Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 09-18-25_THURSDAY_7AM

Episode Date: September 18, 2025

09-18-25_THURSDAY_7AM

The Bill Myers Show podcast is sponsored by Klausur drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at Klausor drilling.com. Storm Saturday. Conspiracy Theory Thursday, and we have Matt. Hello, Matt, you're out of the way in on the Jimmy Killie, the Jimmy Kimmel Canning. How about that, JKC? Good to have you on.

First of all, I'd like to say, you are correct, my friend. What's that? Some late-night parody there. You're correct, my friend. First of all, I asked my kids about Kimmel. They're 25 and almost 29. And I said, hey, ask your friends. I said, just ask everybody you know who's around your age.

How many of them watch Kimmel or know who he is? You know what the number of people who watch Kimmel? I would imagine it's pretty low. It's exactly zero. Most of them didn't even know who the hell he was. Okay. So here's the thing. You notice when they ever hear people clapping and laughing,

laughing when he would say stuff about Trump or whoever, they never show the audience. But when Colbert got fired, I remember there were interviews outside of his show, and they were asking people what they thought. These people were my age. There wasn't, you didn't see any 25-year-olds or 28-year-olds outside talking about, oh, it's such a shame that Colbert's been fired. This is Hollywood. This is classic Hollywood. He aged out. That's what happened. He's like an athlete.

Father time caught up with him. He's too old. And you know what? What was the whole point of the late night show to begin with going back to Carson and Dick Cavett, I think, or whatever? What was the whole point of that show, of those shows? Well, the whole purpose was to sell whatever a celebrity was doing at that time. I think that was also part of it. Yeah.

What a celebrity was doing, whether it was a book or a movie or, you know, they had to, a new product or something, and also to have, well, a gentle, humorous look at what was going on with the news. That was kind of the way it used to be, you know, it was designed, right? Let me ask you a question. Before you go to bed, I don't know if you even watch TV at all. I don't know if you do. Maybe you don't.

I watch some, yeah. I watch reruns of Seinfeld or Frazier or Modern Family. I don't want to see the news before I go to bed. I don't want that stuff bouncing around. brain because unfortunately I have to pay attention to it for my job okay right I need it I'm not watching Kimmel um first of all I don't think he's funny he in fact Adam Carolla carried the man show back in the day Adam Carolla was the funny one um and he's still funny and he's still relevant by the way but uh these guys they forgot what they were there for you know what I want

to see a panel of current movie stars if I were to watch the show which I don't and I I want him to talk about stuff that happened behind the scene. Something funny that happened on the set. That's what I want to see. I don't want a guy coming up there telling me that a guy you just got murdered is, you know, it was one of his own that murdered. Nobody wants to hear that. And, you know, I think back to the way it once was, well, we always look at Carson as the gold standard.

Although I didn't watch a lot of Johnny Carson, you know, because I was, you know, working late nights in radio and doing other things or else doing the morning show, which kind of precludes you watching an 11 o'clock. or midnight show, you know, that kind of thing. And, but the point being is that it was about, the humor that was there was generally bipartisan and genuinely funny.

I guess is really what we're getting at there, poking at our humanity rather than how do we destroy somebody on national television. You were just talking about Caesar Romero, right? Yeah. He was on Carson all the time. Yeah.

I never once heard and mentioned politics. You know why? Because he was funny. He was entertaining. He could tell a good story. Bert Reynolds was hilarious. I mean, you know, you could see from the movies that he had talent for acting. He was funny. All of those guys could come on and tell jokes and tell us things we couldn't hear anywhere else. Now you got the Internet. But honestly, to me, ABC was looking for the exit for this guy. And I'll leave you with just this. If you work at a company, and the company is entertainment, and you You can see that there are massive layoffs at your company. Right away, you should duck and, like, get low and try to get out from under the spotlight. Why on earth would you be annoying people when you can see all the other guys working and shipping have been laid off? You're like, no, you come in early, you stay late, you skip lunch, you work through breaks. Kimmel wasn't willing to do any of it, and he aged out, it's no more complicated than that. for me. I appreciate your call. Thank you for that, Matt.

