Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 01-15-26_THURSDAY_6AM

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

Catching up on the news and stories of the day and then an election integrity Supreme court case discussed with Mike Oneil, from Landmark Legal Foundation.

This hour of the Bill Myers Show podcast is proudly sponsored by Klauser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for more than 50 years. Find out more about them at Klausor drilling.com. Okay, what did I do? It might help if I turned on the right microphone, huh? At least you know we're live as we go into it. Yeah, because, you know, artificial intelligence wouldn't screw up like that, right? But anyway, welcome to the show, 12 minutes after six on conspiracy theory Thursday.

Join the conversation on 7705633-770KMED. My email, by the way, if you want to hit me up, is Bill at Bill Myers Show.com. Well, we had another ice shooting yesterday, guy resisting arrest, people, throwing stuff at the ice agent, rocks and ice and hitting him with a broom, you know, that sort of thing. And as the Venezuelan man, you know, the Venezuelan man, who apparently has a long, rap sheet is trying to get away. Ice officer ended up shooting this guy in the leg, and naturally things are even sportier right now over in Minneapolis, Minnesota this morning. Even sportier,

people are screaming, ice get up, blah, blah, blah, blah. President Trump, meanwhile, is saying that if things don't start shaping up in Minneapolis, he's going to invoke the Insurrection Act, the Insurrection Act. And I think it's about time. He's thinking about doing this. the Minnesota on rest. In fact, this is the warning here. He says if the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don't obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking

the patriots of ICE who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the Insurrection Act, which many presidents have done before me and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great state. This is from a truth social post this morning. president's warning coming after that second ice involved shooting in Minneapolis in recent days. By the way, something that didn't get reported much until very recently, CBS News ended up reporting that the ICE agents that it was involved in last week's Good shooting, you know, the shooting of D.N. Good. And he ended up, you know, people were always going out there. I think that even the mayor of Minneapolis was talking about, well, you know, he just got bumped and things like that. Well, ends up that he was being treated for internal bleeding of his hip from having been hit by that car.

So it was a little more than just a bump. So I thought that was a pretty interesting story. Department of Homeland Security is also demanding that Minnesota leaders are honoring ICE detainers, alleging hundreds of criminal aliens have been released under Governor Tim Walz. All right. So that's kind of the latest. There's also Iran issuing an assassination. threat against President Trump, this time we will not miss, it will not miss the target. This could be just a bunch of blow-the-aiding, I would dare say.

I was, I was saying check it out here. Let's see if I can find it. Oh, yeah, Sean Ring, Daily Reckoning. You know how I always say, check out analysis from the money people, because the money people are always looking about for places where they can put money and make a profit. And if you're wrong about the stability of a country or where the money is going to go, then you don't make money. So I think they're pretty good about this kind of stuff.

And he wrote a piece on The Daily Reckoning that said this morning, I'm really starting to believe that the Pentagon, the Pentagon, maybe not President Trump, but the Pentagon wants no part of getting bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iran. And he says that each branch of the United States government communicates differently. The State Department writes editorials in the New York Times. for the diplomats to read. Likewise, the Pentagon leaks through the Washington Post, and the latest Washington Post leaks in the Washington Post are pretty interesting. Back, here's one that came out. Days before protests erupted in Iran in late December,

Israeli officials notified the Iranian leadership via Russia that they would not launch strikes against Iran if Israel were not attacked first. Iran responded through the Russian channel, and they said that it would also refrain from a preemptive attack, diplomats and regional officials with knowledge of the exchange saying. And, of course, the question comes off with, you know, why would Israel say that? Why would Israel do it? Will peace break out of the Middle East? He's speculating, right?

Or Zero Hedge is saying, did Iran really smack Israel in the mouth the last time and maybe establish some deterrence right now? Yeah, we really don't know. But apparently they're saying the Israelis did not trust the Israeli-Americans. in the United States government to play telephone correctly to actually translate the last messages. But it would be interesting if Russia, of all places, ended up tamping down hotness over in Iran. I know about that. Speaking of Iran, I was reading Lou Rockwell this morning, and Caitlin Johnstone, it's a woman from the left, but I still read her because I always like to get a different perspective from people.

and she says, you know they're lying about Iran. You've seen this all before. They run the same script over and over again. You know all the beats. The formula never changes. Oh, no, the people in the targeted nation are being oppressed. They need freedom and democracy. Hey, I bet we could use our powerful military to help them get the freedom and democracy.

