Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 03-18-25_TUESDAY_7AM

Episode Date: March 18, 2025

03-18-25_TUESDAY_7AM

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 clauserdrilling.com. Here's Bill Meyer. I have a lot to talk about these days when it comes to legal affairs. Joining me right now is Landmark Legal's Mike O'Neill. He's the Vice President of Legal Affairs, Landmark Legal Foundation, Landmark Legal.org, great legal mind.

And there are just so many ducks, legal ducks flying in the air here. I don't know whether you're being shot down or not, but Mike, it is great to have you back on the program. Good morning, sir. Yeah, it's always a pleasure to be with you, Bill. How are you? I'm doing pretty well. I'm a little frustrated though.

In some respects, when I hear the White House the other day talk about, well, we did not ignore the judge's order. It was international airspace at the point. There's a party that just said, no, just own it, and saying that we don't really think that you really have jurisdiction over this. And why don't we break down what happened then with this? What is this 1790s era act that President Trump invoked? Could you help us understand this more?

Right. So this is a law called the Alien Enemies Act. And this is a law that was passed again. It's interesting. I think it reflects the genius of our founding generation that a law that was enacted in the late 1700s, 18th century here, is still applicable today. This was a law to ensure that the president had the necessary

authority to designate aliens and take effective action to ensure the national security interests of the United States. Again, this is the president operating at the highest of his power. When the president is conducting foreign affairs or is exercising his legislative and constitutional authority to defend the national security interests of the United States, he's operating is conducting foreign affairs or is exercising his legislative and constitutional authority to defend the national security interests of the United States, he's operating at the apex of his power. And so what the president did here was utilize the Alien Enemies Act to designate TRNDE AGUA. You know, I stumble over that every time too. Don't feel badly about that. I got to work on my Spanish.

One listener said we have to change it to like Tren de Agave or something like that so we can not trip on it, but I get you. Exactly. Well, he designated TDA as a foreign terrorist organization with connections of nexus to the Venezuelan government, well within his authority and under his prerogative pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act act so that these are narco terrorists who had come into entered into the United States illegally and it conducted pretty much the most horrendous criminal activity you could

you could designate these are guys these are individuals who child sex slavery human chattel narco terrorism dealing sentinel which is of course resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Americans every year These are guys who are designated who are deployed by Connecting by entities within the Venezuelan government to essentially come into the United States in so chaos Well, what happened is the president identified these individuals these these individuals have been identified We have the criminal justice system as affiliated and connected with this foreign terrorist organization.

They were rounded up, they were put on a plane, and they were deported. They were sent to prisons in El Salvador, those prisons that you've seen that El Salvador president has instituted to ensure that his country is protected from those MS-13 gang members. So what happened was, of course, the left-wing legal apparatus, this massive entity, this massive institution—I'm just going to call it an institution—that has joined together, that has essentially opposed legally every single executive action undertaken by the president, ran immediately to a sympathetic court, and sought an emergency injunction

to stop this deportation proceeding. And the court essentially said, hey, look, this is, again, this is a sympathetic judge at the D.C. district court. This is a district court judge. This isn't an appellate court. This isn't the United States Supreme Court. This is a single district court judge, issued an order well outside his authority, saying, well, no, you don't have authority here.

You have to turn the plane around. You have to get these people back to america therefore to process well he's acting well outside the scope of his of his authority this is an issue that is not just issue ball this is an issue where a court has no jurisdiction to to participate in this activity this is a case where the president is exercising his foreign power authority essentially it's like again it even Miller said that i yesterday, this is akin to a judge saying, hey, you can't deploy the 101st Airborne Division to the southern border, or you can't deploy an aircraft carrier to the Red Sea to protect the security interests of the United States of America. This is the president acting

within it again, his article to authority to defend the national interests of the national security of the United States, and a court has no authority here to jump in. So Mike, the legal blob though is very much, it's now instead of just lawfare, we now have judge fair I think to a certain extent. And what I'm wondering though is do we have truly three co-equal branches of government or maybe four if you want to include the administrative state, you know, that sort of thing? How do you see this? Because, you know, this judge is even today asking for an explanation,

hey, why didn't you follow my order? And it really concerns me that every, absolutely everything has to be run through the courts these days or even people act as if everything has to be run through this court and through the courts and that this is something which is totally acceptable and I don't see any aspect in black letter law which authorizes it but it's kind of is it the lie we're all supposed to believe right now? How would you break this down for us to understand it more? Right I think what you have to ensure you have to understand here is that the courts,

