The Patriots Conference 2026 - Josephine County - Morning Session

 (Morning Session) Patriots Conference (Part 1)  

Morning Session :  See the video here https://youtu.be/U7dw_SMz-O4

Full Coverage This is Part 1 of the Patriots Conference held at the Josephine County Fairgrounds, covering the morning session from 9AM through mid-day. Speakers covered a mix of local, state, and national issues, giving their perspectives on what’s happening and where things are headed. This is the full, uncut footage so you can hear it directly instead of relying on short clips or headlines. In this video: 

• Morning speakers and presentations 

• Local, state, and national topics discussed 

• Full context with no edits or selective cuts 

• What was actually said vs what gets passed around online If you want the full picture, watch it straight through. 

👉 Part 2 (Afternoon Session): [link when uploaded] 

0:00 Introduction 

1:30 Bill Meyer - KMED Talk Show Host 

47:05 Gregory Wrightstone - "Myths of Climate Change" 

1:48:25 Steve Joncus, J.D. - "Fighting Tyranny in Oregon" 

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:04

Let me introduce to you Bill Meyer. It is my great pleasure to introduce Bill Meyer. He has been in broadcasting for 45 years. I know he looks a lot younger, right? He's worked major markets around the country as a music DJ and landed in Medford in 1991 doing morning rock at KBOY and later KZZE. On September 11th, 2001, 9-11, Bill began the Bill Meyer Show at KMED, bringing conservative news and talk to the valley. Over the next 24 years, Bill's audience via stream and Facebook has reached hundreds, hundreds and thousands of, I'm sorry, hundreds of thousands monthly throughout the world, as well as having a huge following both locally and regionally via the radio. His guests have included some of the biggest pundits in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country. But Bill has never lost his love for fighting for the local issues and shining light on issues right here at home. Bill Meyer is a conservative voice of Southern Oregon. KME D FM 99.3. Please welcome one of Southern Oregon's treasures, Bill Meyer.

SPEAKER_02 1:33

Yeah. I think that headshot's an Osempic shot. I think that's what uh that all is. Anyway, thanks so much to coming to the uh Patriots Conference and somehow uh just uh bypassing the No Kings rally. All right. I don't know why. You know, people were uh were uh calling in yesterday. Well, why don't we go in there and confront them? It's just you know, if wrestling with a pig is not is not gonna help. Just makes the pig mad and then you get dirty, right? That's pretty much the way that goes. I really am glad you're here. Uh I did want to correct a little bit of the uh of the introduction here, but it it is going to be talking, I am going to be talking about how the uh media landscape here in Southern Oregon and the state of Oregon and the country really, for that matter, has changed, especially the gathering and dissemination of news. And I did a lot of that, especially when uh first coming back to the Rogue Valley in uh 2001 for KMD. And I'll kind of uh break that down. And so I guess when you look at news these days, we have some good news and some bad news. Uh the good news is that there are thousands of websites and blogs and video channels, and they're all dedicated to news and politics and everything else going on. The bad news is that there are thousands of websites, blogs and channels dedicated to uh to news and politics and current events, and it's really getting kind of scattered, and the big uh legacy purveyors that made it easy. Well, that's the way it is. Uh you just turn it on CBS News, and you know, you kind of got your dose of Walter Cronkite back when I was a kid, that kind of thing. And oddly enough, uh CBS News, another victim of the latest more uh round of consolidations, and CBS Radio News. I grew up with that when I was a kid. That was that was 1020, KDKA Pittsburgh, Group W, a Westinghouse broadcasting company. Ding, ni-nee-nee, ni-nee nip beep beep, you know. We all remember that. It's just like that's the news. That it was uh part of it. You know, almost a hundred years, almost a hundred years they were delivering that, and it's going away in the next few weeks after that. Because it's I know we can all say, hey, good riddance, or hey, there goes yet another another liberal entity down the tubes or something like that, but but it affects everyone, and I'll uh kind of explain how that works in our ecosystem here in Oregon, in Oregon, and what has replaced it is not necessarily better. Okay, and I'll I'll explain why. So being a member of uh the media for some 46 years, I'll kind of share what happened. Yeah, I was a DJ at first, then uh lost control of my life and uh left uh southern Oregon in 99, went to Fargo for a couple of years, and then decided that as great as the people were there, the weather routinely kills people, and I decided I needed to come back here. And so I came back in uh 2001. In fact, we were supposed to actually uh take KMED, and I was working for Clear Channel in uh Medford before at KCCE 1063, which is now oddly enough KMED. We took that over a number of years ago, and went to Fargo for a couple of years. Clear Channel bought that station. That was that big consolidation period in which they were just sucking up every you had Clear Channel, you had Cumulus, a bunch of them. It was happening in television too. Just uh deregulation, and you either got big or you died, and everybody got bought up, and automation systems started coming in. And I remember even at uh ClearChannel, late 90s, near KZCE, uh Clear Channel bought us uh from uh Dwayne and Sherry Hill, who had been family owners, owned it uh for many, many years here in Southern Oregon, the mom and pop broadcasters that we used to know and love. And then they started moving the automation equipment in the computers, and like my half million dollars worth of uh computers and such. And and I remember the DJs around me were going, Man, I can't, this is great because we'll be able to uh do other things rather than having to play the CDs and the records and stuff like that. And I said, No, no, no, you don't understand that those machines are ultimately uh to replace humans, right? That's really what it was, and it's that's what happened over time. And practically every broadcast uh organization, television and radio, whatever, has had to take on some variation of that. And at first, um but anyway, back to KMED. 2001 they said, hey, we're gonna take uh KMED at that point only on AM 1440. And he said, We'll come back here from Fargo. Thank you. You know, coming back from Fargo. The plan was on September 23rd of 2001 to flip it to News Talk from the music of your life. It was the big band, Frank Sinatra, you know, kind of format at that point. So this was really exciting, and I'd never done news before. So I was incredibly nervous about it. I know the competition across town laughed when they heard that I was uh you know coming to do that. Oh, Meyer, the guy that does the rock morning show and the jokes and stuff, yeah, yeah. Oh no, it's never gonna work. It's okay, they're all gone. I'm still here for some reason. But it was supposed to be the 23rd, and then 9-11 happened, and it just went nuts, and um we got thrown in, and it's kind of a blur. So we started hitting that uh hitting it that way. We didn't really, it wasn't really the Bill Meyer show at that point. That took a couple of years, and I'll explain what happened. So we had uh I had a morning partner, uh great old school reporter, used to regale me with stories about how blitheringly stupid Ron White really was when you knew him. He worked as a staffer for him at one point. Uh that was uh Paul Hansen. Paul Hanson, one of those good old school reporters. He's over in Cay Falls, I still believe. And so we changed everything. We ground out daily morning news, rotating through the local and regional news, plus a smattering of wire copy off the AP, regional news, and uh like that. And um we did it kind of the old-fashioned way. We just had new fashion recorders and things. It wasn't a lot of internet influence at that point, but you go out, you talk to people, you'd get the sound, you come back, you'd use your word processors, put it together, do the shows. You know, that's uh how we did. And uh we actually had three people, three, four people working there, which uh sounds like an amazing amount of people by today's standards, but we actually had four employees on a small market news talk radio station. And and given our small market and limited resources, we did okay. But you have to remember what the media landscape was like even just 25 years ago. You had the mail tribune, slew of reporters, full-page ads, big institutional advertising, the furniture stores, the car dealers, you know, you look at a full-page ad, and there was fifteen hundred, two thousand dollars just on that one page of the newspaper coming in. So that's how you could pay for all of that news gathering infrastructure, lots of uh reporters. Um The Ashland Daily Tidings was still in business at that point in time. I'm sure the Daily Courier, I don't I'm not as familiar with the Daily Courier staffing, but I have no doubt that the Daily Courier was probably three times the number of people working there that are there right now. Okay? That's just the way it was. Legacy media at that point was still king of the hill. Big staffs, reporters, even television, had camera crews that actually went out with reporters instead of the 12-year-old with an iPhone now going out to cover the fire. That's what you have right now. And you also had more older people, legacy people, that had a sense of institutional memory that were still there. The Ron Browns on News Watch 12 as an example that had been here and and and knew everything longer ago than just a year or two. And that was really helpful because there was the advertising money, it's an advertising-based model, it came in, and um the money was good, you know, in those days. It was almost a license to print. So, but anyway, a couple of years into our news talk thing, we weren't really moving the needle. It wasn't just it wasn't working as well as we had thought. And so uh Corporate said, Okay, we got to go a different uh direction. And they said, Okay, Bill, you're gonna do the morning show. Oh, okay. That was kind of