Wouldn't that be swell? Oh, gosh, there are some people who don't think we should use our powerful military to help the people and the targeted nation get freedom and democracy. they must have some sinister, suspicious loyalty to that evil regime, which rules the targeted nation. I'm thinking that reminds me of when National Review went after all the conservatives, including Ron Paul, for not being gung-ho about Iran back of, yeah, the Iraq War, remember? Anyway, she continues, look, I get that sometimes in the past we've used our powerful military in ways that were mean and unhelpful, but you need to understand that the evil regime is also very, very bad.

Two things can be true at the same time, you know, oh no, now the evil regime is committing atrocities. You know it's true because it's in the news, and the news isn't allowed to lie. We've got to do something. We just can't do nothing. Okay, I appreciate her sarcasm and sometimes well-placed cynicism about our United States government, no matter whether it's Trump or Biden or anybody, whoever is running the show there. But frankly, I don't know. I don't know what's going on there, do you?

770 KMED. We could certainly talk about that. And something we're going to be talking about here in a few minutes. Actually, about an hour from now. Apparently, there was an interesting dust-up at the Josephine County Commission last night. And what is it? Chris Barnett going on for quite some time. Let's see if I can find.

I think I have the... Yeah, no, I have the... I guess I lost my evening. email here. I'll find it, but someone was saying that they were not real happy with Commissioner Barnett. Well, it's okay. You're not going to have him to kick her out much longer anyway, listener who wrote me last night. But apparently, there was some interesting testimony at last night's meeting. And former state senator, former Josephine County Commissioner, Herman Berchiger, I've invited them on at 7-10. We're going to talk about that a few minutes to get

to the latest drama in Joe County. That'll be interesting. And on top of that, Ray's Food Place closing in town in Medford in Phoenix I'm sorry in Phoenix that one is going to be closing K-LBI reporting that last night they're not saying much why it's probably going to be late in February where that shuts down I would have really love to know of CK Enterprises that's the parent company of Ray's Food Place just looked at that corporate activity tax you know in which Oregon taxes you for not making money all the money goes through uh you your supermarket. And supermarkets, by the way, are very low margin,

very low profit margin kind of business. Lots of cash goes through the place, lots of cash, and a lot of that thing gets siphoned off then from the state of Oregon. And you also have, let's see, wind code, three miles down the street. You have Freddy's, three miles down the street,

grocery outlet, three miles down the street on 99. I'm wondering if that was just too much. but that's kind of sad. It's kind of sad when a small town loses its grocery store. And I have a feeling a lot of folks in Phoenix not going to be real happy about that. But that is the story. They're not saying why at this point, but I can't help but think that it's the wonderful, wonderful business that is being done in the state of Oregon attacking businesses. And speaking of which, there's another story here.

Oh, yes, Tim Knoepe. Senator Tim Knobe, former Senator Tim Knoop from Bend, is going to join the Kotech administration. Oregon Governor Tina Kotech tapping Republican rival to boost business relations this reported in OPB today. Okay. So this is interesting. So we have former Senator Tim Knobe joining the Kotech administration. He will be the chief prosperity. officer.

Now, why would Governor Kotech hire a former sort of I don't know, a squishy Republican from Ben to be the chief prosperity officer?

Well, I'm sure Tim likes to pite, you know, Tim needs to pat his purrs, of course, you don't have a huge purse just by being a state senator. I would also imagine, though, that when the chief prosperity plans coming from Governor Kotech don't work out, you then have a Republican foe guy. Isn't that

great? That's how I see this playing out. Senator Tim Kanoop gets his purrs padded, you know, for two, three years, however long it works, or maybe just a few months if Tita Kotech has turned out. I mean, one can only hope. But if it fails, if the prosperity doesn't come, well, gosh, I started, I just hired a Republican and they just didn't have good ideas. That's what I think going on. What about you? 7-7-0KMED, it's open phones, conspiracy theory Thursday. Good morning. Hi. Who's this? Welcome. Hey, it's Brother Louis. Brother Louis. How are you doing this morning, huh?

Great. I'm thinking it's conspiracy theory Thursday, so I could call up and talk you about Iran. Okay. Go ahead. Hey, do you know what's going on Iran? I don't pretend to know, but I read a few people who think they may know. What do you think? Well, I have a friend that lives next door to Iran, in Azerbaijan, and he's quite well aware of what that part of the world is talking about regarding Iran. And don't let me leave without referring you to our Pierce Morgan show that he linked to me. But what I should say is that there's a Professor Morandi, M-A-R-A-N-D-I that is in Tehran, and he's talking about what's going on. And it's a very interesting story.

It fits very well with our history of Iran where we try to maneuver them and manipulate them. And this is another one of those. So this is, according to him, kind of a false flag operation going on. First, there were peaceful protesters. The government did nothing. They left them alone. And then riders came in about the third day and started shooting policemen. Yeah, well, you see, they came in from Minnesota, though.

