in his mid-30s being

of average height, he has dark hair, and a strong accent. What kind of strong accent? That was the first thought that went through my head. Central Point resident Rachel Lynn Feil-Holbrook said that she and her sister, who lived near Flanagan Park, had multiple encounters with the man, beginning a couple of weeks back when he approached her from a creek area behind her sister's property, starting asking personal questions about where I work and where I live. It got pretty weird pretty quick. I started getting him false information, he just wouldn't go away he was saying

you're so beautiful I want to be friends. Uh-oh. I was getting a really bad bad vibe so I went straight inside and a week later Fyle Holbrook said her sister's family at the park when the man approached her eight-year-old daughter, five-year-old niece, 2-year-old nephew, asking them where they lived. He left the park to follow a teenage girl but then returned a few minutes later, at which point three officers arrived at the park to talk to him. Obviously we have the laws that say your kids shouldn't be alone if they're under 10. Do we have a law like that?

Kids shouldn't be alone if they're under 10? Really? Gosh, I would go all sorts of places when I was under 10. Is that a law? Really a law? Is that true, Chief Logue? I know you don't leave kids alone at home. I get that. But I don't know. I know we're told that it's different. Well, maybe it is different. First off, usually if you have a budding Uncle Purvey hanging

out at your parks, men, assuming there are men in any of these families these days, would tend to go over and have a talk with Uncle Purvey instead of waiting for police to show up. Is that a reasonable remembrance of times past that Uncle Purvey's used to be dealt with a little more quickly and it didn't necessarily have to be with the police officers? Because obviously, yeah, this is kind of disturbing. This does sound like someone who is just cruising to pick up a little kid and have his way with a little kid. I mean, it sounds really creepy. And of course, the police will say, well, you know, there's nothing we do, hasn't committed a crime. And they're right about that. And they're right about that. But where are the men?

Where are the men of these children? Where are the fathers of these children? Maybe they're not, I don't know, maybe it's just lots of single-parent families that go, but where are the men to go in there and take care of business? Patrol the parks. Do we need something like that? That's a serious question this morning.

Unfortunately, what's going to happen, usually when it comes to police, and I'm not knocking the police, but they just can't devote all this time to following one potential Uncle Purvey. It's usually reacting to something after it happens. reacting to something after it happens. So remember, if we go back to the description, I do find it interesting this said strong accent but wouldn't say what strong accent it is. Now, I have a suspicion. My suspicion would be that the strong accent is probably someone that would be termed, in saner times, an illegal alien. It does make me wonder, doesn't it? You know how we found out that many of the illegal aliens that have been picked up by

ICE, by President Trump's administration, administration many of them of course doing the jobs that americans won't do like stabbing shooting robbing raping things like that you know the jobs that that most americans don't choose to do that kind of stuff now remember organ is also a sanctuary state is there a possibility that central point uh... may have all sorts of suspicions about our budding Uncle Purvey, but you're not even allowed to ask? Wouldn't it be interesting

if there was some way to ask? I don't know. It would be nice to have a...well, they can't release his name because he has not been charged with a crime yet. But definitely, in the court of public opinion, we can charge you with the crime of being a real creep, and we don't want you in our park. So even police have said, yeah, you're not allowed to be in the park, but he's still out on the streets and doing everything else, and maybe find a little kid at some point, or a woman,

in a different situation. Without a central point, police are out. What would you suggest? point or a woman in a different situation without Central Point police around. What would you suggest? Do we need a Josephine County Parks Watch? We have one in Josephine County. We have one in Jackson County, too. 770-563-3770 KMED. Okay, so we have Uncle Purvey in the park, potential Uncle Purvey in the park. We had that story. Now, we had another interesting individual in Eagle Point end up stabbing an electrician yesterday morning. I don't know if you heard about this one. This one broke a little bit later. Jackson County Sheriff's Office

ends up reporting in a release there. They went to a stabbing, Rogue River Drive, Eagle Point just after 830 yesterday morning. And there was this electrician who was working there. And this guy just walks up to him and starts assaulting him. And the electrician, able to use a pocket knife to fend off the attacker, ended up hurting the attacker in the process. Well, he got wounded in the process too. No one else heard. So the assault suspect, taken to a local hospital, he underwent surgery for superficial wounds, now in stable condition, and Jackson County Sheriff's Office believe the assault against the electrician was unprovoked. Yeah, I would imagine and they're going to release...