terrifying just having to do it on my own, but yeah, it was uh 2023 that they actually became my show. It was a couple of years after doing that, out of necessity. And it was hard to justify three full-time workers producing morning news, and the talk radio world was moving in a different way. You couldn't just do news on radio. You had to plant a flag. You had to plant a flag and have a point of view. That's really where talk radio and radio broadcasting was going at that point. And besides, uh the company was real happy because just me and a call screener was a lot cheaper. That worked out. They like that aspect of it. But it also got higher ratings. Took some time, but you know, the audience came along. However, the news gathering ecosystem that gave birth to my show was in the process of collapsing in slow motion. And we didn't really realize it at that time. It really sped up starting about 10 or 12 years ago. 10, 12 years back, really. Uh, steady drumbeat of closures, mergers, acquisitions, small independent operators swallowed up by the big chains, newsrooms hollowed out bit by bit. Part of it was the corporate drive for efficiency. But another aspect of the cuts was the rise of Google and Facebook. That was really kind of the beginning of the uh of the end of news as we knew it here in Southern Oregon and really the country. You may not realize this, but the Google Monster and Facebook control the bot 80 cents out of every dollar spent in advertising here in Southern Oregon. Eighty cents out of every dollar. When they used to have none of that. None of that existed. Eighty cents out of the dollar. Those advertising dollars once paid for news anchors, news reporters, networks, stringers, all those things that kept us informed. Even if, yeah, we could say, yep, it was a bunch of libs. Bunch of libs delivering it. And that was true. Now they don't. Now they don't. Uh it's not exactly uh that's the reason why all of a sudden you have uh so few people working at a channel 12. You have no people working in news at Channel 10, and you have uh uh you know a few over at uh KOBI. What has replaced it? Still plenty of news, but it's being set and delivered by far fewer voices, far fewer than we once uh had. Yeah, you take the Oregonian. The Oregonian is still kind of a semi-big dog. Advanced publications, New House Family, around 2013, though they became one of the first major papers in the entire country to cut their daily home delivery. Laid off dozens of veteran journalists, investigative resources cut, and that's what's really been going on. The the story of today's media is the lack of investigative reporting because it takes money and it takes people and it takes time, all of which is rarely available in most modern-day newsrooms. That's just the way it goes. You have Pamplin up in Portland, and they uh used to control a chain of community uh newspapers up there, Portland Tribune, Lake Oswego, uh Beaverton Valley Times. They also shrunk their coverage about the same time, 2010-2012. That was like the beginning of the uh bloodletting. And they have resisted completely going to digital, but you know, they're kind of have a toe in each way. And then we have uh a group that's closer to our home here, E.O. Media Group, and that would be the Rogue Valley Times, East Oregonian, uh, Daily Astorian. Maybe you know about the Capitol Press. And it's one of the last family-owned regional chains. Now, the Voorhees family still owns the Daily Courier. I I believe so. Is that uh true? I I haven't heard anything uh different about that, but the Daily Courier is not a uh chain, it's still uh one of those rare independents. You have the Willamette Week in Portland, you have the Eugene Weekly, alternative weeklies that are slouching towards becoming nonprofit companies, and that's where a lot of the news in Oregon is starting to go to the nonprofit. Um of course, does nonprofit mean fair? Well, it it also depends on who's providing the money to allow you to be a nonprofit organization, and we'll talk more about that. And there are about 40 to 50 small town weeklies, uh monthlies, uh quarterlies. Uh well, Richard, Oregon Eagle. Richard, you still doing the Oregon Eagle? Every uh quarterly. Quarterly? Okay, yeah, yeah. And um Ashland Daily Tidings shut down. Mail Tribune Parent also shuts down. RB Times filling the breach uh for them. It's kind of a shadow of itself. Ashland.news filling in for the Ashland Daily Tidings, for the Daily Disappointment, as I used to call it. But um Daily Courier still kind of holding their own. You may throw up in your mouth a little bit, you know, when I say that. But uh they're still punching. Broadcast news, huge merger, just approved by the feds. Next star owns Coin TV in Oregon. Tegna owns KGW. Investigative reporting dismantled about uh ten years ago. So once again, who's holding government accountable? It takes investigators. They don't have them anymore. That's why so much of the news comes down to okay, who shot who last night in Grants Pass? And okay, and uh what homeless person uh set the latest fire in Medford or whatever. You know, that seems to be what it's uh come to. And uh Sinclair owns K2 and uh KTVL in Medford. KTVL Channel 10 doesn't even do local news anymore. They exited that, right? You have great television, you have NBC Five, NBC Five, one of the rare survivors, one of the last independent broadcasters here in Southern Oregon. Uh the last of the Mohicans. I would argue that they still tend to go a little, you know, quite a bit lefty on their presentation. That's the the way it goes. Uh but still, they're independent, the small and family. God bless them. All right. Uh KDRV, Allen Media Group, and gosh, it was just a few months ago, they were ready to uh to kill their local meteorologist. There was a huge outcry about that. And they were going to take the Eugene meteorologist, I guess, and have them do it. They have a station up in uh Eugene. But they're part of a chain of 2,200 employees of Allen Media. That's what has been going on here for quite some time. And so, where's the news coming from now? As the independents get assimilated, the independent news van vanishes. We got a few institutions end up being our curators, or perhaps ministry of truth would be a better term of doing it. The two big dogs in the state of Oregon, according to the way I've been uh looking through some uh research, and it's interesting when you look at where the corporate money is going, and it's Oregon Public Broadcasting. That essentially is the Ministry of Truth in the state of Oregon. And then you have the Oregonian. But really, it's OPB is the mothership, really, of the news cycle in the state of Oregon. And you have uh Oregon Public Broadcasting, nonprofit, of course, uh, about a third of their budgeting came from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now that shut down uh this uh January, January of this year because of being defunded by Congress. And I'm not upset about that. So you'd have OPB, you also then have uh the Oregonian, you have OPB setting it, kind of like the New York Times does for the national media, still, even today. OPB sets the terms of engagement, Oregonian ends up amplifying it and uh and working in. And so the typical stories that OPB will tend to cover because it's what they're interested in, uh the urban-rural political divide, right? That's always uh big for them. Uh basically how we folks in Jackson and Josephine County are a bunch of gap-tooth heelbillies, and we're here to help you. Gap-tooth hillbillies. Uh social justice reporting, trans this, person of color, oppressed group that. Public health, vaccine coverage, the cases, the cases we can remember back in 2020, 2021. Put your uh get your shots and put your mask on. And the cases, the cases, right? And generally speaking, don't make the Democratic Party uncomfortable, no matter what, what they're doing. And you can see that framing of stories across um various issues. Here's an example. I was looking up how um wireless radiation, 5G, and 5G safety, right? I've talked about that on my show with people that are have a difference of opinion on this. Well, OPB would do a debunking series on it, and all they would do is go to the FCC. And then the FCC, of course, would say, nothing to worry about. Nothing, just you know, go ahead and uh put the 5G phone against your head all the time. Shouldn't be an issue. Ignoring dozens of peer reviewed bioelectronic studies that were saying, eh, there could be something more to this. So even though they're lefties, they're they're they're lefties, they're still essentially much more mainstream and in the box than you might think. Most part. This is something I talked about a couple of years ago and I'm keeping up on it. Water contamination in PIFAs, the forever chemicals, you know, the Teflons and things that get in the water supply. And because I was seeing some stories that was talking about PIFAs, these forever chemicals being in sewage sludge, and they get sprayed on farmland. And then the farmlands they end up finding out were contaminated and they weren't good and they've been shutting them down. Well, I remember it was a few years ago that I was making fun of it on KZZE as a rock station, is that they were taking sewage and spraying it on the farmland down in Ashland a few years ago. And we were joking about it. Oh, they're going to bottle it. The affluent effluent from Ashland from above the boulevard. You know, we were having fun with that. But it's so funny. OPB uh just ended up uh when they were covering PIFAs, they were just burying it in uh soft coverage about local uh cleanup initiatives. They'd kind of soft pedal it, right? But they never addressed why the state didn't do anything about it. In fact, I tried reaching out to the DEQ and I said, why do we not uh, you know, what happened? What happened with this? And the the DEQ would never write me back about it. I could never get the DEQ to say, hey, have we kept track of where we were spraying this stuff on farm fields around here? Not a word. Still have it at this point. It's now starting to bubble up, but OPB essentially was covering up for state incompetence, I would dare say. And then we have how forest fires get covered. Can you take a wild guess? And I'm sure Gregory's gonna talk about this here in the next few minutes. Can you take a wild guess how OPB and the uh the news Ministry of Truth covers wildfires?