the judicial system needs to police itself, and it starts really at the top. John Roberts is not the Chief Justice of the United States, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he's the Chief Justice of the United States of America. And it is incumbent upon the judiciary, again, through the appellate process, the appeals courts have the power to overrule and overturn lower court decisions, and then ultimately

the judicial power rests with the Supreme Court of the United States. I think there is no inherent enforcement authority that courts have other than the fact that we all have faith in their institutional power. And I think in order to ensure that the American people do not lose faith to the extent that it's already been lost, in order to regain faith to the extent that that's already been lost order to regain it to the extent that it's already lost is that the judicial the branch has to get a palp in order to start with the united states the print work ensuring that these judges who are out at exercising their authority well outside of any kind of

constitutional authority they have are rated and if the court doesn't do this at the supreme court doesn't act sooner rather than later and i'd be within weeks the any kind of institutional respect that the American people have for the judicial system is going to go out the window. And unfortunately, under our system, of course, you understand that Congress does have some role here to play. They do have, remember, they passed a judiciary act. They have an authority over the lower courts.

The Supreme Court is the only court that is actually discussed in the Constitution. And so the Congress can establish and dilute the authority, can increase the number of federal judges. There's all kinds of authority that Congress has. Look, I don't want to see it going that way. I want to see the judiciary keeping its own house in order. So you don't think then that Congress should just strip the federal judgeships of certain jurisdiction, or should they?

I haven't gotten to the point where I think impeachment is necessary yet. I want to see the courts get their own house in order. I want to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to rein in these judges who are exercising power well outside their authority. I haven't gotten quite to the point where these judges, a lot of people on our side are calling for impeachment of these judges and I haven't gotten quite to the point where these judges, a lot of people on our side are calling for impeachment of these judges, and I haven't gotten quite there. I want to give the opportunity to the appellate courts and the Supreme Court to actually rule on a couple of these issues, rule on this specific issue that we're talking

about, and also rule on the general issue about whether a district court judge has this authority to issue these nationwide injunctions. I think that's a bigger issue that really should be grappled with specifically in front of the Supreme Court. And again, I don't think that a court should have that. I don't think a single judge sitting in Washington, D.C., or a single judge sitting in Oregon, for that matter, should be able to issue an injunction, a preliminary injunction or some sort of remedy that affects the entire nation. I think that that's an unconstitutional... And that just seems an overreach on its face, just with common sense, I mean, for the entire country when you're a district court judge.

And not saying that a district court judge doesn't do important functions. Okay, I'm not saying that. You know something, Michael, we're having all sorts of problems when it comes to respect for the institutions. And you said that it's up to the Supreme Court to essentially smack down the judge that is going against President Trump with the Alien Enemies Act? And how do you smack that down? Is it just where you say, hey, you just completely reject the whole concept of the order whatsoever?

How do you do it in a way that the judiciary understands that they're serious about this and knock this nonsense off judges? Okay? that they're serious about this and knock this nonsense off judges, okay? Right. So what happened was from a technical standpoint, the judge issued a temporary restraining order. It actually effects, and that's an emergency remedy that's thought on an emergency expedited basis. That's not necessarily as appealable, but essentially it functions as a plumber or injunction. And that's an appealable order. It goes to the circuit court, which

is DC Circuit Court, which is the appeals court. They can rubber stamp it, say, okay, it was properly issued. It goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says, look, this is a non-justiciable issue. The courts do not, Article III judges, district court, circuit courts, Supreme Court do not have jurisdiction here, and say that the order was declared improperly issued, and that's it. And the Supreme Court has authority that say this is a non-justiciable. Courts do not have jurisdiction in this. The order was improperly issued and that's it and the Supreme Court has authority that say

this is a non-destitutional, courts do not have jurisdiction in this, the order was improperly granted that will rein in and will restore the balance of powers here. I think that that is what procedurally can be done in this case. So that's the first step. The next step of course is addressing the larger issue about this nationwide injunction. That's something that needs to be done on I think a little slower basis because there needs to be an opportunity for a more fulsome and more complete briefing in those particular issues. Because that's really a larger question, is what authority do judges have to issue nationwide

injunctions? But particularly on this issue regarding these enemy terrorists, these darker terrorists, it can go up fairly quickly. Court can say, look, non-justiciable, court has no jurisdiction, improperly issued order. And by the way, why should we bring them back is what I would add. You always wish they could put a little post-it note on it. By the way, don't be stupid, we don't need these people around here, okay?