Well, they will release his name pending charges. We'll see what ends up happening after that. Another weird crime this week, not in our area, but it does seem to indicate where we are in the state of Oregon. Barrett Media reporting that police investigating vandalism at radio station KSLM, which is a conservative radio station, they run a lot of conservative shows, up in Salem. Windows shattered at the station's studios. This happened last Saturday.

About two in the morning, three of the windows of the station's studios smashed in by yet-to-be-identified assailants. Of course, this is the same state, which has Tesla dealerships being attacked. I think it wasn't that a transgender who was attacking the Tesla The Tesla went yeah could be could be but anyway Ian Carlson engineer at KSLM was in the building when the incident happened and he shared that glass went as far as 30 feet down the stations hallway after the windows were busted in and The studios for KSLM are located in a lot with several other businesses. None of the other store fronts were vandalized. And so they're calling this a targeted attack because of a conservative programming that they have on there, like Dan Bongino, Sean Hannity,

Mark Levin, Mike Gallagher, things like that. So that's another one here. Another weird story, kind of a story got lost in the shuffle here. This is almost funny, almost funny. We have a Harrisburg, Oregon official that's going to pay a $1,000 fine to settle ethics violations. The violations stem from a complaint filed by Chuck Scholes, Harrisburg, Oregon's public works director, for living at the city's wastewater treatment site.

So in other words, the public works director was living at the sewage treatment plant. He lived there. Last summer, the state body tasked with looking at ethics complaints, Oregon Government Ethics Commission, found that Scholes used his position to benefit himself by parking his RV rent-free on city property by Harrisburg Sewage Treatment Lagoon and on March 7th he approved the penalty. So he's going to pay the thousand dollars to make it go away.

But Scholes previously contended, along with other Harrisburg officials, that he was saving the city money and providing security at the site. That actually sounds kind of reasonable, right? You know, you don't have anybody break... Of course, I don't know how many people break in to try to go into the sewage treatment plant or sewage treatment lagoons. Let's go for a swim, right? A midnight swim. But I don't know, there's a part of me, if I were the city of Harrisburg, I'd almost rewrite the employment contract and say, if you really want to live by the stink ponds,

God bless you. Go ahead and keep the troublemakers and the riff-raff out of there. That's kind of some of the weird news we're looking at this morning. Uncle Purvey in the Central Point parks. We have the electricians at Eagle Point getting stabbed and assaulted. And of course, oh, by the way, back in our Uncle Purvey park there, he's a slight build, dark hair and a strong accent, but we're not supposed to know anything else about that. If you're going to say strong accent, what type of strong accent so that you know?

But I guess that could be insensitive. Could that get us in trouble with Governor Kotec? What do you think? This is the Bill Meyers Show. Hi, I'm Riley with Rotary Drilling Company, and I'm on KMED. Twenty-five minutes after six, some of what we have coming up this morning, Rick Manning, President of America's Proliminant Government. We're going to have the DC Swamp Update.

By the way, I just wanted to go on the record as being very pleased to be wrong. I am thrilled to be wrong this morning because a couple of listeners ended up calling on Conspiracy Theory Thursday. They were talking to me about this proposed government shutdown or the looming government shutdown which appears it's not going to happen now. And I say well you know why the Democrats want a looming shutdown is because the Republicans always get blamed for it, right? Remember me saying that. And apparently I'm wrong and I am thrilled to be wrong about that. It gives and I am thrilled to be wrong about that.

It gives me such great pleasure to be wrong about that, about something that I mentioned to a listener. Of course, it was an opinion at that time. And looking back in the past of the Republican shutdown sort of situations involved shutdowns, Republicans always were blamed. But President Trump wisely got out in front of it, and they were talking about the Schumer shutdown, the pending Schumer shutdown.

And finally, Schumer blinked, and it's not going to vote against the continuing resolution. Now, we can argue about whether the continuing resolution is actually a really good thing or not. Thomas Massie has been the one guy out on all of this and you know he voted no one in the House but we know I guess that it counts more to be united I guess and so we buy some time to craft new budget proposals. I hope that really happens. We'll talk with with Rick about that but I'm always very happy to be

wrong about something that I didn't very happy to be wrong about something that I didn't really want to be right about in the first place. So that's good. Does that make sense? All right. Greg Roberts will also be joining me with today's outdoor report for the weekend. Holly Morton, Chuck and Ann are going to be doing the Patriots Conference on Saturday. I'll be speaking at 10 o'clock tomorrow. I'm looking forward to having a few thoughts on what I think Oregon will be looking like under Trump. And it'll be, there'll be some positives and some real challenges I think that we're going to be looking at.