unknown 23:59

Global warming.

SPEAKER_02 24:00

Yes. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Climate storms. Climate storms is how they tend to do this. Instead of talking about decades of mismanagement of our of our forests, we can't do that. So that's what we're looking at. So OPB is really a merger, rather, of the Oregon State government agencies and policy and agendas with money from the lefty nonprofits. And this is where we're probably going to see this uh going. There are a number, probably about 10 or 12 major nonprofits that are funding OPB. You know when they say, and viewers like you and listeners like you. Well, even though corporation for public broadcasting is gone, a lot of that money is coming from. Well, here's an example. Now I got this from some AI. I did check it out. I did uh check out. Notable contracts and grant examples for the news media. 2022, here's one. Oregon Health Authority, OPB, paid a $1.2 million. What was the purpose of this? Public health awareness. All right. What did you really get promoting vaccines? And they put out a vaccine misinformation series. So that's and that gets picked up then by the other news media in the state. The Ford Foundation in the year 2021 gave Capital Chronicle $850,000. For justice-centered economic reporting, there's a lot of scary air quotes when we talk about this. What it was really about is uh you know advocating different economic models, policy features for Oregon. You have 2023, the Meyer Memorial Trust. Meyer Memorial Trust ended up uh giving my daughter Sarah a huge grant to go to Portland State University to learn how to become a communist. She won't think that. Uh but uh she thinks that I'm an ogre. I think at least uh politically so. That's been a I I'm not a big fan of Meyer Memorial Trust, even though my heir name is Meyer, okay. But anyway, the Meyer Memorial Trust ends up paying OPB, inclusive environmental storytelling. So then we get wildfire coverage about equity, talking about equity-focused coverage on that. 2024, the Oregon Community Foundation. They end up sending about a half million dollars to EO Media. So that means Road Belly Times, Ben Bulletin, etc. For local civic vitality reporting, that was the grant. And what it really meant is okay, you gap-tooth hillbillies. Here is um, well, they were government-centered rural pieces. In other words, how the Oregon state government was going to help the local communities, you know, be better. And then the Knight Foundation, 20 uh 2.1 million dollars over to OPB. And it was about AI automation and local journalism. And so what they're doing is uh recrafting Oregon public broadcasting for algorithmic story curating. In other words, uh getting more clicks, getting more influence out there. So our bottom line when we talk about the Oregon media and news sources is that we're usually getting massaged by a whole bunch of philanthropic groups from the left, partnered with the Oregon State government on policy, funneled into the nonprofit Oregon public broadcasting system, setting the news narrative for the state, and then getting amplified by the Oregon again, and then spilling into all our other newsrooms in the state, uh making it into, you'll see, staff story, yeah, staff and wire story uh stories. You'll see that uh in uh the papers and wire copy to make up for the fact that most of our Southern Oregon outlets aren't really staffed up to produce a lot of their own news. And we have Oregon State, we have Oregon State government policy essentially masquerading as news. So, what's a conservative thinking citizen to do? Well, first off, question everything coming out of the uh Oregon Pravda mothership, okay? And it's all right because there's no paywall for the most part at OPB, and I think that's also another reason why, hey, you know, you can go to that. Even me when I write uh news in the morning here, I could I could, but I have to say, hey, OPB reports, and at least we know if I say OPB reports, know that there could be there's always a slant with it, and you can figure that out. Even KMED, though, even KMED. We're getting ad buys from the state of Oregon. I'm sure this is through some kind of a grant. I don't exactly know it, but now we have the state pushing its finger on how to reduce abuse among the senior citizen LGBTQ, IA2 Spirit community. I was listening to the ad coming up the road, and we're going, really? You know. But we're an advertised-based industry, can't turn it down. Hey, helps pay the power bill. You know? Yeah, typical FM station up on the hills, you know, you have three, four thousand dollars a month just in the electricity costs. So it's like, yeah, you can't sit around there and go, no, we don't want to take that ad, even though we know it's propaganda. Anyway, it just cracks me up with that particular ad because I have yet to hear any stories referencing trans grandmas getting beaten up by their kids. But anybody hear of that? Has it been happening? Maybe it has. I don't know. But nevertheless, the ability to trust is really strange is strained right now in news. And we have to find that filter within us. So, where should we be getting our information? Where do you get their news? I mean, I can't know it all. Although my wife says I think I know it all. But that's Linda, love her. If you're not a critical thinker, if you just want your Republican red meat, then um you may not be quite near as informed as you think. And and if you just keep watching Fox, nothing against Fox, I am a you know, Fox News affiliate here, after all, for news. But still, overall, cable news is there to feed your preconceived narrative. It's there to feed your red meat, your red meat deal. And that and there's nothing wrong with that. But there's a bias in that too, all right? Facebook, thousands of other uh posts on social media also will tend to have a knee-jerk narrative, too. Is it wrong? Is it true, though? Is it a reliable source? Are they just telling me something that's too good to be true for my clicks and my comments and my shares? All of which uh they generate uh a lot of money, just not locally here in the community. Remember, I told you 80% of all the advertising money that used to be here locally in Southern Oregon goes to the Facebooks and the YouTubes and Google. Just does so we're back to where do you go? Well, being the news report, the one news reporter or talk show host, yeah, I still subscribe to all of our Southern Oregon media here, including Daily Courier, and yeah, I subscribe to Rogue Valley Times. I also have an Oregonian one, Oregon Eagle, uh naturally, of course, Ashland.news, we're we're there. But um where we're headed now, and I think this is where we have to gird our loins for it, is that uh the advertising-based model is continuing to find itself under strain because so much of that advertising is now sucked out uh into the Google, into the Google uh mode here. I have to tell you, I think that uh your friend right now is Substack, Substack.com. Dozens of good Oregon reporters ended up leaving the institutions and they're self-publishing online now. We're transitioning from subscribing to to journalism outlets, whether it be an OPB, whether it be K O B I, whether it be How much time do we got? I'm out. Oh, I'm out. Okay. All right. Give me a couple of minutes, and I'll wrap this up. I thought I only had 20. I thought I only had 20 minutes. Well, I can keep talking when I'm going on. All right. One example, I'm gonna give you an example. Get to know Substack. I'm not a big fan of the video channels on YouTube and things like that because most of them are way too long, and I can read articles a lot faster and get more informed than I can watch someone's podcast. Right? That's just me. Not nothing against podcasts. I have one too. Oregon News. If you're not subscribing to Jeff Eager's statewide deal on Oregon Roundup, you're missing out on a lot of stuff, things that OPB will not cover. I pay for his piece. There's an embarrassment of riches on Substack, a lot of it being offered at free or low-cost subscriptions. Another one I look at John Leake from Focal Point, Elizabeth Nixon on Substack, uh COVID fraud, all sorts of things. Jack Cashel's a bunch of them. Matt Taibee, he's a liberal reporter. But Matt Taibe is one of the most honest national liberal reporters that there is, and that's all I care about. I don't want him necessarily kissing the ass of my guy, but nor do I want him kicking the ass of my guy, so to speak. All right. I look at those kind of people. I think those are the people that we need to support. But if the news side or channel tends to use certain terms and headlines and story crafting like Trump crushes leftist critics, or Republican destroys protester, or Senator Ted Cruz schools AOC, to me, those are signals that they're trying to feed the red meat and are not necessarily looking at an honest reporting of the news. All right? It's no different than the lefties sucking through a straw MS now all day, right? The same sort of thing. And since I do have to wrap it up, and gosh, I'm sorry I ran long, you know, on this one. All I would dare say is get used to the fact that you're probably going to have to start paying for more of your news if it's going to be the best quality and you're really going to know. I know that makes you uncomfortable, but the advertising-based model from Legacy is uh continuing to deteriorate. And uh fortunately, I'm still able to do that through my show, through your devotion, through your listening and watching and working with my local advertisers and for the local media that you do uh take, uh please continue to do that. Go to their businesses, help them out. You're able to keep your local ecosystem thriving. You keep my show thriving through listening, sharing, and doing business with all our local advertisers. God bless the uh clouser driller uh drillers of the world and the Kelly Automotors, etc., etc. Keep doing that, but look out to the substacks, look out to subscribing and paying for it. The great thing about when you're paying for it too is that when they get it wrong, immediately 100,000 people can write back and say, you got it bad, you got it wrong, idiot, which is not happening with a lot of other conventional media sources, okay? In the meantime, it is an honor to wake up early weekdays to serve and inform you. And let's keep thinking. Look for news that is making you think it is thought-provoking rather than just feeding the beast within, okay? Thank you very much. Be well. Thanks.

SPEAKER_03 36:20

Thank you very much, Bill. Good job. Thank you. And you did fine. Fine on time. Okay. You did good. Okay. Very good. It's very good. Hey Bill, if if you wouldn't mind, um, you can come over to the VIP area in case anyone wants to visit with you. Any VIPs that want to visit with Bill, please feel free to do that, excuse me. And um, our our next speaker will be uh Gregory Wright Stone in just a few minutes. We have just a few minutes. Um don't go anywhere. I mean, if you need to take a break, you can. But uh in just a couple minutes, 10 o'clock, uh Gregory Wright Stone will be coming up, and um we'll be listening to his presentation. Again, VIPs, VIPs in the back in the other half of the room. If you'd like to visit with uh Bill Meyer, please feel free to do so in the VIP area. And we'll be right back with you guys at 10 o'clock for Gregory Wright Stone. Just a few moments. Four minutes until Gregory Wrightstone comes up. If you want to start gathering over here on the speaker side, please do. Thank you. Okay, everyone. Okay, it's coming up to ten o'clock. Almost ten o'clock. Please come on and gather around on the auditorium side. Just a moment here. Thank you, Ron. No, no, no. There. Thank you, Ron, for the light control system. Okay, everyone. Our next guest speaker up here today is Gregory Wrightstone. Gregory Wrightstone is the executive director of the CO2 coalition, by the way, carbon dioxide. Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist, best-selling author of inconvenient facts. Love that title, playing off of inconvenient truth, right? That was nothing even close to truth. And a very convenient warming. He's an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mr. Wrightstone has authored or co-authored more than 200 papers, publications, and commentaries concerning climate change and energy. An ex executive director of the CO2 coalition, Mr. Wrightstone is a strong proponent of the scientific process. Don't let people tell you that scientific consensus has nothing to do with the scientific process. Please give a hearty welcome to Gregory Wright Stone. Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER_00 47:16