You get the message. Yeah, but the thing is, again, when the Supreme Court speaks, it resonates with the entire country and the judiciary. And this is part of the reason why I respect the Supreme Court as an institution. to care for their voice carries a lot of weight i love that when their voices deluded i'll i'll look at what the american people who stay in the integrity of the supreme court when for example you did interestingly the court had an opportunity to do this with the u.s. a i d a couple weeks ago remember justice alito and uh...

for other justices joined in a really strong dissent and I think was very complete and laid out a lot of issues about why it was improperly brought that this court issued, that a district court again ordered the funding for the USAID money to come back. Court had a chance to set the record straight there, passed on it. I think they're going to have another

shot here with this narco terrorist case and I don't think they should miss their opportunity. Okay, I hope you're right about that Mike. Mike O'Neill from LandmarkLegal.org. Mike, I hope you're right about that, Mike. Mike O'Neill from Landmark Legal dot O-R-G. Mike, I wanted to touch on to something. Our Attorney General in Oregon, Dan Rayfield, never sees a multi-state action that he doesn't want to join in that has to do with trying to cut Trump's head off legally, you know, that kind of thing, every time it happens.

I'm kind of wondering, what is the purpose. I've noticed that all of these state attorney generals, mostly in the blue states, have filed lawsuits almost like demanding that people get hired back in the Department of Education and various other federal agencies. And I'm just wondering on what legal basis can a state order somebody to be rehired at the federal government? Something is just, I'm finding it offensive on its face, even if I might agree with why they want to do something. I don't in this case.

But where are we going here? What do you think? Yeah, excuse me. I think what you have is these guys are politicians and they understand that they're based now, which it's amazing. I think the political winds are clearly indicating that massive support for these guys are politicians and they they understand that their base now which is it's amazing i think the political winds are clearly indicating that massive support for these policies of trump i i i i i i i always have i'd baffled by the the political calculus that the police politicians are utilizing backing these ridiculous policy i mean you have the

president i think you ran on on combatting waste fraud abuse and for trimming federal government is getting the United States fiscal house in order, and he's doing just that. And yet you have these, again, generally blue state Democrats who are trying to wage lawfare to try to stop everything. And I think really at base, the score of political points with their base, I don't think there's anything politically, there's nothing in the long-term gain politically from it. I think the American politically from it. I think the American people recognize it.

Again, I question the legality of it. Do these states, per se, have standing to challenge this? It all harkens back, I think, to the unitary executive that the president retains ultimate executive authority to terminate employees of the executive branch for whatever reason. The Constitution invests the executive power within the President of the United States. I understand that there's the Civil Service Act, but ultimately the President is trying to get the United States' financial house in order and has identified arms of government, apparatus of government, part of these administrative agencies that

have functioned, really done nothing over decades. Yeah, and if the money's not there, the money's not there, or if we decide the money shouldn't be there, that's all there is to it, I guess, right? The Fed should be able to do that. Yeah, I think so. And I mean, again, the political, the people spoke. Donald Trump ran on this exact platform. He made no secret of the fact that he was going to identify waste, fraud, and abuse

and cut that. And what is the crisis here that the over the overarching issue here is the fact that we are facing close to 40 trillion dollars in national debt that is unsustainable and our country is poised to go off a fiscal cliff if we don't get our financial house in order and so it's incumbent upon the president and don't be a doge utilizing any any any of the tools that he has at his disposal to identify these agencies that are no longer functioning, that are essentially wasting American taxpayer money and to make

the necessary cuts. Now it's going to be painful, but it's more, it's going to be painful today, but it's going to be a lot less painful today than if we have to do it in 10 years when we have debt that's utterly unsustainable. And it's also painful to bankrupt yourself openly, you know? So Michael, I have one question. This is reacting to what you said earlier, in which you think it's very important that people be able to respect the Supreme Court and the judiciary. And I will agree with you.