We've talked about things like that off and on in the show too. And also Commissioner Roberts, who's co-chair in the Jackson County Republican party, she's going to kick in today because today's the deadline to get tickets for the Lincoln Day dinner. You've got to get the reservations in there. It's going to be next Saturday, not tomorrow. Tomorrow is going to be the Patriots Conference in Josephine County that I hope you can attend. And then next Saturday, Lincoln Day dinner. A lot of people are going to be talking there, including Congress and Cliff Pence. So when

we are there, there will be... There are Republican activities going on this weekend and next weekend. Pretty active folks, okay? And then, I don't know how this is going to go, but I think this will be, or could be interesting. Mike McCormick is a former White House stenographer who spent six years documenting every word that Joe Biden talked about around him. And he's now breaking his silence. Supposedly he has some rather explosive revelations. I'd be curious to know if he has anything to chime in on when it comes to the auto pens scandal and all sorts of various other things. He's putting out a book now, of course now that he's out of the White House, it's an almost insurmountable

evil. And now he's not necessarily calling Joe Biden that, but what that book's about contains controversial claims about the Catholic Church's relationship with the Obama administration and allegations about COVID-19. So we'll talk with like about that. And hopefully it's interesting. I don't try to book people because I think they're going to be boring you, but we'll see. We'll see where it goes. There is potential here.

I guess potential here as we get ready to wrap up the week. 29 after 6 at KMED. Some other things going on here before. We'll catch up on the rest of the news here too. But Oregon Senate votes in favor of more restrictions on plastic. Oh boy. No more single-use plastic at restaurants, stores, and hotels.

All those thick, and you know those really good thick plastic bags that you could buy for the nickel or ten cents or whatever it was at Walmart and some of the other stores. They're going to go away too because I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is about the Democratic senators and the Democratic House representatives in the state of Oregon. I think that they must every morning wake up. It could be Pan Marsh and Jeff Goldin here in Southern Oregon. They wake up in the morning and they look out the window and the sun is shining and the birds are singing and the homeless are panhandling at Lithia Park.

I don't know, you know, those sort of things. And the first thing that pops through their mind is, what can I do to screw with an Oregonian's life for the right reason? How can I screw with him for the right, you You know what they would think of as the right reason I swear that must be what happens senator golden Representative Marsh, what can we do to screw with you? You know we haven't been screwing with you enough here, and I'm here to fix that because I'm a lawmaker It's a 630 at KMED. We'll catch up on the rest of the lawmaking with a grumpy bill London

And then we also have Rick Manning joining me for the DC Swamp Update. 30 years ago, America... This is News Talk 1063, KMED, and you're waking up with the Bill Meyers Show. This is the craziest party that could ever be. Don't turn on lights because I don't want to see. The DC Swamp Update, Rick Manning is the president of Americans for a limited government, BaileyTorch.com. Rick, we always appreciate you going back.

Good morning here. And gosh, where do we even start? Where do we start? Are you still there, Rick? Just wanted to... Good morning, Bill. Yeah, you are there. Yeah, good morning, Bill.

You know, I know that... I'm here. Are you still there, Rick? Good morning, Bill. Yeah, you are there. Yeah, good morning, Bill. You know, I know that I was just talking before the news break that I swear that, you know, here in the state of Oregon, now they're putting out yet another bill we're going to ban. Now we're going to ban you having any kind of plastic forks and things like that, unless you ask for them at the restaurants. Every day, people from Oregon in government wake up and say, how can we screw with you? I mean, that's literally, I I think how the Democrats approach this. You know you've been enjoying yourself way too much and so I'm here to bring a little bit of a

storm cloud into your life that's it. And I'm thinking about this every time I see a news release from Dan Rayfield. Dan Rayfield of course is our very active Democratic Attorney General. And he's one of those, what, almost a couple dozen state attorneys generals going after the Trump administration, suing him saying, you must hire back all the Department of Education people that you're breaking the law. Could you explain the thought process going here that a state can sue the federal government and say you must hire, rehire people back into a system, you can't let them go?