17 minutes after seven. Don't know if we can get this call. Try to squeeze a quick one in here. Hi, good morning. Who's this? Welcome. Hey, good morning, Bill. It's well, Sam. Steve, you got a quick one here? A little short on time. Okay, no problem. You know, the late-night TV shows really kind of sprung from the Ed Sullivan show. and that was what talk of the town what his his early talk show i think is what wasn't that the talk of the town that he did well his show was a variety show but he had all kinds of things mixed into it um you know the big show he always said and he's the one that had Elvis and the

beetles and stuff on there but i think that the um i think the the late night comedy shows sprung from that. And one other quick thing, you'll know when things have really gone crazy when the AIs try to form a union. Oh, gosh, don't even get me started on that. Steve, that is a great conspiracy

theory wrap up there, okay? It's 18 after 7. Here's Bill Meyer. We still don't have a conclusion of what happened the other day in which the news came out. There was a teacher's aide over at Crater High School. Special Ed. Ended up

coming out and doing an arguably pretty nasty post about Charlie Kirk and about President Trump and would celebrate when the rapist in chief died. You know, that was the kind of thing that this teacher or this teacher's aide did. And I was kind of wondering, you know, where these situations go when it comes to employment law and other things, because there are people who are getting laid off. There are people who are getting fired from their jobs. and joining me right now, who is the Federal Affairs for the National Right to Work Committee, is Jace Witts. Hello, Jace. Good to have you on. Morning.

Hi, good to be with you. Tell us about what is going on there as far as maybe what the unions are up to right now, because it is surprising how many people are setting themselves on fire in the educational departments of K-12 education and also state universities. What's the story here? What are they coming up with, huh? Yeah, I mean, you've seen teachers across the country who have just not comported themselves well in response to this tragic fascination, and rather than, you know, condemn these teachers for some of the things that they've been saying, the teachers' unions are doing what they've always done, which is to decide overwhelmingly with the radical left. And in this case, you have multiple teachers' unions in the Massachusetts and in Virginia who have said that they're going to defend anyone who is potentially. fired for comments that they've made around Kirk's assassination. They're going to stand up for

people who are making these kinds of comments and celebrating death. This is just what these teachers unions like to do, and it's unfortunate with the way that the conversation is playing out in our country. That's interesting. I think one of the most egregious ones that I heard that I just, you know, I read a lot of news. You read a lot of news, too, I'm sure, and you know, it makes your jaw drop when you read about the teacher in the one district that not only, showed the assassination to the middle school fifth and sixth graders, but did it several times, played it over and over and over again, you know, the blood spattering and everything else, and then is going off on a tirade about the LGBTQ rights and trans agenda and all the rest of it.

Do we know what's going to happen to that person? Are the unions going to defend that too? Because that would just seem to me you're violating your employment contract of what you're there for. But what do you think? Well, if I had to bet, I would guess that the teacher's union is either not going to condemn that person, possibly even to defend their staying in the school. I mean, this is what they have done for years, is try to protect some of the worst people from getting fired. In New York public schools, they had to use something that they called these rubber rooms, where the worst teachers would go and just sit in an empty classroom all day. The school district didn't want to put them in front of students because of things that they had done. but they wouldn't be able to fire these people because they were protected by the union

and had to go through these long arbitration procedures before they could be removed from their jobs. And so the union, no matter what the person has done, no matter what the conduct, is always going to try to stand up for the teachers, but only if they're doing things that are in line with the union's values. We had a situation in New York where there was a nurse who made the opposite, kind of comment and actually attacked one of her colleagues or called out one of her colleagues who was celebrating. Yes, one of the doctors at the hospital.

That's right. It was another person and a doctor who said, yeah, I thought Charlie Kirk had a coming. And she told him how she disagreed with that. And she was actually briefly suspended and spoke to her union about it. And they said, yeah, you're probably going to have to look for another job. Oh, that is fascinating, Jace. Okay, so they'll defend the ones that play the movie, play the assassination clip time and time again, and then blather on about the LGBTQ or trans agenda, defending that.

But if you call out the doctor who says, hey, he had it coming, that's a firing offense. You better go find someone else, and the union won't help you. Wow. That's right. That's right. And the excuse that they give is we're protecting, you know, our members, but it's only our members who are going to be singing the song that we're. that we're telling people to sing and advocating for these left-wing causes.