All right, thank you very much. Hopefully I don't fall off the edge here. Let me get uh before we get started. We have some free, yes, I said free publications out front that are two of our top uh new reports, challenging net zero with science and another one, climate change and health. It's uh actually we'll talk a little bit about this. It was uh in in the federal record just and we've uh we'll talk about the endangerment finding. But those two are those two are free. We encourage you to go get them. And so today uh the title is Or Life in Oregon is getting better good and getting better. And that's the overall theme that we're I want to want you to uh to focus on. My first book, Inconvenient Facts. I knew that as a geologist, some of what we were being told about climate change was just incorrect, others I suspected to be wrong. And so that led me to my own personal search for the truth in the publication of my first book. But we've gone beyond that, that there is no climate crisis. What we'll go through today is that not only is there not a climate crisis, but by almost every metric we look at, Earth's ecosystems are thriving and prospering, and humanity is benefiting from modest warming and more CO2. We should celebrate that. Who is the CO2 coalition? Gentleman in the top left. I need to get the microphone closer, I'm told. Those are in hand signals. So there we go. And so the gentleman at the top left, Dr. Patrick Moore, he was an environmental from the old school when environmentalist really meant something and it wasn't a pejorative. Uh he he was a founder, co-founder of Greenpeace. He was one of the guys in the zodiac boats uh challenging the whale ships. They shot harpoons over him. He was a true environmentalist. He left Greenpeace when they went astray, and he now sits on our board of directors. Gentlemen, the top right, just to give you an idea of the quality of the membership, uh, Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel laureate in physics. Bottom left, Dr. William Happer, our co-found co-founder and chair. I work with Dr. Happer on a daily basis. Um he's the most humble, wise, brilliant man you will ever meet. And I'm just blessed to have him work with him every day. But that's that's who we are, nearly well, actually, more than 200 of the top scientists in the world, including one right here you might know of Noah Robinson, who is one of our newest members. And he still owes me a headshot for our website, so I'm gonna have to come after you for that, Noah. Um, and so the endangerment finding, let's talk about this. It's happening right now, this is all hot, happening right now. Back in 2007, Massachusetts EPA, the Supreme Court ruled horribly wrongly. We're gonna hopefully correct that, that carbon dioxide or CO2 is a pollutant that could be regulated using the Clean Air Act. A year later, the Obama EPA uh issued what they called the endangerment finding, uh, again, regulating carbon dioxide. Um and what what this has done is led to regulations of just about everything that you use in your home, from ceiling fans, uh, your cars, what kind of car you can drive, what kind of a dishwasher you're allowed to buy. Uh they want you to buy what they call efficient appliances, for example. And so when I tell you I'm pro-choice, hold just don't boo me. I'm pro-choice because I believe that you should have the choice of what kind of dishwasher to buy, what kind of washing machine to buy. They call the dishwashers that you buy today efficient, but they each, if you go to buy a dishwasher, it's going to take you two and a half to four hours per cycle, and you're and your dishes still are not clean. Their definition of efficient is a lot different than my wife's definition. Her definition of efficient dishwasher is one that gets it clean, dry, and 45 minutes or less. Now that's an efficient, but you can't buy those, and because of the things like the endangerment finding. And so just a little over a month ago, uh Lee Zeldon announced that the EPA was repealing the rescission of the endangerment finding. Uh huge, huge move on that. Later the same day, um, there were a consortium of environmental groups uh with you know, NRDC, you know, the uh Greenpeace, all the rest of them. They combined on the same day and appealed the repeal before the D.C. Court of Appeals. And then just last Friday, we made the big decision of the CO2 coalition. We've employed um the uh the uh uh law firm in D.C. Baker Hender uh uh uh Hendershot that will be that will be filing. We we uh decided to fight that repeal. And we've uh it's a big decision for us, very expensive law firm. We filed that on Friday, uh and we're gonna be fighting them in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. We'll probably lose there at some point over the next year, and then it will end up before the Supreme Court. So we we and our our team that we've elected to do this uh to go in. We'll probably be arguing this in the Supreme Court, fighting for you and the American people. And it's actually this is kind of we've talked, it's a big expensive decision for us uh uh to do this, but it's almost as if the CO2 coalition was built specially for a moment like this, for for a case just like this. So we're gonna be working for you. That's our filing. Uh and all of this goes around this absolute nonsense that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Uh a lot of what you'll see today uh is from my newest book, A Very Convenient Warming. They have them at discount price of $10 out in the lobby there. Please help yourself. But a lot of this is drawn from this today. And what I want you to c come away from today is that there is no climate crisis. There just isn't. And life is good and getting better. You'll see the billboard here. Uh, this is we have a billboard campaign we've run. This was from the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and as people were driving past, they were, you know, heads were exploding from these liberal, you know, these environmentalists. Uh and uh I think it would look really good here in Grants Pass if you had uh so it's not that expensive to do a billboard campaign. So can you've heard of the 97% consensus of the scientists that say that uh global warming is dangerous and it's caused by us, it's caused by our emissions. Uh so one of my favorite quotes is from Michael Crichton, who said there is uh there's no such thing as consensus science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Um and if it's if it's consensus, it isn't science. But my favorite quote is from Richard Feynman, the noted Nobel laureate in physics, uh, who stated, uh, I'd rather have questions. Think about this. I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. And that's what we have today. They're giving us, they're telling us what the answer is. And you dare not speak up. You dare not have any science like we do at the CO2 Coalition, you dare not uh argue the case. And that's just not how science works. And so in in climate science, there is some agreement here. Uh number one, CO2 is increasing, yes it is. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it has some warming effect, just we believe not very much. And temperature has risen about a degree and a half since the Industrial Revolution. Uh, but there is great disagreement on what is causing the temperature rise. Uh you'll be told by the government institutions that it's CO2 increases causing the temperature rise, whereas we will talk today about natural forces driving that. Uh and also the big disagreement here is the increase in temperature and more CO2. Is that beneficial or harmful? And uh I'm hope hopefully convince you one of those as we go through here. So, but I think we have to look at, let's take a look at carbon dioxide through time as we look here. And we started measuring CO2 in 1958 at the Monolo Observatory. And so this is a chart, and I want you to see as you're going through here today, these charts, the older, oldest dates are on the left, going to the more recent dates on the right. If it's in blue, it's carbon dioxide. If it's red, it's temperature. So just set you up for what you're gonna see here. So we've had a gradual, nearly linear increase in carbon dioxide. Uh and if we go back to this, this is a chart going back to 1759, which predates uh the Industrial Revolution. You can see the key here is that looking about the middle of the 20th century in that post-World War II economic boom is when we started really adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. So if carbon dioxide is going to drive temperatures, that's when we should see it, and the effect of that. Uh we also know that during uh the warm periods, we are in an in we're in 100,000-year glacial cycles. We usually have about 90,000 years of a glacial advance, 10 or 11 or 12,000 years of warm, thankfully, warm period like we're in right now. And uh uh each during the warm periods, oceans expel carbon dioxide, cold oceans absorb it. And so uh if you see the red dot way up there in the top right, that's where we are today. Something's different over the last 400,000 years today. And now I will argue that what's different is we're using a lot of fossil fuels and liberating lots of CO2, and that's a good thing. Uh if we look at the last 140 million years of CO2 data, uh we'll see that we've been in a just a nearly a linear decline of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The average throughout Earth's history is 2,600 parts per million. We're a little over 400 today. So the average is six and a half times what we are today. And so if you look at it in the long term, we're actually CO2 impoverished. We don't have too much CO2, we don't have enough. And indeed, that red line at the bottom is what I call the line of death, and that's the limit, the lower limit of 150 parts per million, where plant life can't survive. We nearly got there at the end of the, in the middle of the last glacial advance. We got to 180, 182 parts per million, almost got to that. If we ever reach that low limit, that would be a true climate crisis and catastrophe. Uh one of the other things that you may have heard, uh there's some false information out there that passed off as facts that Mount Pinatubo, volcano, big volcanic eruptions, Pinatubo in particular, is uh put more CO2 in the atmosphere than humans have ever put out in throughout the our entire existence. It's just false. It is absolutely false. And if we look at the blue line, is the model, what we should have seen for CO2, atmospheric CO2. The red line is what showed up. We actually had a decrease in atmospheric CO2 after Pinatubo, which is fascinating. Uh Dr. Roy Spencer, we've talked, he's conjectured that it's because when the volcano erupted, it puts lots of sulf sulfates into the atmosphere stratosphere. And he he says that instead of the sunlight coming directly in straight from the sun, those sulfates reflected the sun rays. So now we've got sun reflected from all kinds of angles, and it can penetrate deeper into the forests and jungles. And that's that's the best explanation I've been able to find as to and that what what what does that do? It increases photosynthesis. When you're increasing photosynthesis, you're sucking a lot more CO2 out of the atmosphere. Uh but again, this is just this is just proof it's not volcanoes. It's probably from us and our our emissions of CO2 from using fossil fuels. And the blue line here, too, is the accumulated carbon dioxide, what it should have been in the atmosphere from our emissions. The blue dashed line below is what's actually showed up in the atmosphere. So we're actually emitting twice as much carbon dioxide as what shows up in the atmosphere. Well, how can that be? Well, it's because it's accelerating photosynthesis. The more CO2, the quicker the plants grow, the more they suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere. So there's huge, there are huge amounts of CO2 being used from vegetation, expanding forests, shrinking deserts. And we'll talk about that in a little bit with the agricultural productivity is accelerating greatly because of more CO2. So we're using that CO2 as a huge benefit. And again, we we're told that uh carbon dioxide is driving temperatures. And indeed, if you look at the last 50 or 70 years, I'm showing here again, remember, red is temperature, blue is CO2. Last 50 years, there has been a correlation, more or less, with rising CO2 and rising temperatures. But uh I'll remind you the correlation is not causation. And what I had some fun with, I had one of my scientists, uh he he he compares, this is a chart here comparing the uh standard and poor price index of stocks in black and temperature in red. And so there's a there's a great website, some of you may have seen, it's called Spurious Correlations, and it's a fun website because you they they they correlate various things. Like there's a really good correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, of course. Just things like that that there really there's no causation, but there's correlation. So let's take a look at temperature in a longer perspective, which is which is what we need. Um remember I said in the