I have a real concern. I don't know if you have an opinion on where this could go. But there is the Bruner decision in the Second Amendment a number of years ago, which made it very clear that you were not to be banning, states are not to be banning, arms in common use. And yet state after state, especially once again in the blue world, Oregon is an example, there was a measure 114, the legislature is looking to then do House Bill 3075, which will more or less put that into effect. 114 essentially shuts down firearm sales here in the state of Oregon because it cannot be complied with. And the courts and the state legislature continues to go further and further in here. And it's like they're going to put us all out of business

here the way it's looking. And what I'm wondering though is that they're all ignoring Bruner. Everyone seems to be ignoring Bruner and it does make one not respect the institution so much. What do you believe might be going on with this? Is this something where the Attorney General Bondi ends up having to start cracking heads? What would be the proper procedure in many ways? I think the proper procedure is to have well represented clients who have been adversely affected by infringement on their second amendment rights to bring strong lawsuits in

federal courts and prosecute them. Again, when I mean prosecute them, I don't mean criminally. I mean procedurally. Push this. If there's laws that are passed by states that run afoul of the Brunner decision and violate individual Second Amendment rights, then it should be litigated. And again, you're talking to a lawyer here, so this isn't going to be my answer. And once again, though, this is years, though, and the Second Amendment right in Oregon doesn't have years to litigate this because it's going to be shut down pretty soon.

It really will be the way it's looking. Again, I think that's terrible. I think that you need to get a group of plaintiffs together to bring a lawsuit, fund it, find advocates who specialize in Second Amendment law and advocate and litigate those cases through the federal courts and then push it. I mean, I know that you guys are in the Ninth Circuit. I know the Ninth Circuit is generally amenable and then push it i mean i know that i think you guys are the right for getting out of that circuit is generally amenable and then push it as far as you can legally again with it do

you work with the system to effectuate that there are change if you have the attorney general you have the state legislature that are running again violating constitutional rights that the important thing here is the second member rights are just as important as any other rights right to free speech right to practice religion i don't get short shrift but there has to be necessary respect for those decisions. And if you're violating, if it can be argued that you're violating your second-member rights and running afoul of the Bruner decision, then those cases need to be prosecuted.

So it's likely if they pass this bill this week, it will likely once again be, but fight it in federal court because it doesn't seem to make any any progress in state courts right now I know that what it's looking at. You'll allege a violation of your constitutional rights and that brings in federal jurisdiction. Okay all right Michael O'Neill once again Landmark Legal Foundation thank you so much for the for the analysis of this we really appreciate your take on it always good having you on be back okay thank you. Take care Bill. Michael O'Neill it is is 729 at KMED 99.3 KBXG. Hi, it's John at Wellburn's Weapons. The only thing better than shooting is shooting with a suppressor. Wellburn's is

Southern Oregon Sub.com. This is the Bill Meyers show on 106.3 KMED. 732, thank you for waking up here this morning. Going to be kicking it around with former state senator Herman Barachek talking about a couple of bills that are on his mind here this morning. I wanted to also do a couple of emails of the day sponsored by Dr. Steve Nelson at Central Point Family Dentistry. Centralpointfamilydentistry.com.

It is on Freeman Way and that's right next to the Mazatlan Mexican Restaurant, which is right down from the McDonald's So it's like McDonald's Mazatlan and then dr. Steve. Okay, by the way Yeah, they have a kiosk there that if you need some specialized mouthwashes toothpaste toothpastes rather Brushes, maybe even a water pick. I bought a water pick from them there. They'll sell them to you at his cost So no markup on that whatsoever.

It's to make sure that you have the tools necessary for healthy teeth, so they don't turn into teeth as you lose them. You know, you don't want to lose them, right? In fact, I'm even working right now on the water pick, trying to save a back tooth here, to see if I can get the pocket closed up. One of those things that's been my homework from Dr. Steve Nelson. I want to give an email today to Hans Alperkerke who writes me quite often and says, Bill, judicial tyranny is out of control. This is kind of going back like what I was talking about with Mike O'Neill from Landmark Legal. And Hans says, a one-third branch of government has become your daddy on every issue.

If you don't like something political, just run them up to some appointed judge's robe and you'll get your way. Article 1 and 2 be damned. Reminder, judicial review is not in the Constitution bill but was finagled in by Justice Marshall after the Jefferson election. Even Thomas Jefferson himself opposed it, yet the Jefferson election. Even Thomas Jefferson himself opposed it, yet slip and fall lawyers over the centuries have bastardized it into the spoiled child that it is. Congress has always had the power to rein it in but never has. The Federalist Papers denounced the judiciary resting decision, resting decision-making to Congress and the executive branch. Why? Because those branches are derived from the electorate.