Any thoughts on that? Well, it's absurd on his face. I know, I know. But here is their thinking. Because the federal government provides a lot of money, about a third of the money to state governments and for education, that without having thousands, tens of thousands of federal government workers

to touch that money before it gets to the state, federal government workers to touch that money before it gets to the state. Somehow the state is deprived of the magic dust that they put on it to make our education system go from the first in the world to the 29th in the world. And by the way, Oregon is last place. Oregon is last place. Last place? Yeah, almost. I think number 49, I think one other state doesn't participate in the rankings, which

is why. Well, you know, it's always, you know, so maybe Dan Rachel just aspires to be the number one in the inverted index. Oh. So it's, I don't know. Listen, it's absurd on his face, but yes, the... And by the way, Letitia James is the lead attorney on this one, which doesn't surprise me whatsoever. Well, it's... There's a lawsuit related to virtually everything that's being done by the Trump administration.

We know that some are...all they need is a friendly Obama judge or friendly Biden judge or friendly Clinton judge to find for them. And then they've created nationwide injunction against something happening with some local judge imposing the will of a local federal judge on the entire system, it's a flaw that the Supreme Court has allowed to exist. They knew this was a problem. They've talked about it and dealing with it publicly in some of the concurring opinions written particularly by Justice Thomas, saying, you know, they're wrong, but we can't continue allowing a local judge in

Hawaii or elsewhere making decisions on immigration policy for the entire nation. Yeah, that completely shut down anything, right? Everything. Yeah, right. Now you can see it being applying to their district, let's say, you know, that would be a reason. Well, that's the way the federal court used to work. The reason you end up, it used to be that you, if you had an appeals court decision in say the Ninth Circuit, it applied to the Ninth Circuit. It didn't apply to the Tenth Circuit,

didn't apply to the Fourth Circuit, say, Thirds to Fourths. So how it ended up being that a local district judge then can then apply something to the entire country. What changed, Rick, do we know? Was there a law passed or a rule that was enacted? No, no law was passed. The general thought was if a local judge found this, that there would be a stay on its enforcement until by the upper court immediately because they would have a local judge whose opinion should not supersede, you know, expect the whole nation.

If you think back to Obamacare, there was a local judge in Texas, a local federal judge, who said, no, it's unconstitutional. And what happened was a judge that was above that, a public court judge said, no, we have three judge hearing or something. Said, well, we're going to put a stay on that ruling. We're not saying whether the ruling is right or wrong, but we're putting a stay on it because we can't have one federal judge telling the federal government that they can't engage in healthcare policy. So we're putting a stay on it because we can't have one federal judge telling the federal government that they can't engage in health care policy. So we're gonna wait. But that's exactly what's going on right now though with other

issues. Well that's my point. That's my point. The challenge is when they were, that's the way things are traditionally done. You have a local judge say, no I think this is unconstitutional. Then they put a stay on it until there is an opportunity for a broader, more judges. And eventually, what you end up in these cases is you end up with two different parts of the country disagreeing with something means. Hence, you end up with a dispute and you can't have two sets of laws and two sets of parts of the country. That's when the Supreme Court is almost compelled to take a case.

Our system has traditionally worked for a long, long, many, many, many years. Now you have activist judges who believe that they should shut down the American immigration policy under Donald Trump for two years by declaring that, no, he can't stop people coming from countries that don't vet. We don't have any idea who the people are coming from those countries. And local judges did that. Then an appeals court judge allowed it. And the Supreme Court basically came back and said, no, the president gets to decide that, then an appeals court judge allowed it, and the Supreme Court basically came back and said, no, the president gets to decide that, not you.

All right. Now, Rick, okay, so this is how, so it's just activism, judicial activism. Here's my point, and I think this is a serious question. Why has not Congress stripped jurisdiction from certain issues from the courts because congress ended up constituting the courts or creating the courts in the first place and they are in charge of what they are allowed to dig into and rule on they can determine what jurisdiction what type of cases you can

rate you can rule on and then other things it'll be like nope you have no business sticking your nose in this. What do you think? The reason is that the filibuster in the Senate would never allow, unless the Democrats had it, would never allow you to allow you to pass something. You, okay. You know, you just look at the difficulty of passing a continuing resolution, which keeps the funding at exactly the levels that Democrats insisted on in September of 2024, and keep exactly the same levels spending. And you have the Democrats saying, no, no, no, we can't, we can't pass this.