middle of the 20th century, in that post-World War II economic boom, as we started adding a lot of CO2. All right, well, this chart here, again, red temperature, blue CO2. It it just as we started adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, we went into a 33-year cooling period. When I was in school, geology in the late 70s, we were being told that we might be going into the next ice age. It felt that we'd gone we had 33 years of cooling. Putting yourself back into 78, 77, we had no idea when it was going to end. It might go for another 50 years and we'd be going into the next ice age. Um, so we had cooling as CO2's rising. Uh, this is the longest thermometer-based temperature record in the world. And what we're seeing here again in red is temperature. We see that the warming trend that we're in today started more than 300 years ago. 150 or 200 years before the first Model T rolled off the assembly line, before we started adding CO2. The warming started long before that. And look at the same graph, a little bit different with an expanded y-axis. This is the same graph showing comparison of CO2 to temperature. Uh I don't know about you, I don't see any correlation there. And again, a little bit longer term, we'll look over the last 1,000 years, go back to the uh we're in a warming trend. Look back look back to the last big warm trend. It was called the medieval warm period. Uh again, that that occurred at very low CO2 levels. And then we had the medieva the little ice age that uh occurred uh that you can see there around 1600, 1700 is when it it was the lowest temperatures. Probably the lowest temperatures of the last 10,000 years. And then just even a longer term, going back 8,000 years, we see over 8,000 years, we saw a gradual increase in carbon dioxide and a gradual decrease in temperature. Again, we see just an opposite correlation between CO2 and temperature. And what they're trying to do, they're trying to talk us into spending trillions of dollars to stop temperature from rising from CO2 when there's really a very good argument saying that's not what's controlling temperatures. And also we see that uh glaciers, people say, well, glaciers are retreating. That's proof of global warming. Yeah, it is. Glaciers retreat when it gets warm. We're in a warming trend, that's what they do. But when did it start? Glaciers started retreating in the early 1800s. Again, long before we started adding CO2 to the atmosphere. And this is a this is a combination of 169 glaciers from around the world. And this confirms that glaciers started retreating in the early 1800s. Now, uh this is a picture of my wife and I took a uh uh a cruise that went up into Alaska, and this is us in Glacier Bay, and we were in front of the John Muir Glacier, and the captain of the ship came on and he said, these this Glacier's retreating. This is proof of climate change and global warming. And I was freaking out. My wife, she's like, grab me, settle down, Greg, settle down, you know. And I was like, I was screaming at the captain, and people were going like they were looking at me. I said, no. And so I took a look at this is Glacier Bay. And the Gulf of Alaska is just down at the bottom. Back in 1760, there was no Glacier Bay. It was completely full of ice. And starting in the late 1700s, it started retreating. And you can see the dates. And that's where the glacier, the the head, the face of that glacier was 1845, 1880, 1948. And so 90% of the glacier retreat in Glacier Bay, where you just saw my wife and I. And 90% of that occurred before 1960. But yet they don't want you to know that. And again, what was causing the treat retreat of glaciers in the early 1800s and late 1700s? It wasn't CO2. And so I went back through and got some Oregon-specific data for you. Because that's what I do for you, and I put this together. And so we've got some recent Oregon data. What's actually happening here in Oregon? Again, red temperature, blue CO2. And so this is the average mean temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. And we see in Oregon we've increased a little over one degree Fahrenheit of warming. All of these charts go back to about 1890 or 1895. So we've got lots of we've we're showing 120 plus years of data, 130 years of data here, uh, to show what's actually going on with temperatures. And so this is nothing alarming, a degree, 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit. We see that between 10 a.m. and noon most days, don't we? Or 11 a.m. and noon most days. Uh and the other thing we look at, they say, oh, but maximum it's the heat waves. The maximum temperatures in Oregon are just terrible. And uh well, this is the maximum temperatures, again, going back to 1890. Uh and we see that the maximum temperatures usually, not always, but they usually occur in the mid to late afternoon, just like the low temperatures usually at some point at night. But the maximum temperatures in Oregon, again, have only increased about one degree Fahrenheit, which is nothing alarming. Um and one of the other things we see, and this is really impactful, is in Oregon here, we've seen that the nighttime temperatures, the lowest temperatures, have been de have been uh lessening. This is this is the number of days, or actually nights, below 20 degrees Fahrenheit in Oregon. And we see that that's uh that's in other words, nighttime coldest temperatures have been increasing. That's good. That's really good. And think about that. What this means is it's the most important item here when we talk about low temperatures at night. It means that growing seasons are lengthening. Growing seasons are lengthening in the contiguous United States, have increased nearly two weeks since 1900. And what does that mean? Here in Oregon, there are a lot of fruit orchards, aren't there? If you're if you own a fruit orchard, what do you fear the most? It's a late spring killing frost. It'll ruin your year. It'll it'll knock you out and put you down. And because of global warming, and we are warming, we the killing frosts end earlier in the spring and arrive later in the fall. That's huge, huge, huge for agriculture. You can get more plantings in. And again, growing season has lengthened nearly two weeks since 1900. Uh and again, there's there's uh no relationship here to CO2. And so Monday I got up and I'm I'm putting the presentation together that you're looking at here, and my news feed came on, and the type it was a once in a 4,433-year heat wave is hitting the western United States, including Medford, Oregon. This was the this was the map that they showed. And I said, Oh my God, I'm gonna be, it's like going from the frying pan into the fire. I'm going to Medford, Oregon, telling them there's no climate crisis, and it's the worst heat wave in 4,000 years. How am I gonna explain that? And so I said, Oh, this is bad. This is how am I gonna explain that? And so I went to Acuweather and I looked, and I and I said that, you know, the four-day forecast from Monday was a high of the next four days of 72 and a low of 33. That's that's this is how they distort and provide disinformation to you. Is there a heat, was there a heat wave earlier in the week in some parts of the West? Yes. But that you know this isn't correct. Because you live, you live, it's not Medford, you're in Grants Pass, granted, but it's there's no heat wave. But they told you everyone else that's not living here doesn't not know that. And the other thing I want you to, what else when they talk about heat waves? About this one on Monday, they always reference Phoenix, Arizona. I want you to look for this. They always reference Phoenix, Arizona. And bec why do they do that? Because the Sky Harbor Airport is one of the worst of the of the um weather stations for the urban heat island effect. And if you you can just search for this, Google uh Sky Harbor Airport weather or temperature and urban heat island, and you'll find that it's often that station reports 15 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures hotter than the surrounding stations that are that aren't as built up. And that's because that station is right at the runway, and you can see spikes of heat through the day as the jets are landing and taking off. And that's why you they will reference Phoenix. I want you to look for that. And you're gonna, when you hear the next time you go Phoenix, Arizona, ah, they're lying to me because they're using Sky Harbor Airport uh data that's just false. So we'll look here, Oregon days with temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Um there's been a very well actually there's no no statistically increase of really hot days in Oregon. Again, this goes back to 1890. Uh so if if climate change was increasing really hot days, it would show up in this data. And this is United States Historical Climate Network data, uh, which is a select group of the stations that try to get some of this urban heat aisle, and the really bad stations are removed. Um and so look at this. Uh the other thing that I was reading early in this week, they were claiming this heat wave was leading to droughts in the western northwest and the western United States. Uh, it was going to affect agricultural productivity, it's going to be terrible. Yes, the the snowpack is low this year from what they and I wish I had the snow date. I wish I had done that to show you what the snow date is, because again, we can look at the long-term data. Uh but again, looking at this in Oregon as we see across the United States, precipitation data changes year to year. Some years you get a lot of rain, a lot of precipitation, others not so much. Uh but again, there's been no statistical trend in precipitation in Oregon or the United States. We see most of the states that we see a slight increase in precipitation, which is really good for agriculture. And also we take a look at uh the Palmer drought severity. This shows how Oregon's drought index. Again, uh there's been no statistical trend either up or down for drought. Again, going back to 1895. And what would Oregon, like many of the other blue states, are actively trying to rein in carbon dioxide, rain in, stop your fossil fuel use, uh, planning to spend trillions of dollars to change the climate and to lower the temperature of the atmosphere. What would we do if if Oregon was able to go to net zero, completely zero out all of their carbon dioxide emissions? What warming would be averted? And if we look over here, I've got circled 0.001, that's one one thousandths of a degree Fahrenheit by the year 2100, is what no more emissions of CO2. That's the effect it would have. Is that worth reining in your freedoms? No, it's not. It's well below anything we can measure. It's it's closer to zero is than it is to anything we can measure. And that's that's what we have to look at is what what what effect would we get from from decreasing CO2? It's imperceptible. And so this I I like this statement. Global warming saves lives. And I'm saying, well, how can you say that? I'll show you. Global warming will save a lot, maybe millions of lives. Uh, this is the largest study of temperature-related deaths, temperature-related mortality that was done. Uh, Dr. Antonio Gasparini looked at 74 million temperature-related deaths. Each one of those bars are from 14 countries, from warm countries to cold countries. The blue bars are cold-related deaths, and the red bars are heat-related deaths. And it's what's interesting here, the light blue is moderate cold. I'm often asked, well, why does moderate cold kill more people, a lot more than extreme cold? And that's because think about it, moderate cold occurs every single winter. Every winter, and for most of the winter, is moderately cold. But extreme cold, we rarely, we may not get really extreme cold. You might go many years without extreme cold. Um, and and so, but but the the point here, they found that 20 times as many people die from cold-related deaths as from heat-related deaths. And I want you to, if you're, if you know anything about charts, this next chart, you just bear with me. This is a recent study. The authors of this study found, and you could tell they this was they what their conclusion was was completely contrary to what they hoped. And their finding was that ten times as many people died from cold as from heat. And this is the chart that they put up. And something bothered me. I said, this isn't, something's wrong with this. So I took a good look at it. And the x-axis at the bottom here, look, the cold-related deaths, the x-axis was 0 to 250, the heat-related deaths 0 to 50. So what they did was exaggerate five times on the chart, heat related to cold-related deaths. Do you follow me? So I did, okay, so I said, okay, I'm gonna make my own chart using the actual data. The chart on the left is what was in the Lancet publication that the authors published. The chart on the right is what it should have looked like. Again, this is how they distort data, this is how they lie to you. This is the disinformation campaign that that they're lodging against you. This is just such a clear example. It's scientific malfeasance. And I demanded, I wrote to the Lancet, we did as the CO2 coalition, and