They were bust in. Oh, yeah, I didn't realize that. I'm just kidding. Okay, all right. I don't mean to be lighthearted about that. Please continue. But this is what you're thinking. It's funny. And if you watch the Pierce Morgan show, it's a real lesson in how somebody can be browbeaten and still be unflabbable because this Professor Mirandi is wonderful. And he tells the story of this very, very clearly. And she, this is a woman, apparently speaking on the Pierce Morgan show, a woman interviewer that Pierce has on, to talk to this professor. and definitely bent on beating him down. And it's really a funny thing to watch.

You'll love it. And I'm tied to link it to you. Okay, please say it to me because Pierce Morgan, I mean, there's a part of a lot about Pierce I like, but yeah, he's certainly very full of himself, no doubt, undoubtedly. You bet. You bet. And he's very, he's very pushy. And when he gets somebody on that he knows has a different narrative than he has, he goes after them.

in a very kind of obnoxious way. And then this woman did a good job of being peers in women's clothing. Yeah, but just to get to the bottom line, you're thinking that what we're observing right now or what we think we're observing right now through the media is a false flag, a false flag to what end do you think? Because I have one money guy who I trust his judgment, has been right, rather more than he has been wrong.

And he's thinking that there's actually work behind the scenes to diffuse this to keep a greater war from breaking out at this point? And I'm hoping that's true. That would be wonderful. And, you know, so I'm going to look at it. You mentioned, was he in the Washington Post? No, the Daily Reckoning. DailyReckoning.com. His name is Sean Ring. I really enjoy reading his daily newsletter.

I signed up for it a while ago. And it's just a different counter because it does appear that behind the scenes, you have Russia almost playing peacemaker between Israel and Iran. Because apparently they're thinking that even Israel doesn't really trust the United States government to translate it properly. The right channel. So kind of working through Russia right now, which is ironic when you think about it because everyone's talking about Russia, evil, evil, evil, warmonger, you know, that kind of thing. But, oh, well. You know, it fits very well with our image of Russia, you know, that we want to portray.

But, you know, there's a difference. I have a different story of Russia because I lived there. And I even, by the way, my friend in Azerbaijan, that's telling me, their side of the story, he doesn't particularly like the Iran regime, but he tells me the Iranian. I mean, how could you like the Iranian regime, okay? Let's be real. But on the other hand, does that give us a right to go in there and interfere with their, you know, especially this is the conspiracy part, to actually undermine a peaceful protest, turn it into a riot, and then blame it on the peaceful protesters.

And then if there's some foreign agents in there fomenting this riot, which there most certainly are, as far as my conspiracy theory. Well, if there's one thing that our CIA does very well, that is, foment revolution in other countries and even sometimes our own. I hope our own CIA is not involved in Minneapolis right now, but you start watering sometimes, don't you? They may well be, and this is conspiracy theory Thursday. So let's say that that's a conspiracy that I don't believe is a theory. You know, everybody knows that the CIA implements wars. So that's not a theory. It's an actual conspiracy.

All right. Well, please send me that link to appears. I'd love to see him get browbeaten down. It's always fun, all right? Brother Louis, thank you for the quick take on that, all right? 628 at KMED. If you got something on your mind, too, this conspiracy theory Thursday, Maybe you'd like to see the president invoke the Insurrection Act for real insurrection, you know, as the western hive mine cities and up blue hive mine cities appear to be in soft to hardening open rebellion.

If we can talk about that and other things too. Sweetwater Sanitation. Thrive. Oregon thrives. Hi, I'm Paul Strander, the Valley View Nursery and I'm on KM.E.D. 630 on the Bill Myers show. We'll be checking news here in just a moment. It is Conspiracy Theory Thursday.

Francine from Talent. and you heard the news this morning about Ray's Food Place in Phoenix closing, and what are your thoughts about that? Okay, well, first of all, you know, being in talent, I will still go to Asland or Medford to shop before I go to Ray's. I only go in there in a pinch. Really? Like, oh, yeah, I will not shop there, and a lot of people don't. But the prices are outrageously high, and, you know, like about a week ago or two weeks, ago I was in a bind and I went in there and I said, hey, you know, I looked around and I

couldn't find it. I said, do you guys have any organic hamburger? And, oh, no, you know, and the guy felt really bad. He's going, I'm so sorry, no, they don't carry it here anymore, you know. I mean, it's just, it's a terrible store. They're not, they're in a neighborhood with no other store, with no other market, and they take advantage of that. They're not trying to accommodate the residents of the town. You know, I'm going to disagree with you on that. It's not. not a store's position is not to try to accommodate the community. I mean, it's not what the store does. You have to understand that, first off, pardon me, sorry, I'm a little bit throaty this morning or, you know, trying to last few things out. But anyway, what we have to remember

is that Race Food Place was designed and its mission was always to go into underserved small towns that couldn't really attract a major tenant or a major supermarket chain, you know, to come in there because there just weren't enough people. And I don't think that they have the bargaining power that a big Safeway or, let's say, an Albertsons has. And it's been a real challenge in there. And yeah, it would be more expensive to have your full service supermarket in a small town because you don't have the customer base to really flesh out a discount, you know, a discount grocer, let's say, in a small town of two or three thousand. It just doesn't work.