And that's ultimately what the teachers' unions want to do is to promote their politics in education. And, you know, we've seen Randy Weingarten is coming out with a book right now about how teachers can fight fascism and fight against the Trump administration's overreach. I mean, they see everything that they do as being designed to push a particular kind of politics into our schools. Boy, this is heating up, too. I know that the AFL-CIO in Oregon, I don't know if you heard, did you hear about the meeting that happened a few days ago in Oregon with the AFL-CIO about their endorsing a ballot measure which would be enshrining trans agenda or LGBTQ as essentially constitutional rights, you know, in the state of Oregon, it's what they were doing. And they said that it was that going in favor of these agendas and coming out in favor of will help them organ. that this is key to helping them organize and protect the workers.

I'm paraphrasing a bit on that. I don't know if you heard that, but I thought that's an interesting flag where they're planting their union flag right now. Absolutely, and the, you know, AFL-CIO represents workers in Oregon across multiple different industries from all different perspectives. And Oregon isn't a right to work state, which means people in those unionized workplaces are forced to pay dues to that AFL union that's then using those dues to advocate for political causes that you have to imagine a large number of them do not support.

And yet they're going to be funding that kind of messaging that, of course, has nothing to do with workplace issues or anything that might be important to these unionized workers. Oregon not being a right-to-work state, though. But wasn't there a court case that you weren't involved in, though, that talked about the, you know, where your union dues could go if you were in a union? What's the story? That's right. Well, there's a Supreme Court case called Janus from 2018 that the National Right to Work was involved in. The deals with public sector unions. And so if you can get through the process and actually revoke your union dues, if you're a public sector employee, you

at least do not have to fund the political causes that that union is supporting. Technically, a private sector worker can try to ask the union what percentage of their dues is being spent on politics. And if the union comes back with a number and they can withdraw that portion of their dues. But it kind of relies on the unions to be honest about their accounting, which they very rarely are. So ultimately, the best solution is to say that union dues are voluntary for everybody, which is what we advocate for passing a national right to work law so that nobody in America can be forced to pay dues to an overtly political organization. organization that they just don't support.

What is the status of that, too, because a National Right to Work Act would essentially mean that, all right, you don't have to join the union in order to get a job. And I'm really okay with that. I've never belonged to a union, though, so maybe I don't know the goodness of being involved in a union. Help me up. Well, yeah, the National Right to Work Act would say that nobody can be forced to pay dues to union as a condition of their job.

And it's something that we've pushed for for a long time. It takes 60 votes to pass in the United States Senate, and so it's a long-term fight. But it does just give people that protection of saying you can join a union if you want to. You can pay dues to union if you want to, but it will never be fired for refusing to support a union in your workplace that may be super political. It may be corrupt, like the United Auto Workers that have had 10 of its executives go to federal prison in recent years. Could just be doing a bad job of representing you. And for any of those reasons, you may want to cut off the dues that you're paying to this union.

and in a non-right-to-work state, you can't do that. Is there any way that you can constitutionally pass a rule just to ban public unions? I'm speaking about public unions because there is no way that you have honest negotiations with public unions. And Oregon is a classic case of this because you have the union leaders who end up recycling their union dues into the coffers of the Democrats, mostly, who are elected and are then in charge, and then in charge in negotiating their pays and benefits. There is no honest representative on behalf of the taxpayers. And to me, public unions are the most corruptible for that reason.

Absolutely. There are states that don't allow any kind of public union bargaining, whether it's for state government officials or for schools or anything else. North Carolina has had this for some time. Utah just recently passed a total ban on public sector unions. So it's something that can be done, and ultimately every state should do this. You know, we've also seen on the flip side efforts in Congress to prevent states

and actually to impose government unions on every school and every district in the country. So this is one of these things that will continue to fight over. I hope so. Jay Switz, once again, Director of Federal Affairs for the National Right to Work Committee, where can people find out more about this and see how maybe they can withdraw their political contributions if their union is not doing the right thing? What do you say? Yeah, our website is NRTWC.org, like National Rights to Work Committee.

Lots of things to learn there about what the unions are up to. Jace, thanks for the talk. Good to have you on, okay, and be well. Thank you. 7.30. This is KMED. The six-eg heart attack omelet is so massive, the Hash Browns feel claustrophobic. Give it... ElectricPlus.com. You're hearing the Bill Myers Show on 1063, KMED.