demanded that this paper be retracted. Of course, we never heard one thing from it. Isn't that it just a great example of how they lie to you? And it wasn't very obvious either. You really had to dig into it. But that's that's what we're here for. Um global deaths from natural disasters have declined nearly 98 percent since the early 1900s, and that's completely contrary to what you've been told. Now, granted, a lot of that has to do uh with things unrelated to climate change or global warming. It has to do, a lot of it has to do with uh better reporting. For example, you know, there's a category five hurricane that's gonna hit Galveston in two days, evacuate now. And they they didn't have that in 1918. Or uh the Doppler Raider tells us, you know, we're expecting uh tornadoes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, get to your basements in Kansas or Oklahoma. So we have better reporting, better infrastructure, better homes to better withstand uh earthquakes, tornadoes, and the like. The other one other curious aspect here, the most the strongest tornadoes, EF3, EF-4, EF5s, uh the really destructive tornadoes, uh, are declining. They just are. It's very clear. Uh there's discussion as to why they're declining. Does it really matter? They are. And you'll also find it's pretty interesting that the United States, you may not know this. More than 92% of the tornadoes throughout the world occur here in the United States. We're the we're the tornado capital of the world, and that's because what causes tornadoes? It's usually warm, moist hair, moist air below and then cold air above it, and that causes their tornado and the cyclone clo cyclonic effect. And so we got this warm, moist air from the Gulf Coast that comes up into Kansas and Oklahoma, and then you have cold Canadian air coming in down from Canada across the Rockies over top of that warm air, and it sets us up for these uh tornado tornado alley, and that's why we have it. But the good news is they're declining, not increasing. Uh and landfalling hurricanes, uh, this is by decade, have been in decline. I took a look at each one of the Gulf Coast and Atlantic states, and and only Mississippi had a slight increase in landfalling hurricanes. And bear in mind, landfalling hurricanes, we can you we can we know every single landfalling hurricane that's occurred going back to 1850. We know because they're hard to miss if you have a hurricane. And so we know every one. And this is really good accurate data. Uh, and it's what we should use. Now you'll find that uh you'll hear during tornado season that named hurricanes have been increasing, and they have. But why is that? They're naming them earlier and smaller, and so because of that, they've increased the number of named uh tropical events. Uh and here in Oregon, I I probably I I hesitate to even put this up here about fires, but in this was from the Fourth National Climate Assessment. They had this chart of area burned in the United States showing just a huge increase in the area burned of natural of fires in the United States. There was no source or reference. I went back and found it. Uh bear in mind this chart starts in 1983. Well, that's important. We'll see what that is. This is what the chart that it that it came from. They had data going back to 1926 that they did not, they cherry-picked the data. They started it in 1983. Why 1983? Because 1983 had the lowest number of both area burned and number of fires in the 20th century. So if you're going to start a chart and make it look bad, start it in 1983, and that's what they did. And so, yes, has there been a slight increase in acreage burned in the United States? Yes, just not a whole lot. And what happened in 1983, in that time period, this was the Clinton administration. I'm probably telling you what you already know. At that point, we had a change in forest management policies, uh, stopping control burns, stopping forestry, the spotted owl, we've got we're gonna have spotted owls. Uh we we have to save them. Uh, but now we know a lot of the spotted owls were actually being killed by the barred owls. And uh I know because I've I've I'm I'm from Florida and I've I live up against a jungle and we have barred owls. I hear them every night out there talking to each other back and forth. Uh it's a strange, it's a strange hoot that they've got, by the way. But but anyhow, the the point of the matter is uh fires. This is again an uh a global study on fires, and uh this they they claimed our results suggest a notable declining rate of burned area globally. Um the Canadian Fire Service also sees the same thing, and they believe it was an increase of CO2 that's driving the decrease in fires in Canada. Um that's because CO2 increases means that uh trees don't have to transpire. Transpiration is lessened, so trees aren't as they're transpiring, they're breathing in and out. They're not as they breathe out, if you will, they expel water vapor. And because they're they don't have to do that so much, soil moistures increase, they can withstand drought better. Um and again, in 2003, the Copernicus satellite went up, and finally we have accurate uh measurements of area burn globally from satellites, and again, it also confirms a decrease in fires. Uh sea level is another uh item we talk about here, which it's it's kind of it's one of my favorite subjects. But one of the things we see we already looked at glaciers retreating starting in the early 1800s. Well, we talk about sea level, retreating glaciers and increasing sea level go hand in hand. And we see here too, sea level started rising again in the early 1800s, long before we started adding CO2 to the atmosphere. And the Maldives is an island chain in the Indian Ocean. According to the United Nations, it's the most at-risk island chain in the world. And it's gonna be underwater within decades, and it's it's dangerous, and they're gonna have to evacuate the islands, as they say of all the others. Was that really the case? Um years ago, uh the Maldives were also just above sea level, just as they are today. In the last 18,000 years, sea level has risen 400 feet. What's your question you're gonna ask me? Why are those islands not under 400 feet of water? Good question. It's because of a geologic process known as accretion. As sea level rises, these islands actually grow. And it's corals are ring these islands, and corals grow really quickly. They can grow a foot a year or more, and they can keep up with very rapid uh increasing sea level, but how does it get up on the islands? And it's because during uh storm events, uh the gr these uh corals are broken up. Actually, it's kind of interesting. We our latest children's book is called Foxy the Fruit Bat Sleeps Well, and it's about Foxy that lives on the island in one of the Maldives, and she can't sleep at night, or he can't sleep at night because he learned in school that his family and his home was in danger of being underwater. And uh so we're able to tell the story using science and facts about why Foxy should be able to sleep well. And it turns out parrot fish actually they eat the coral and they digest the polyps within the coral and it comes in their mouth and goes out the back end. And so my my grandson, he he was, he he read the book and he was like, he was giggling because you know, 80% of the sand that rings these islands is actually parrot fish poop. So, you know, little boys they love that kind of they they love, oh parrot fish poop. And uh, but that's what it is. So the the parrot fish eat it, it goes in one end, out the other. Uh storms break up the corals, the sands then during storm events, the sands get washed up onto the beaches, winds distribute it across the islands, critters move it around in the islands. So if the islands over the last eighteen thousand years aren't underwater after four hundred feet of sea level rise. Sea levels rising at seven inches per century. What they're telling you is four hundred feet of sea level rise will put them underwater. But er w 400 didn't put them underwater, but seven inches in the next century will. It's just it's ludicrous. Also, there are there are 14 resort complexes and four airports being constructed on the Mount Eves right now, or just recently. And do you think those multinational insurance companies would insure these resorts if they thought it was going to be underwater anytime? Heck no. And you know that. It's just common sense. Huge amounts of vegetation is increasing from every in every ecological niche from uh the equator to the near polar regions. It's amazing. Uh the other the other thing we need that's important is that increases in global food production is outpacing population growth. We have these people, this Malthusian idea that we have to we have too much we we've got eight billion people, we need to cull the population. And I always say, well, you well, you go first. You know? But you we don't have anybody volunteering to cut their oath. And so it's this idea, it's really what they're advancing, it's an anti-human philosophy. Uh again, pop crop production outpacing population growth. This is four of the largest crops globally. If we look here, blue is CO2, wheat, rice, corn, sugar cane, all breaking records year after year. And I could I could put it up another 15 similar charts of other crops. These crops are breaking records because of increasing warmth, longer growing seasons, and uh more CO2 driving crop growth. Uh this is corn production in black. You can see red is temperature, blue is CO2, and they're marching in lockstep. More corn, breaking records year after year after year. Um one of my favorites, if you get my book, is a strong relationship between human history and climate history. And we find that each of the warm periods were associated with uh great productivity, food was bountiful, life was good, and uh it was it was a time of great prosperity during the warm periods. The cold periods were horrific. Um the first of the great warming periods associated with the first rise of the great civilizations, the Minoans, the the uh Hittites, the Babylonians, the Haroppan Empire in the Indus River Valley, all of these great civilizations rose up, and then they all collapsed within a period of 50 or 100 years when it started getting cold. Because each cold period was associated with crop failure, famine, pestilence, and mass depopulation. Completely opposite of what uh of what you're being told. Al Gore, credit Thumberg, they would all call me a science denier. I would call them a history denier because they deny what history tells us. History tells us we should welcome the warmth and fear the cold. That's what history tells us. Um we have an education component. Our members came to me um a number of years ago said we're concerned about our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren being indoctrinated into this climate cult. They're being taught groupthink and um uh uh consensus science. They're not being taught the scientific method or critical thinking skills. And we did something about it. We've created a series of videos and books. All of them have uh lesson plans. We cater to the homeschool community and charter school's logic books down in Medford as our materials, the charter school um down there. Uh we went to the National Science Teaching Association's annual meeting. We went to the belly of the beast, and they didn't like it because we had a we I created a report challenging the NSTA's uh position on climate change, and they didn't like it one bit. The next morning they showed up with their top dogs and uh kicked us out of the National Science Teaching Association's annual convention. They told me you need to remove your materials, uh, and I said go pound stall. And and they said no, you have to then you have to leave. They kicked us out. And bear in mind, the two ladies on the left both have PhDs in chemistry. Um they're both the lady on the on the far left is a AP science teacher, AP reader. She's she writes our lesson plans. They're probably the only two PhD scientists in the entire building, and they kicked us out. We went out with our hell to hell head head to hell time. Uh tomorrow night, tomorrow, tomorrow, Sunday, Sunday, Sunday, we have a new documentary on Newsmax at 6 p.m. Pacific. Remember, write this down. Um I I was part part of this Newsmax film, the new documentary. It included Chris Wright, Department of Energy. You've seen memes everywhere, uh, Dr. John Clauser, Nobel laureate, uh, Steve Coonin, Obama's science director, uh Will Happer, our co-chairman, and yours truly, I'm not sure I was involved with all those luminaries. Uh but it's on 6 p.m. tomorrow, and we're hoping to have we have uh 60-second ads that will be aired along with the film on so Newsmax tomorrow, 6 p.m. It premieres. Um it looks I've not seen it, I've seen clips of it, but it looks really good. And so uh if you like if you like listening to me, you can hear me again tomorrow at six. All right. Um and so with that, I will conclude. Just the one thing I want you to remember life is good, and getting better, warming and more CO2 uh are benefiting humanity in our ecosystem. So sleep well, there is no climate crisis.