The least power was imputed to the judicial branch, but here we are, day after day, waiting for some no-name judge with no authority to make some stupid decision that is completely outside his constitutional boundaries. Little pushback. We Americans just ride in the back of our China-made US station wagon like dogs, heads and tongues sticking out the window. It's time to pressure our Congress critters to impeach the judiciary. What are they going to do? Sue us? That's a very good point. We have Patrick also weighing in that writes, Bill, the legal standing of President Trump to deport the criminal aliens that were deported and his full authority to do so stem from the oath of office that he swore.

I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will and well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. As the President declared that these crimes are terrorists, I think the matter is pretty much settled.

Now I had Anthony that wrote the also kind of a fun thing and you know something Bill I don't think that they should have the credibility of saying the name correctly the Trendy Aragwa the terror group right so take how we don't give mass murderers the attention of saying the name I say from now on that cartel should be referred to as Trend agava. I love that. Trendy agava. Some gender confused tropical fruits. So, alright, I appreciate that. It's kind of funny.

I appreciate that. Tamara writes me this morning, Bill, have you heard anything about flooding on the Klamath? Just wondering what's going on without the dam. Tamara, I have not heard anything about that. If anybody has had an eye on it, if there's been a problem, let me know. The email of Bill at BillMeyersShow.com. It's the biggest sales month here at Plan Z. Hi, this is Zola from PlanZDiet.com.

Welcome on KMED. Hi, I'm Jim with the Beauty Mark Salon and Glitter Bar, and I'm on KMED. I've always loved that song, Let It Rain from Clapton. And of course, it's been raining and raining and raining, and it will rain a little less later today and then dry out until we get another storm series coming in for tomorrow. Former state senator Herman Barachiger on the program right now here too. And like I said, you called in yesterday, Herman, and you were talking about how the water just came through your land and through your farm. And I guess just a mess.

You got it all cleaned up today. Is it finally retreating or is it still pretty high right now? No, no. We're back to normal. There's no water anywhere. It's gone. Oh, good. Well, just like you said, it tends to come quickly and then goes away

just as quickly usually. Nothing else. Yep. Yep. It, it, um, that's just, and it, you know, wouldn't have happened if, if the Fort Benoit Creek didn't leave its banks. And the reason it left its banks is because all the trees that are growing in the middle of the river, and the only reason all the trees are growing in the middle of the river is the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife won't let us take them out. Is it one of those things where the permitting process is really high, has to have a high bar, you have to show a real

danger before they let you take something out of the creek and you know everything's about the fish? It's just no. No, no, no. Oh, okay. Well, you know, the whole thing, it's kind of like, uh, we think we own our property, right? That kind of thing. Well, I've lived here for 47, almost 48 years. And this is probably the fourth time that it has flooded the school and have done damage. And you know, you talk to the school to try to enlist some help. They're not going to get involved, you know, it's just, you know, nobody wants to do anything. Nobody wants to take on the state.

Nobody wants to push. And so, you know, schools out, schools closed. Maybe it's open today. I don't know. It wasn't open yesterday and they had, they had the, the companies in there, you know, vacuuming all the mud and stuff out of the classrooms and stuff. So, well, there's your taxpayer dollars hard at work.

And all it would simply take is to go through and clean that creek out. Well, one thing which has been on my mind, and I was kind of intrigued by this, Florida State Governor Ron DeSantis ended up floating a plan the other day that I would love to see occur in Oregon in which they eliminate, they just eliminate entirely the concept of the property tax which would go I think certainly help and it might even then encourage the state that maybe we don't get involved in development any longer if they were no longer getting money from property taxes. We would then have to go to some form of a sales or consumption tax. But I know that Oregonians have had almost like a birthright aversion to sales taxes,

and I understand that. But wouldn't that ultimately help us out in the long run? What would you think about that? Any thoughts? Well, I'm sitting here. I'm kind of wondering, you know, when have you started drinking so early in the morning? This thing is never going to happen. Well the thing is, you know, in Oregon, of course with many places in the United States,

we can never own our property. We never own our property. You're always owing rent, whether it's to the state, to the school district, or to the county, and you never have that ability. It causes a lot of problems in our lives, including something like this where you're always asking for state permission to be able to do something that you should be able to do because it's on your land and affecting you, that kind of thing. What do you think?