735, Attorney John Thorpe joins me, and we're going to be talking about a case that the Goldwater Institute is all involved, and it involves an Oregon vape shop owner, and it's something I have somehow as one of those stories got lost in the shuffle here, I guess. John, welcome to the show. Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for having me on, Bill. So, John, you're an attorney for the Goldwater Institute. For those who don't know, what is the Goldwater Institute all about? I'm thinking, no doubt, Barry Goldwater is what comes to mind, but that's the connection, right? That's right. So we were founded about 30 years ago.

We're in Phoenix, Arizona, but we work all over the country. And we do public policy work and litigation devoted to holding the government accountable and individual rights. So I mostly work on free speech, property rights, and keeping the administrative state in check. Boy. We litigate probably about half in Arizona, half all over the country. include Oregon. Okay. Yeah, the moment you're talking about property rights and litigating in free speech rights, it's like, boy, you have no lack of work, though, when it comes to the administrative state, always in a big takedown. And of course, in the state of, this is good.

Oh, yeah, state of Oregon, you know, we're one of those kind of places that, sure, you own your business, but you're only able to run it if we can micromanage every aspect of it. It's kind of a little perfect fascist fiefdom. And I'm talking about fascism in the in the traditional sense. We're not talking about the authoritarian goose stepping of World War II. Just a merger of corporate and state power, in my opinion. But be that as it may, tell us about this vape shop owner who is going to the Oregon State Supreme Court, October 8th.

Interesting case here. Yeah, so our client, Paul Bates, owns a vape shop, Morgan. He's been a business owner for a long time. He's active in the vaping industry, And he's been affected in the past few years by this law that Oregon passed that bans any packaging attractive to minors, as determined by the Oregon Health Authority, this agency of public health bureaucrats who have been entrusted completely without any kind of guardrails to decide what they think is attractive to minors. Well, we've also been in during, well, back during COVID time, John, it was also, you will do the safe and effective or else. You know, that was kind of the power. That, yeah, they're pretty much drunk on power in the state of Oregon, no doubt.

Okay. So, safe. So how does this connected? So, what, the vape juices that they put out? I don't vape. I see a lot of people do it. It seems to be very popular. But what?

You couldn't say what something is? What's the story? How's that work? I actually don't vape either. So a lot of this has been new to me. But they sell, mostly vape juices. Since these juices, they actually put in the vape device, so they'll be a cigarette. And they can come in different flavors, they're different brands.

So obviously they come in packaging, and Oregon regulates how they can be packaged in a variety of ways. Now, some of those are totally understandable and legitimate, but the one here bans packaging based on the content of that packaging, You know, based on the expressive nature of what the packaging actually says. Because that's something that the business uses to communicate to customers. Packaging says, you know, what the product is, how much product costs. In a lot of cases, if you're selling a strawberry or cherry flavored vaid liquid, this says that kind of acting. But this is the really absurd part.

The Oregon Health Authority has determined that even the word, even words like fruit flavors. are potentially attractive to minors. So Paul and business owners like him can't even accurately describe the product they're selling without running afoul of this law. Okay, this is... This is kind of catch-22, where they're selling legal products. Yeah. But they can't describe what they're selling to business owners without violating the law. Okay, now, to me, a non-legal eagle, John, to my ears, this sounds absolutely nonsensical.

So you have, okay, I go into a, I walk into a vape shop, and there's a, a, box with maybe a bottle inside. It must be a liquid of some sort. You're talking about the juice that goes into the machine. And I want something that's cherry flavored. But if there's cherry flavored or a picture of a cherry on the box, you have violated the health Nazis code in the state of Oregon. Is that it? That's right. Under the issue the regulation shortly after the law was passed, there's a non-exhaustive list of things that they deemed attracted some miners. It included all kinds of things, but one of them was fruit names or pictures of fruits. So you can, yeah, it's as simple as that. You literally cannot accurately describe the

product that you're selling. Can you, okay, so you can't describe the product. Can you put on it that this has, you know, artificially and natural cherry flavors inside it? Can you put that on the label? Or does that, does that end up of? violating OHA's rules here. What do you think? Yeah, I think even that, because at least the regulation they issued a first, they said fruit names. And so even the word cherry, it's literally a banned word. They have a list of banned words. It also includes a bunch of other words that I guess these public health bureaucrats think might be attracted to minors. It's kind of funny

reading the list. Words like pop-in, lit, ice. Oh, so you have a bureaucrat. Oh, so anything which makes it sound, anything which makes it sound cool or attractive in any way? Yeah, some of somewhere they're thinking, what's cool to the kids these day? Let's make a list of all those things. Well, I guess you couldn't put a word on the box that says, your mom wouldn't want you to have this. And then that would be attractive to children, right? It could be.