SPEAKER_03 1:34:53

All right. Thank you, Mr. Wrightstone. Thank you very much. Yeah, get your free your free books back there. I got mine, thank you. The ones on the right back there on his table, those he'd like he's suggesting a $10 donation for those. Uh the ones that are green, like the one he has there in his hand, those are the free ones, just to keep that straight. So um in just a few minutes, we're gonna have uh attorney Steve Jonkus present to us. That'll be at 11 o'clock. I think uh let me double check my time. Yeah, 10 minutes. Real quick though, I would like to do a fun little thing here. Um, I was asked to do a raffle. This is a fundraiser, remember? So break out your wallets. You don't need a lot, though. It's just a roll of toilet paper. But um this one, someone suggested it might be fun to have in your collection for anti-liberal lunacy. It's a toilet paper roll with Nancy Pelosi on it on every on everyone. So I was asked to do this a raffle again to raise money for Josephine County Republican Central Committee. Um, I would like to start the raffle. Sorry, I said raffle. Uh an auction. I'm sorry, an auction. So um I would like to auction off this uh roll of Nancy Pelosi toilet paper. I don't recommend using it. I recommend just having it on a shelf. But I'd like to start the bidding on this for one dollar. Would anyone like to bid more than one dollar? Okay, one dollar, one dollar go in. Anyone else wants to bid more than one dollar? Come on. Anyone, okay. There's two, two dollars, three dollars in the back. Anyone come on four dollars? What do you have there? A five choice ris raises it to five dollars for Nancy Pelosi's toilet paper. Can I get someone to go to six? How's it go? Six six dollars, ten dollars right here for Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi toilet paper, one of a kind. Actually, there might be more somewhere. But anyway, ten dollars, ten eleven. Can I get an eleven for this? Nancy Pelosi, come on now, anybody? Okay, go oh, we've got twelve dollars, twelve dollars for the roll of Nancy Pelosi toilet paper. Come on now, anybody? Anybody want to help us out a little bit more and have this nice roll of Nancy Pelosi toilet paper on your shelf? Anyone more than twelve dollars going once? Going twice so to the gentleman over here. All right, thank you so much. So we're gonna take a break just for five minutes. Five minutes, thank you so much. Appreciate it. And then we'll be oh, hey, also everyone in the building, we are doing that 50-50 raffle ticket purchase. You can purchase those up here with Victoria. Victoria Marshall here has those raffle tickets. 50 uh 50-50. So buy a ticket for a dollar, buy six tickets for five dollars, and support our cause here to con uh conservative values and pushing the right uh elected officials. We're gonna d uh draw from this raffle. We're gonna draw the ticket just after lunchtime around one o'clock. Thank you. VIP ticket holders, you can visit with Gregory Wrightstone right now if you'd like. Thank you. We're looking at eleven o'clock. Please come on back. Everyone that would like to uh be over here to listen to uh Mr. Stephen Jonkis talk about fighting the good fight in Oregon. Come on over. Just one minute, please. Thank you. Uh our next speaker. So Steve Johnkis. Steve Johnkis has been an attorney for 30 years. Before entering the practice of law, he had a 15-year career as a chemical engineer and manager for Rockwell International. Since 2021, his practice has been focused on fighting tyranny in Oregon. He filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Brown regarding her COVID vaccine mandates as unconstitutional. Yeah, let's give him a hand for that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Junkis. He filed a federal lawsuit against uh Shamia Fagan because Oregon's mail-in voting system is unconstitutional. He filed two federal lawsuits against the Oregon Medical Board for taking medical licenses from doctors and violating their constitutional rights to free speech. He's definitely a hero. While he lives 20 miles outside Portland, a fact that he no longer is proud of. Steve has more cases here in Josephine County than any other Oregon County. Please welcome attorney Steve Junkus.