Yeah, well, I agree, but it's simply not going to happen. You might as well read Aesop's fables. Okay. Anyway, yeah. So a few bills, I want to give a couple examples. There's, there's, I don't know how many bills, I'm going to say there's over 4,000 bills easily, but I was just kind of snooping a little bit. But this is how stupid, listen to these bills. Some of them are just stupid.

Senate Bill 35, it requires the Oregon Health Authority to study medical assistance. To study what now? Medical what? Medical assistance. Okay. Okay, I don't understand the word you used. I'm sorry, it's not coming through the phone.

Let's try one more time. The Oregon Health Authority has to study medical what? Assistance. Assistant. Okay. Why do they have to study medical assistance? That just doesn't make sense. Exactly. Here's another one. The Department of Consumer and Business Services to study patient billing. And there's another board. Why can't they do that as part of their normal work schedule anyway? Exactly. Okay. Senate Bill 37 requires the board of pharmacy to study pharmacy. pharmacy to study pharmacy.

Okay. All right. Who is pushing this kind of stuff and why? Governor's office requires the Board of Pharmacy to study prescriptions. Does it have some higher meaning for it? Like, you know, why are we writing so many of them? Or, you know, are we writing them for the wrong things? Do we have pill mills? Is there anything in there that you can discern? This is what Senate Bill 39 requires the Oregon Health Authority

to study health care. You think they would have studied it plenty by this time here. You think we'd have a handle on it. Wouldn't you think so, Bill? Yeah, so these are just a handful of the four or five thousand that have been submitted for consideration. Okay. That's right. I mean, like I told you earlier, off air, we could sit here until midnight talking about this. Senate Bill 77 describes allowable home occupations on land, zone, for forest and farm use. What they want to do is anybody that has a home occupation, they want to eliminate that if you live on high value farm or forest land. You can't have a home occupation. Is this the bill that would be going after you,

especially if you have a business on this high value farm land and they would limit the amount of people that could work for you? You could have nobody work for you. Nobody work for you, okay. You can't have the business. All right.

And you know, I get a lot of flack on social media when I talk about Oregon's not a business friendly state. There's a great example right there. Okay. You know, there's another bill that I'm aware of too. Have you heard of, I don't have the number in front of me, but have you heard about the bill that wants to increase our power rates by 3%

and put it into a state fire insurance fund of sorts but it also ends up from what I understand it also it gives Pacific Power some legal relief in some ways and it's just like I love that I'm already paying a lot for a fire insurance and then they wanted me to pay more fire insurance through the the power bill going to Pacific Power to help Pacific Power fight the fires that it starts with its own lines. Isn't that weird? Yeah.

Well, Bill, how many times have I talked on a show that the state wants to get the money for fighting fire out of the general fund? And they are going to continue that because that way it frees up general fund money that they can go and spend on all their little pet projects. Senate Bill 762, by the way, Senator Golden says this week that he may actually get that fire map repealed. Do you take him in his word on that? Yeah, there's a bill in the Senate and a bill in the House both repealing it.

So I believe it's going to get done. I don't think they're going to repeal the whole thing, but they're going to repeal the fire map part of it. Is that enough in your word or in your review? Well, you know, you can only get so much. Some of it's already been implemented. So that's just, you're not going to repeal that. So I would say that's a huge step in the right direction. Let's put it that way. Okay, all right. But I'm kind of with Jeff from Selma, you know, he's one of those guys that has done undo 762.org. He looks at it as just a, like, you know, when you're in a war and you're getting

pushback from the village and the state legislature is just retreating to the next village and the state legislature is just a retreating to the to the next village down the line and it's just a strategic retreat ultimately they'll continue to keep coming after you would you agree with that analysis of it well yes no no bad idea ever goes away okay what other bad ideas or great ideas do we see coming out of the state legislature Herman Barrett sugar by the way former state senator is going through some of the bills which are out there in play right now. So Senate Bill 78 establishes maximum size of replacement dwellings on land zoned for forest or farm use. Boy, there's nothing with a bill like that that wouldn't be rife for abuse when it comes to property rights, huh? Just for the sounds of it. That's tied to 762 in some sort. And so what that means is, say you have a 4,000 square

foot home on forest or farmland, it burns down. When you go to rebuild it, you may be limited to a 2,000 square foot home. So, you know, something, Herman, we've been told by lots of people from the left that this whole concept that we've been talking about, well, there's the great replacement in various other conspiracy theories, which have been out there, but the one about sustainable development and getting people off the rural lands, what part of that bill that you talked about wouldn't be part of getting people out from living on rural lands?