I mean, the vagueness, the possibilities abound, right? So you imagine all these possibilities, like, well, is that attracted to minors? Does that violate the law? people don't even know in a lot of cases. All right, so you're going to the Supreme Court with this. Now, you're the attorney involved in this, right? You're the one bringing the case along with a vape shop owner, right? That's right.

Okay. And so you're attacking this as a clear First Amendment play? Is that what you're thinking? Yeah, so actually we're bringing our claim under the Oregon State Constitution. You guys actually have a great state constitution up there. And we try to legate under state constitutional law whenever we can. Sure. in addition to federal claims, but it's a free speech claim under the state constitutional free speech provision.

We've been litigating this for over three years now, and finally, we won at the Oregon Court of Appeals. It struck down the law. The state appealed, and now we're headed up to the Supreme Court. Oh, okay, so you already had a win, and so this is hopefully going to then cement the win if you win this at the Oregon Supreme Court, right? that's right and hopefully establish some really really important precedent for for Oregonians and especially business owners in the future what about the the first amendment implication I'm just going to bring up an example of something that I had when I was a kid

I don't know how old you are John but when I was a kid we had candy cigarettes oh yeah nobody thought anything big about it I'm you know and now that pretty much has been trounced for the most part. Has this been trounced because of the regulation, or is this more or less a societal demand that we don't do this any longer? How do you know? I kind of see it related here with the vape deal. It is.

Yeah, that's a really great point, because the regulation we're talking about here wouldn't actually ban those because it's only talking about packaging of vape products. Okay. But the argument that state has made is essentially we can't restrict free speech anytime We think there's some kind of social good. We can restrict children's health from bad things. We can restrict people.

Hey, I'm so broad. Hey, John, could you, could you call me back? You just called me a couple of minutes ago. We're having a little trouble on your phone line, and maybe if you call me back again, I want to hear you clearly as you move forward on this, okay? Let me get a try, sorry. Yeah, go ahead.

He'll call me back in just a second. I want to continue with you with John Thorpe. at the Goldwater Institute. And I also want to talk about some other First Amendment and also, shall we say, constitutional issues in play. You're worried. You're worried. Clickiammedford.com. Hi, I'm Corey with Patriot Electric, and I'm on KMED.

John Thorpe, an attorney from the Goldwater Institute is working hard on this story about vaping and free speech. And state regulators are forcing an Oregon vape shop owner to black out flavor names. and he's fighting this on Oregon's free speech rights here from the Goldwater Institution. I think we have you back on a different line here. You hear me okay, John? We're doing all right? Yeah, loud and clear. How about on your end?

Okay, so far, so good. All right, so October 8th, this is when this happens. And do you feel pretty good about your chances on this particular case to say, hey, the Oregon Health Authority cannot go in here and fight and fight vape owners In other words, they should be able to have free speech rights to be able to say what the product actually is on the package. It seems to be perfectly reasonable. Absolutely, yeah. I mean, going into court, you never really know what's going to happen.

But in this case, the law and just common sense are on our side. The Oregon Court of Appeals thought out that they should a great decision before this. And we're confident the Supreme Court's going to see it the same way. Yeah, I had listener Francine that was just commenting during this break here. and she had mentioned, hey, you know, Bill, Oregon Health Authority is this same group that is also, they're worried about children's health, but at the same time they're pushing the transgender agenda. Were you aware of that? That's a big part of what's going on.

The number of abuses and just, you know, crazy stuff that's pushed in the name of public health, and particularly children. And we're just supposed to accept it all, you know, unthinkingly, just, you know, trust the experts, don't ask any questions. It's awful. And so this is, this case is one way to challenge that, that whole kind of regime. How can we help out? Because anybody that's actually helping businesses and free speech and everything else,

I'm good with this, and property rights especially, where do we find out more about the Goldwater Institute? Then I have a couple more questions. Yeah, you can visit our website and you can learn more about the Goldwater Institute. Goldwater Institute.org. We have all our information about all our cases that we're litigating around the country as well as our policy work. What do you think Barry would be thinking about the growth of the administrative state today if Barry were still alive? What do you think he'd be thinking? Oh, it's a great question because it's a problem that started dating back to even before he was a sender.