SPEAKER_01 1:48:24

Good morning. Um I'm a little rummy this morning. I had a speaking event last night in Clackamas County at Langdon Farms, and I got here in beautiful Grants Pass at one o'clock this morning. So um still shaking off the cobwebs. So the previous speaker about concerning climate change uh was a subject that uh I was have been a big fan of uh for 20 years, 30 years, more than 30 years. I used to say it was the biggest fraud perpetrated on the public in the history of humankind. I used to say that. Then came COVID. And uh I'll circle back to that. Um I now live in um Boring, Oregon. That's up by Sandy, North Clackamas County, east of Happy Valley, west of Sandy. You know, Boring, Oregon has a sister city, Dull Scotland. And they're not they're not cities. I mean, Boring is unincorporated, Dull Scotland, I think is just a crossroads. Um and the Oregon legislature a few years ago uh wanted to celebrate Boring Oregon. Uh and so it created Boring and Dull Day, one day every Year is boring and dull day, and they said it for my birthday. So my birthday in perpetuity is good is boring and dull day. How about that? I grew up in Connecticut. Um don't hold that against me. I I went to school in upstate New York, University of Rochester, got a chemical engineering degree, and I went to work at the Hanford site. My parents were liberals, they were left to liberals. My brother and sister are liberals, and you cannot talk to them. I'm the black sheep of the family. I'm not sure how I got this way, but uh I went to the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York, and then my first job was working at the Hanford site. You've some of you may know of the Hanford site, part of the Manhattan Project, where all of our nuclear waste from producing plutonium sits. 600 square miles almost the side of Rhode Island in the Tri-Cities, uh, Washington. I was working for Rockwell at the time, and then Rockwell got blamed for that's what the government does, blame the contractor. And they lost the contract to Westinghouse, so Rockwell recruited me to go to Houston, where I, for seven years and 50 shuttle flights, I managed the shuttle mission simulator or astronauts trained for shuttle flights. Best job I ever had. I uh didn't want my boss's job though, and I didn't want his his boss his boss's job. And I was going to school at night to become a lawyer. And I became a lawyer in 1995, uh, began working in a big firm in Houston uh doing contract litigation, oil and gas litigation. Represented a New Jersey cop who won the Texas lottery, and the tech and Texas wouldn't pay the $10 million prize to them. Uh we won on that case. So that's a story. There's a bunch of stories. Um I ended up wanting to come back to the Northwest, having lived in Washington for six years, and uh turned myself into a patent attorney and came back to Portland. And in 2001, moved to Boring and worked downtown in Portland as a patent litigator and um uh represented Microsoft, Amazon. Uh that was fun for a few years, and I went out on my own in 2015. But I used to be very proud of Portland. 2001, I thought, wow, this is what a beautiful city. Uh I'm not so proud anymore. What a disaster um it's been. Because of Democrats. Can we agree that the Democrat Party is a collection of unmitigated, angry, malignant clowns? So, how do they win elections? Exactly. Mail in ballots. I'm and I am one of the petitioners for end vote by mail, which I hope you will all sign if you haven't done already. And I dislike everyone talks about election integrity. I really dislike that term integrity. Murder. This is we we have witnessed the murder of the United States. Worse than that. At the very least, it's election fraud. And you really have to back up and think about what it really means. In 2020, they stole the United States of America. Think of that. The wealthiest nation in the world, the most powerful nation in the world, the freest nation in the world, the beacon of freedom for the entire humankind, the United States. And they stole it. That people ought to be hung. Many, many people ought to be hung for that. We've been through a lot in the last six years. Um, it's accelerated. Not only have you the stolen election and election fraud that's was begun in Oregon. Oregon is the father of election fraud with mail-in voting. Um, also had COVID. And that has been the greatest crime, the vaccines in particular, the greatest crime in humanity in the history of humanity. So we've been through a lot, and it's it's it's difficult. I mean, because everyone's got to live every day. You wake up, you gotta feed the dog, go to school, go to work, and so these catastrophes that we have suffered through just in the last six years, become normalized because we have to live. You can't be furious every day. But so it becomes kind of normalized. Yeah, the COVID, remember, forget that now. It's that's gone. No, we can't forget it. And though those are more hanging offenses right there for the people who perpetrated that fraud, the people that scared us, our own government used material military-grade psychological warfare against us to scare us, to control us, to get us to take a bioweapon. A bioweapon that is gene therapy, that changes your genome. There was a step change in the human genome in 2021. A step change across the world. 70% of the world's population took those bioweapons. They're time bombs. They caused 18 or 17 or 20 million deaths around the world. That's three Holocausts. So I remember um uh arguing uh Johnson versus Brown again with um uh the judge, Michael Simon, who seems to get all the this is a district court judge, federal district court judge up in Portland. I used to respect him. Uh he seems to get all the politically charged cases. He was the judge that allowed Antifa to storm the federal courthouse up there for six months because they were they were journalists. Um anyway, I argued with him. I asked for a temporary restraining order, stop Governor Brown's vaccine mandate. And I was a three-hour argument in front of him. I argued with him, the state was right over here, and they said nothing. They basically said nothing. Um, of course, he denied my TRO. And when I got home that night, um I got a call from an anonymous person from the courthouse, and she said, Um, did you see the sign on the judge's courtroom's door? And I said, No, I didn't see any sign. She said, Well, they took it down before you got there and they put it back up when you left. What did the sign say? The sign said, do not enter unless you're fully vaccinated. Do you think I was gonna get a fair hearing in front of that judge? So I filed a motion to recuse, and he denied it, and uh chief judge of the district of Oregon denied the motion. Do you know who Judge Simon's wife is? Suzanne Bonamici, House Representative, District One, Oregon. One of the crazy communists in the in in Congress. So all this has happened to us in part because our election systems are so corrupt. Um right now we have uh the SAVE Act uh percolating in the Senate. I don't know if that will pass. Um I think it has a good chance Trump is uh putting a lot of pressure on those senators. Uh however, you know, they have other allegiances, they have allegiances to the deep state. Um so we'll we will see. I Trump has got a plan, I'm sure, and if it doesn't pass. And um uh Professor Clements this afternoon will probably give you more on what he thinks is gonna happen. So I heard him speak last night, and it's gonna be a fantastic treat to listen to him today because there's things that uh he knows and has divined out of what's going on in Washington that um you probably haven't heard of. Uh but the SAVE Act will require citizens to be a citizen, to show us uh proof of citizenship in order to vote. What's controversial about that? Since when some illegals from another country have to get an opportunity to vote in our elections. And it will effectively end mail-in balloting, except for you know cases of military and vacation where you ask for a mail-in ballot. That will change things a lot in Oregon. It does not get rid of the machines, though. But I think there's gonna be a second, a second uh wave of executive orders that will get rid of the machines. And you can see you can see the hint rumblings of that. You have the FBI raiding and seizing documents and the machines in Georgia, in Fulton County, the center of one of the centers of fraud in the 2020 election. You see uh Trump tweeting all the time about election fraud. You have the capture of Maduro, the president of Venezuela, or the dictator of Venezuela. Um, and he's the father of election fraud. He's his his people that wrote the code in the machines that corrupt our elections. And they've overturned governments in 72 countries or something like that. Um you have Trump pardoning Tina Peters. And if you don't know Tina Peters, she's a political prisoner in Colorado. She discovered a smoking gun of the computers in her small county, Mesa County, Colorado, manipulating the vote. So she took, she got a forensic copy image of the computers right before Dominion came in and erased everything on those computers, and those are analyzed. And what happened was instead of one database being on the comp on that computer, there were three. And votes were being moved back and forth, skimming votes in those databases without any intervention from a person. But it was an algorithm that was operating to skim votes. Slam, dunk, evidence of fraud happening in in Colorado in those machines. And what did Colorado do? They prosecuted her and jailed her. And she's been jailed for almost two years. Trump keeps uh truthing, or truthing, that's a really awkward, awkward verb, um, tweeting um about Tina Peters. So he doesn't do things lightly. He's got a plan. Um you've got the Riverside County Sheriff in Riverside, California seized ballots from an election where there's a 45,000 vote discrepancy. And the judge on frig a judge on Friday just rejected. So he seizes those records on Monday. The California Secretary of Strait runs to the court and says, You can't look at those, you can't look at those. And and the judge said, Yes, he can. He's the sheriff. He has the power to investigate crime. You had the subpoena of voting records in Maricopa County recently in Arizona. These are all leading up to things. What is it going to lead up to? Well, the plan is not for the Department of Justice and the FBI to take care of this. The plan, I believe, is military tribunals. These are this is treason, and the only way you can take care of a problem this big is with military tribunals and military justice. And I Professor Clements will talk, I think, more about that this afternoon. He has a lot more insight than I do. Look forward to that. So uh two to some of the cases. Um a couple years ago I filed the case Thielman versus Fagan, um uh Mark Thielman, uh challenging Oregon's election system is unconstitutional. And the basis of that lawsuit was something that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in a dissenting opinion. And by the way, Justice Thomas is our best Supreme Court Justice. He is an amazing man. You should read his biography, it's fascinating. I mean, he came out of college, a Black Panther, leftist, radical. And now he's the most conservative, the most principled judge on the U.S. Supreme Court. And he's a black man, and the black community ignores him because he doesn't follow their propaganda. He's also one of the easiest judges to read. I think uh his opinions are a lot more accessible to non-lawyers than any other uh judge on the Supreme Court. And he writes more opinions. And the reason why he writes so many opinions, so many of our dissenting opinions, is because he's trying to formulate future actions, future litigation. This is how it should be. Someone else will pick it up. So in Thielman versus Fagan, I tried to pick up what he said in a 2021 case called Republican Party versus de Grafenreed, which came out of Pennsylvania. And it was it was the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for Sir Shiori. So the the Supreme Court doesn't take every case. They only take one percent of the cases, um, and it's you have to ask for them to take it. It's called a writ of Sir Shiori. If they grant your writ, then you get to argue. And I've been up there uh five times now trying to get the Supreme Court to take cases, and I've not um hit the lottery yet. But in this case, uh Justice Thomas um filed a dissenting opinion on the denial of rid of sortiori, and he said, and this is uh he said that elections, elections enable self-governance. So what we pride ourselves in the United States is self-governance. He said elections enable self-governance only when, only when they include processes that give citizens confidence in the fairness of the election. That's a profound statement. So how many raise your hands if you have confidence in the fairness of Oregon elections? So what that means is you are not governing yourselves. You do not control your government. You are plebes. You are the governed, you are not in control of your government, and that is fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional. That was my argument. We lost because of standing. The courts say, ah, you don't have standing. You don't have a right to complain about this issue. Even though you're a citizen, you're now a slave rather than control of your government. Now that recently changed. The Supreme Court in Boast, which came out in January, said that candidates have an absolute right to challenge election law that they are being subjected to. And the Supreme Court, in that opinion, said encouraged candidates to challenge election laws before the election, before they lost, so there would be more time to evaluate the election procedures. So there it is. Sitting there is a case that can be refiled. Feelman versus Fagin can be refiled by a candidate. And we can have another vector of attack on Oregon's election system. This week, there was another more good news out of the Supreme Court. There was a case argued on Monday called Watson versus RNC, as came out of Mississippi, challenging Mississippi's law allowing voting to be ballots to be counted after Election Day. So Mississippi has a law like Oregon that says as long as it's postmarked by Election Day, they will count and they are wait for those ballots to come in. And the court, according to the liberal commentators on that hearing, is likely to overturn that Mississippi law, meaning that no ballots can be counted after Election Day. That would be nice. Because that's part of their there's so many vectors on how you can cheat in elections. They've created such a poor system, there's so many ways they can do it. And there there are uh it's it's it's hard to trace because it's all secret, right? It's always in the machines and they won't let the public. They want you have a right. To count the ballots. It's your right. It's not the government's right to decide that they are re-elected. It is your right to choose your leaders. But we we have and we have a lot of problems in the United States, and the judiciary is a big part of it. Trump has recently expressed frustration with the Supreme Court. He was over and over again and slambasted the Supreme Court for its decision on the tariff issue, including, he said the other day, he was disgusted by the Supreme Court. He was disgusted by the two justices that he nominated that voted against him. He's disgusted. That's a pretty loud words coming from a President of the United States. He complained this week that people should not be attacking the Supreme Court justices or judges in general, although we have hundreds of rulings across the United States already since Trump's been back in office that have been lawless, just trying to block him. And the Supreme Court has done nothing about it. They've reversed these orders, but they haven't disciplined these judges. And Justice Roberts is his own worst enemy. I mean, he you don't want to be criticized? Don't be a politician. You're not supposed to be a politician when you're on the court. You're supposed to call balls and strikes, not be a politician. Justice Roberts was the one who saved Obamacare because he said it was a tax. It had a tax in it. Even though the law itself explicitly, explicitly said this is not a tax. Even though the law said it was not a tax, he found it was a tax, and he was the one vote that saved Obamacare. He struck down Trump's tariffs because he found there was a tax, that there was a tax. Notwithstanding the president's right to regulate importation. He said it was an unallowable tax. So you start making up law like that, you deserve to be criticized. And um the problem is we have uh it's very hard to get rid of a federal judge. Impeachment of a judge is just a long and difficult process. But Trump says he's going to uh he's recently been through saying he's going to do something about it. And he does not say things idly. And I think just in the international scene, the planning that has gone into this is amazing. The things he is doing now that will result in peace in the Middle East, peace in Europe, wealth for the United States, the the death of the uh England's, UK's control of the world through banking and insurance. It is just a bit, you know, the control of South America, getting rid of the drug trade. It's mind-boggling what he's done in just a year. And he's not gonna let elections go. Now, um I have one small election fraud case going on right now in your neighboring county, Douglas County. It's called Vaughn versus Loomis. Many of you probably know Todd Vaughn, a logger, who ran um a primary to uh against David Brock Smith in the last election cycle. He was also um in what's more recent election, um he was uh defeated for a seat on the Umpqua Transportation District. Small race, unpaid position, but it was stolen from him. And it was stolen from him in a low-tech way. So he he was leading on election day, he was ahead by 80 something votes, and then there was an eight-day blackout where the clerk Dan Loomis said nothing, and he'd never done that before, he'd never not reported results day by day, and after that eight days, Todd Vaughn loses by 238 votes, and he knew it was stolen. But the way our election laws are set up in Oregon, it's impossible, almost impossible to challenge. The election, you have to you have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the fraud occurred. And if you lose, if you challenge the uh the election in a lawsuit, and you lose, you're required to pay the attorney's fees of the government. So Todd Vaughn is not a wealthy man, but he's taking it on faith because he knows it was taken from him. And Douglas County has hired one of the most expensive lawyers in Oregon, John DiLorenzo, who's billing over a thousand dollars an hour. I haven't seen their bills. I bet it's already well over half a million dollars. So Todd has to win. And we we have found a smoking gun. Todd lost by 238 votes. We got documents out of the machines that show that there were 386 ballots that were approved, they were signature verified and approved, but not counted. So can you think of an innocent reason why 286 ballots that were verified? They passed all muster, and they weren't counted. Can you think of an innocent reason? I asked the court, I I dropped this on the court a month, about a month ago, and um I said, I can think of a reason a way that happened. Here's a vote for Todd Vaughn, we'll pull that out of the stack. Here's another vote for Todd Vaughn, we'll pull that out of the stack, 286 times. And they, you know what their answer is so far? Their only answer is that I made up the number that I'm lying to the court. Well, I I love when I heard that. I said, wow. Say that again. Dig the hole deeper. I want you to keep saying that because I'm gonna shove it down your throat. Thank you very much. I'll be around most of today to answer any questions and to talk to you.