It's connected, isn't it? Yeah, it makes it more difficult. It's absolutely connected. And then the very next bill, so that was Senate Bill 78, Senate Bill 79 prohibits dwellings in sensitive or unsuitable areas within high-value resource lands. How do they define sensitive? Well, who knows? Sensitive meaning that the politicians that be

don't want you there, right? That's right. It's all to get you out of there. Then let's see, Senate Bill 81 requires the Oregon Climate Action Commission to study natural climate solutions unnatural climate solution uh... another words ride a horse and say your car then we got that bill nine sixty missus for the union remember

we have the union uh... but right in the environmental community that's what keeps the democrats in power in oregon so this one's for the Union, Senate Bill 916. Let any union member who is on strike to collect unemployment. Bad idea. Bad idea. There is nothing worse than taking unemployment benefits that employers have to pay in. A lot of people don't realize that, Herman, that the workers don't pay into the unemployment insurance fund. Employers do and they get rated on how much they pay based on the type of employment and how often they end up firing or laying off people. You know

about this, having run a business. And the thought that you would actually pay unemployment benefits paid for by employers so that workers can fight with their employers, there's no conflict or corruption there, is there? Yeah. And so now we have Senate Bill 83, make changes related to building code standards for wildfire hazard mitigation. So what I see is going to happen with 762, Bill, is they're going to repeal a bunch of that stuff and then they're going to come back

and take each one of the issues one by one and create a law. And this is one of them. So Senate Bill 62 makes changes related to building code standards for wildfire hazards. And so now they have a standalone bill that does that. It's still about trying to force the people to harden their properties so the federal government can burn through the area, right? I mean, ultimately. Yeah. They may not do it all this session. They may do it over a period of time. Let's see. Senate Bill 84 exempts local governments that adopted and continue to enforce certain

wildfire hazard mitigation standards from the application of state standards that are based on specific wildfire hazard classes. Could you translate that for us, please? That means that the counties can make laws that are to a higher standard than the state laws. Is that necessarily a bad idea to allow the counties to do a higher standard if they feel that's necessary? Well, yeah, you know, it's more local control, but it just depends on which county and who's elected. In other words, from the sounds of it, Herman, what I'm hearing here is that

as long as the state legislature is in session, we're doomed until they sign EDI. Oh it's always like that. I mean if somebody asked me, you know, is it ever gonna get any better? I said no, it's gonna continue to get worse because when you have the progressives in charge like this, they got to come up with these crazy ideas. And so then they get something passed. So now they got to go find another crazy idea. Is there a tipping point you think in which Oregon becomes an uninhabitable area for most people? Well, I think we're approaching, we're at a negative growth state. We're anti-business. We don't have big business. I went through that a couple weeks ago with you. We're going backwards. I mean, you're looking like Wyoming. Wyoming, the legislature

just passed a law reducing property taxes. And Florida is talking about eliminating property taxes entirely. Right. Let me ask you, this is a philosophical question. I've been saying for years that a greater Idaho situation, which has been proposed and many counties have voted for it. I understand why they want to do this. It's a high lift. It would be very difficult to accomplish. But of course, things which are very difficult to accomplish are sometimes very important things to do. Is there a possibility that you think if Oregon ends up weakening itself,

because the state of Oregon, everything you've been talking about so far seems to be designed to weaken Oregon. It might be trying to strengthen control, but it's actually going to weaken the Oregon government over time because they're going to continue to run out of money over time. And there's only so far and so hard that you can tax a declining tax base in a declining business sector. You ever think there might come a time in which

they would say, all right, rural lands, go ahead, take off. We don't have the money to be able to deal with you anymore. We're tired of you being a welfare state. They always call us welfare counties anyway, you know, down here. Do you think there's ever a point that politically they might see an advantage in letting us go and then just mess with Eugene and Portland all they want? What do you think? No, no. You don't. Not at all. No, because they love. You don't understand, you just don't understand how they think, Bill. Oh, I think I understand what they think, but at some point they have to think in their own best interest at some point.