Now Schumer apparently collapsed overnight and said he was going to, but the- And the Democrats are really angry with him. Well, they are because it's their one chance to, quote unquote, stop Trump. So the spending that was fine for Biden that the Republicans didn't like is now the Republicans are trying to pass that same level of spending to just avoid the fight. And the Democrats are saying, no, we don't like it. And you didn't get a single Democrat vote in the House in favor of the spending that they created, that they supported in September of 2024 and in December of 2024. So we live in a world where Congress doesn't work.

Okay. I don't know how we make Congress work though. And the reason I... I don't have an answer for that. And where I wanted to... I know there's not a great answer for it, okay. At least a not a great answer is still an answer, okay. The part that really concerns me about the courts in our country is that I have believed for a long time that we have slid into kind of a judicial anarcho-tyranny of sorts in which it doesn't matter what laws are written these days.

What matters is what the court says. And if the court always ends up having the final say on absolutely everything all times and any judge can whack anything, we don't have three co-equal branches of government any longer. We have, you know, okay you have the executive and you have the congressional and then you have the judicial supremacy. It appears to be judicial supremacy. Am I wrong? You know about that? And I don't know. This is maybe a much larger question than a DC swamp update, but that essentially seems to be what bogs everything down every time. We do have a, the checks and balances that were intended to keep the lifetime appointees

and federal judiciary in check have not, are really non-existent. That's your problem. And it's a problem that doesn't matter if the point of the course has been appointed by Republicans or Democrats. It's a problem. In that they ultimately are the wise, I'll use men, but the wise people who get to determine with no fear of any real ramifications what the Constitution means and nobody else gets to tell them otherwise. And when you have something like that, then they're the ones that actually hold the keys to the entire government at all times. 100% correct. Now I will tell you, the judiciary, while some court decisions have been disappointing lately, the Supreme Court over the past seven or eight years has made significant strides forward in getting rid of, uh, the ultimate power of the administrative state and putting constraints on the administrative state's power.

And you know, at some level it's, they've created an environment where constitutional limited government is actually possible, whereas the environment that they've created for the 45 previous years had made it impossible for government to be restricted because you couldn't challenge the administrative state's decisions related to regulatory. And fortunately with the Chevron deference case, having decided in the favor of reining in, that was a positive development. but still. And so there's some things like that

where there is now an opportunity to actually trim the administrative state back. The real battle when you look at the, constitutionally, if they start impeaching judges and they actually impeach judges and throw them off the bench for insane decisions, that would be a way that you could end up having some restraint. The Democrats, when they didn't like that the court was on

Roe v. Wade, wanted to stack the court. You could have a system where whoever takes power can put as many judges on as they want, or fire as many judges as they want, and have it become completely dependent upon the whim of a particular election. That's not good either. You could make it so judges don't have an You could make it so judges don't have a expiration date in terms of when they have to quit. But that may or may not be good. So there's not, the fact is, constitutionally, it was meant to be the weakest branch of government.

And John Marshall changed that a little bit. And it has become, and now it's effectively is... It is the power. I mean, yeah, I mean, there's the administrative state, which is sort of an unchecked, it has been an unchecked monster of its own, but the judiciary has certainly been an unchecked power, because, well, it's all... Well, we're all looking at them. It's like we're all waiting for the smoke signals to come out of the... the color of the smoke coming out of the, you know, out of the Supreme Court on everything. And truthfully, when the Democrats are very good at having litmus tests that ensure that they're going to get judges who they can depend on doing certain things, and it's inviolable. And the Republicans, because we sit there and say, and want to sit there and say, well, they we want

them to be constitutionalists and we, you know, that's kind of an amorphous term. It doesn't... Yeah, yeah, and then we get Amy Coney Barrett, right? Well, and John Roberts. Yeah, and John Roberts. The list of Republican jurists in the Supreme Court who are disappointed is as long as my arm. But there is a... So the Republicans aren't as good as picking people to do what they

expect to do. Having said all that, ultimately, what we're seeing today was like 15 different lawsuits against different things that Donald Trump's doing. We have effectively a battle in the courts over whether or not the Article 2 branch of government, the president, is going to be able to do his job or her job by running the government and having the government actually have to do what he says, and by government I mean within the bounds of the law, and that is a or whether or not the administrative state is going to be the a hedge against the elected president. And this is perhaps, you know,

we're really going to see... Well, this is the battle royale, isn't it? Really? It is the battle royale. And what we're going to find out is, is the President of the United States allowed to fire people? Is he allowed to, in a budget emergency, allowed to downsize the government? Is the President of the United States allowed to have policies that, and not have people who work for him actively oppose the policies? You know, those are things that are going to be determined.