The administrative state's been growing really ever since then. It's grown to the point of just being a behemoth and literally a fourth branch of government in a lot of ways. That's not in the Constitution. Everybody's taught in school and high school civics. you learn about the executive, the legislative, the judicial branch. But the reality is, for most Americans, this fourth branch, the administrative branch, is the one that really controls your lives in far, far more ways than the founders ever would have imagined. We've had some really encouraging wins recently.

I think the wind is on our side these days, and we're trying to take the fight to the administrative state and finally bring some accountability the way the Constitution designed it. You know, just about every time I end up talking to an attorney, a legal legal, especially one who negotiates involving property rights and the rights of individuals, I always have to go down to something that makes me wonder if we will ever really regain property rights in our country, as long as we have the civil rights laws on the books as we have. because more than one person has talked about how civil rights law of the 1960s has essentially put a civil rights condom over the original constitution. Would that be a fair assessment? I've kind of agreed with that, but maybe you don't. Any thoughts on that? I know there's been a lot of interesting thought in writing on civil rights laws recently, and it's a very – that area is a little beyond my – in my area of expertise, but certainly I can tell you that there have been a lot of abuses of the civil rights laws, and those laws have been informed.

in recent years in cases that they really were never designed for at all to twist the original meaning of the words, and certainly the Constitution. So, you know, override plain constitutional rights in the name of these kind of tenuous civil rights ideas. Yeah, well, even like how sex has now been conflated with gender identity, which is someone's internal description of themselves, and completely open to interpretation. And it's like, does anybody really think all the title nines? and all the other legislation was designed so that a man who believes he's a woman

is supposed to be treated by a woman, or like a woman, rather, in civil rights law. It never makes sense. And I think even back then they would probably say, what are you nuts? I think they would do that. Yeah. Yeah, I think really the answer is to get back to our core constitutional rights, which are, if you look in the state constitution, the federal constitution, they're right there. They're plain as daylight.

free speech, the right to association, private property right. But you see the right to association, what I was getting at, though, when it comes to civil rights, the right to association means nothing unless you also have the right to exclude, because it's one thing to say I can associate with people, but if I can't exclude people who I don't want to associate with, then you don't really have that right. You see what I'm getting at? That's the problem I've always had with it.

Yeah, and it's the right that there haven't been a lot of, a lot of really prominent cases, but in recent years, and I think certainly the Regifruit of Association that's, there's a lot of work to be done in that area in the courts to try to reinvigorate that. We've done some of that work challenging our, in our cases challenging mandatory bar associations. Oh, yeah. The lawyers around the country.

But you're right. There's a lot of work to be done in that area. Well, I appreciate you. You're doing work over at the Goldwater Institute, John. John Thorpe is an attorney there. And so when you do this battle before the Oregon Supreme Court, Is it where you actually relitigate the entire case, or it's the witnesses and everything else, or is it just a matter like, here's the appeal?

And then the state Supreme Court has to decide, you know, if the appeal has merit. How does that actually work? I'm sorry to ask. I hope it's not a dumb question. No, no, it's a great question. A lot of people, you know, you've been lucky enough not to have a lot of run into the legal process litigation, something you probably haven't gotten to see much. but the trial court did all the fact findings.

So we would have a discovery at that level and lost on summary judgment there. So on appeal now, it's really just a pure legal question. It's just we have all the facts established, so we don't need any more witnesses on any testimony. It's just here's what the law says, is that constitutional or not. And that's what the Supreme Court is going to be looking at. They're going to be looking at the statute and that the free speech clause in the Constitution decide. Is the law valid or is it invalid? Yeah, because the free speech clause, you would have to comport with that or, you know, be all right with it.

And I don't know how they could. But on the other hand, this is a state in Oregon, so I guess we're going to find out. We have our issues. Hey, best of luck there. Thank you for your work in the past. And I wish you, Godspeed to a success and shut that all down, okay? Thank you so much, John. Thank you.

It's a pleasure talking with you. Have a great day. You bet. John Thorpe. He's an attorney from the Goldwater Institute, and we will get all their information up on KMED. I appreciate you listening this morning.