No, they like control. They want absolute control, and they have the power. They are controlling us. Well, you know what that means then? Ultimately, they're going to be pushing a civil war of some sort over time, given enough time. I really do believe that. Now, you and I may disagree on that, but I think that... Well, no, I don't disagree because that's what history tells us happens when government gets so unreasonable that the people will no longer tolerate it. But history tells us. I don't care. You just study history. I don't think a lot

of people do study history, but just study history. Yeah. And that's what happened. The one thing that I think might change something here, and I know that this is really kind of a weird thing, did you read that thing about Scott Besson saying that the federal government wants to do a sovereign wealth fund? Have you read into that? No. Okay. Essentially what they're talking about doing is taking all of these federal lands right now. Now I know there's a controversy right now because Utah has asked for their federal lands to be distributed to them because their enabling act, their state admission act,

ended up saying that it should. And the federal government's not doing it. But Scott Bessent a few weeks ago was talking with a bunch of the other money guys. This was on television, you know, when Trump had that big press conference with the AI people. They were doing the half trillion dollar thing that they were talking about for artificial intelligence. And he was talking about a sovereign wealth fund taking things like our public lands, our public forests, our oil, our mining interests, all these sort of things, and putting it into a sort of investment

fund. And it sounds like there's talk about forcing it to be productive. I would be curious to see if that ends up going through. That might force a few issues through the environmental mill or taking it out of the environmental mill that we don't know about. I think it's something worth maybe taking a look at. Maybe you look further into that and we can talk about that another time. Could be a bit of a game changer when you have a country $40 trillion in debt and having to make some money off of these lands instead of burning it and billing the taxpayer. What say you? Well, yes, I agree with that concept. I mean, it's going to be in the details as always, but I will tell you, I would adamantly

never, never support letting control of the federal lands in Oregon to give to these progressives from Portland. Never. Yeah, you wouldn't want to give it these progressives from Portland. Never. Yeah, you wouldn't want to give it to the state because the state would have even worse control of it. Yeah, I would agree with you on that, but if it appears that the feds, I think the reason they didn't give it to Utah, Utah would have done good things with it. I think the reason they don't want to give it to Utah, and they're going to keep it for themselves right now, the fed

government, is because they know they're broke and they have to generate some wealth. And I think that may be helping us out in Southern Oregon at some point. I don't know how long this will take, but stay tuned, Herman. All right? Stay tuned. Yeah. I mean, I've heard it and I don't know it, but a lot of people say that is the collateral for the national debt. And if you put $300 trillion of federal land and mineral rights and things like that into an investment fund, do you think you might be able to make half a percent a year on that or one percent a year on something like that and all of a sudden here's a trillion, two trillion dollars a year?

That sort of thing. They're thinking. They're thinking hard over there in D.C. I just want to let you know. You know, that's the way it has always been up until the 60s. It was like that. In fact, if you remember, the slogan for, I think it was, the Bureau of Land Management was land of many uses. Well, that's the way by the wayside. Yeah, now it's no moo, no move yeah i know nothing and i'm

uh... land of only green use uh... out we're talking about taxes pay they got a new proposed higher tax to house bill thirty three and back those that money would go into it what's fun uh... for them to use as they want

uh... and tell me that they did that they actually exempt the EV tires. Do they exempt tires for EVs? I don't know. Maybe we make them out of soybeans or something. Then the rats will eat those too. Got it. Hey, perfect. We've got all the problems solved now, Herman. Hey, appreciate the call. We'll talk next Tuesday, all right? But look, I know that you're a good money guy though, a good money brain. Look into that sovereign wealth fund that Besant was talking about. I am. I'm going to look into that. All right, you do that. Thanks for the call. We'll catch you next week, former Senator.

Take care, Bill. Thank you. Bye-bye. Senator Herman Bershiger, 8 o'clock KMED, KMED, HD1, Eagle Point, Medford. KBXG grants passed. Hey, after the news break and all the sorts of other things, State Representative Dwayne Younger caused a big, big deal on the House floor yesterday by reading a government book. Now, when I say a government book, a book that is in a local school district here, it was too dirty to read on the House floor, but it's not dirty enough to be required by the libraries in the schools.

Interesting stuff. We'll delve into that and a whole bunch more coming up.