And it is a, and if those decisions go against President Trump. What the courts will have effectively done is they will have created a permanent administrative state, unelected, and under the law, the Constitution has interpreted that administrative state is completely and totally outside of the control of the Article II branch of government. Yeah, because if President Trump can't fire them, nobody can. It's really what's going to happen. Correct. And the way to think about it is every time a Republican is elected, the Judiciary,

the Justice Department, it's independent. All these departments, oh, they're independent. They're specifically running independent of the White House, right? No, they're not independent of the White House. They're always running interference with the Democratic National Committee. Okay. 100% true. But what the media tells the public is that they're supposed to be independent. No, the Justice Department is not independent of the White House. The Justice Department has people appointed to prosecute and to go and make certain that civil rights laws are followed and like, but there's choices made as to what they're going to do. And in the Justice Department in particular, they can choose

to try to make certain our voting system isn't corrupt, or they can choose to try to make certain that you have, that there's not gerrymandering in some district based on a perceived race decision. And there's a, those things can, those are choices. And we have a- And up to this point, the choices have been pretty bad, you know, in my- The choices have been pretty bad. You know, in my... The choices have been bad because the people who are the paid bureaucrats, the unelected people veto choices that we might support, which the person's elected office supports and continues to pursue the choices that have been rejected.

Because ultimately, the people who have to... You only have 4,000 political appointees appointed, you have 2 million people who are working with over 2 million people, not counting Pentagon, who are working in the civilian workforce. And the 2,000, 4,000 people cannot, don't have the resources, don't have the bandwidth to do all the stuff that needs to be done. So you need the stuff that needs to be done. So you need some of those career workers to be working and if they're working against the interest, against the interest of the elected representative, at that point they have in fact crossed the line from being civil servants to partisans and the entire Hatch Act was designed to make

sure that they were civil service not partisan Partisans and we now have to have changed that whole dynamic over many years To where you've got eighty eighty five percent of the people who work in certain these departments are voxing EPA higher are Donate to Democrats For registered Democratic and there's no way in heck you can ever get them to do anything that would unwind their agenda, not the agenda of the elected, of the people who are elected to office.

And the Democrats want to talk about threats to democracy. The biggest threat to democracy is the administrative state, Donald Trump's taking it on. And we will never be able to drain the swamp or even talk about it legitimately if Donald Trump is not allowed to fire these people. Agreed wholeheartedly. A question or two before we take off here Rick and I've always appreciated your years of service here on the DC Swamp Update and just so people know this is going to be the last one for a while, but I'll explain why a little bit later. Okay? I appreciate that.

Yeah. And what is, you know, when you see Dan Rayfield from Oregon suing the Trump administration, joining the other hissy fitters on the Democratic Party, you know, doing this thing and taking on absolutely everything he's trying to do, trying to stop reforms at the Department of Education, which they fired about and a reduction in force of about half, about half of the employees there. And I'm even gonna be talking about this a bit tomorrow on the Patriots Conference in Josephine County.

I'll be speaking there a little bit, about 10 o'clock in the morning is when we're gonna do it. But I'm thinking that the changes that the Trump administration, while very good for the country, may not necessarily affect Oregon in a positive way, at least from my point of view, from conservatives' point of view. Because in some respects, would a reduction in the Department of Education end up, you

know, essentially, yeah, maybe they'll get less money. You know, it's kind of like, well, yeah, return it to the states, return the power to the states. Conservatives, Republicans have been talking about this for a long time. This works really well in the red state, you know, returning power to the states there. Here, I think it almost removes any kind of potential check on what a crazy state like Oregon could do. Any thoughts on that? Yeah, that's the yin and the yang. You've just stated it very clear. I can tell you there was a debate inside the Trump world about how to proceed with the Department of

Education. A very strong argument was made that a Department of Education, a strong Department of Education was needed to force cities like, let's say, New York or... Chicago, you know, the big Portland. Yeah. They have very poor records of having students up to speed and actually able to excel. They just fail. They just don't teach anybody anything. And the only people who benefit from them are the teachers unions who get, who were collecting dollars. But it is a, and the department, a governor can't deal with those people. They just tell the governor in pound sand. And

so you even, so the federal government is the only place where you can force kids in Chicago, Baltimore, elsewhere to actually educate their children. And it's a, and so there was an argument made that that's the approach that should be made. And it was because it was the money, because of the money trail, right? Because you control the money, because you control the money. And, you know, and then there was an argument made, kind of the traditional conservative argument that we just block grant all the money from the federal government, you have fewer Department of Education employees touching it. And that seems to be where we're going, right? And that is the

decision. That's where Nixon, how Nixon kind of did a lot of the federal funding was all block grants to states and locals. And that works really well if the states and locals aren't crazy. Doesn't work so well if the states and locals. And that works really well if the states and locals aren't crazy. It doesn't work so well if the states and locals aren't crazy. The problem is, if you believe in federalism... You're allowing the states then to be crazy. You allow the states to be crazy, so long as the individual liberties guaranteed in the Constitution are not being destroyed.

And so a state like Oregon would sit there on gun laws. And they are right now, as you know, measure 114, you had declared constitutional. The Justice Department could come in and go after the Department of Oregon on gun laws. If the Supreme Court rules, and once again the federal, if the Supreme Court rules, and once again, we get the Supreme Court question, if they ruled that the euthanasia program

that exists is in Oregon, I'm not talking about supporting youth in Beijing, if they ruled that that was unconstitutional and was in violation of basic life precepts, then the Health and Human Services Department and the Justice Department could come in and say, no, you don't get to do that anymore. So those are, but by and large,

our government has been, was built on the idea that states can have primacy. The One Hope organ might have in terms of the education side of it. You know, it's, there's, there's already a bit, there's already a lot of parents walking out of it with their, their feet right now. And that, and that needs to continue. But on the federal level, there was a war fight that, you know, is about whether or not certain people had freedom and certain people did not have freedom and equal protection under law.

And it could be argued, and this would be a type of argument the liberal would make in some ways, it could be argued that a kid being able to read, write, be able to think and come out of a public school with some capacity to actually do basic functions is of primary, is an individual right. And that has a slippery slope that goes, it's really, really terrible if you get down to the end of it. But it is a...and if you were to view education and giving kids basic education is something that fits within the Constitutional protections. You can sit there and say, make an argument that the federal government needs to step in and needs to ensure that that occurs.

I can't make that argument because it has too many other ramifications. So ultimately, what parents have to do is they have to make decisions and unfortunately the decisions of the majority in Oregon are going or negative towards your kids' educations. Now the one thing we can do is make sure the Oregon elections are fair. We make sure that only legal people are voting. And this could be one of the biggest reforms then that the Trump administration does have the authority to do through the DOJ, right? Yes, absolutely. If we have fair elections, listen, if we have fair elections and my side loses, okay, I work harder next time and we push our agenda better, we tell our story the better we win next time. But if the elections are fixed, because you have live ballots being sent out to millions of people who don't actually exist or

may have moved, and somebody else is giving them, then you're not having honest elections. You're having third world elections. And so in some of these places in California, or any place with just mail ballots in general, there is a, at the very least, they should have to keep their voter rolls clean. Because you are sending live ballots into the unknown, and if you have everybody in the apartment complex move, turnover is pretty high in apartment complexes. And the ballot and those addresses aren't updated very... Oh yeah, you got loose ballots.

Well, look at the illegal aliens I was telling you about. They're not illegal aliens, they were just legal aliens from foreign countries that were here that ended up getting ballots sent to their hotel rooms in southern Oregon because they registered for driver's license. That's that kind of stuff going on. And all it takes is a few activists that want to engage in a little hinky to know about these loopholes in it and go out and ballot harvest again.

That's just the potential there. The simplest and obvious, most obvious way of having this be, you know, abused is if you have somebody who's, who's delivering mail to apartment buildings and they're delivering mail to apartment buildings and they see mail stacking up in apartment buildings, they just pick up the ballots and they vote them. I mean, it's very simple. We, you know, the one group of people who know everybody who doesn't actually live there anymore are the postmen who come around and, you know, so it's a, if you have postal activists and, you know, suppose they have a union, it's pretty strong. There's potential in other words. There's an obvious means of jimmying the system. Of course, what I was

reading yesterday though is that the postal union has responded to Doge and says yep they're quite happy to start working on cutting forces, right? Yeah, I'll believe. Let's put it this way. No. You're not buying that, huh? No. Okay. All right, Rick. Hey, Rick, I'm out of time.

We've got to go, but I look forward to whenever we get a chance to talk about this. Absolutely. It's been a blessing to be able to do this, and better things are ahead, but I look forward to our next time opportunity to chat.