That's why you would see them all the way up and down the coast of Oregon because the big chains would kind of avoid them. But you're saying you would just travel to Medford and shop instead, huh? Right, and a lot of people do now. I'll tell you something. For the past few years, every time I go past the Phoenix store, there might be anywhere some two to ten cars in the parking lot at the most. Usually it's only about four, three, or four.

I have gone into that store a couple of times, and there's nobody in there. You know, nobody uses it. Now, they are expensive. They are, it is a more expensive chain. I will concede your point on that. I mean, I'm not saying that it was a discount place like, you know, like WinCo or anything like that. It wasn't that, but that wasn't their business model. but I'm thinking that when people's pocketbooks are being pinched, that convenience of being able to buy in Phoenix and or in talent and other places starts getting a little pinched too, wouldn't you say?

Well, you have to, of course, and what you have to realize, though, is both of these communities have quite a few very low-income people. At talent, we have, you know, a lot of, what do you call it, the housing. Oh, yeah, no, I guess Section 8 housing. I get it. But you see, the fact that there's a lot of low income in Phoenix and Talent doesn't make it any less expensive to bring a food store to them. I know that. I know, Bill, you know, you expressed that, and I get that. Okay, what I'm trying to say is it's not serving the community that it's in very well. And so I think, and that's why the one in Phoenix, I mean, it's been years.

I've been driving by and I'm just going, God, it's never picked up, you know, I thought maybe it was from after the fires, you know, but no, it's never, it's never, it's never seems like it has very, many people there, and I think it's because people can't afford it. Well, the business model is tough right now, and so people are going to have to travel, and you were paying for that. It's like in Jacksonville, there's one too, but you're paying for that convenience. Jacksonville, on the other hand, though, is a considerably more affluent community overall. Absolutely. Now, let me get to a point I was trying to get to.

Okay. All right. So I happened to be in grocery outlet, you know, earlier, you know, last year. or actually about halfway through the year or something like that. And I heard that they were opening up a new store in Ashland, which is going to be opening up fairly soon now, and on the 22nd, I believe. And so I went into the office and talked to them. I said, you know, did you guys consider trying to get, you know,

the raise location because they're not doing very well over there? And they said, yes, we really tried, and they wouldn't let us have it. Okay. You know, interesting story. That would have served the community. All right. I appreciate the take of this, but you know what would really serve the community? What's that, Bill?

If there was a repeal of the corporate activity tax so that a high-cash-flow, low-profit margin business, like a grocery store, whether it's raise or Winko or anybody else, doesn't have to send 1% of what they take in to the state of Oregon just because they exist. How about that? Well, a lot of people shouldn't have to spend, they send so much of their income. Well, you and I don't have corporate activity taxes, but all these companies, that says, Sherms and all the rest of them, they do. It's a ridiculous way to tax, not taxing profit, taxing money just going through the place, okay?

Thank you, Francine, 636 at KMED. We're going to be digging into some legal, legal talking here in just a bit, too. When making a big purchase. Steve and Sunny Valley, hey, Steve, how are you doing this morning? You wanted to comment on the raise closure in Phoenix. Go ahead. Yeah, I think that the reason that the raise is closing is because they're losing the little pantry, which has all the things that you need real quick that you're not going to go to the big town for for cheaper than race.

And there's one of those everywhere. You could be right about that, these small convenient marks for the basics, you know, the milky eggs, the butter, the basics, right? That kind of thing. Right. And the other thing I wanted to comment on was the immigrant. I kind of think that the drugs and the crime are important, but they're not the main reason. The main reason is the jobs, the depressed wages, the competition for housing, and everything else is making the bottom part of this economy suffer. You could be right about that.

I appreciate the call and the comment on conspiracy theory Thursday. And we have Cliff. Hello, Cliff. Quick take here. Morning. Hey, morning, Bill. I did a quick search for groceries, and they are exempt. from the corporate activity tax.

Oh, they are. So I was wrong on my conclusion. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Yeah, to set you right here. And I go down to the raised food store. It's, you know, the prices are quite high. All right. I appreciate the take.

Thanks for that. All right. Be well. All right. All right. See, hey, I'm always happy to have my incorrect take corrected. Okay. Certainly, all right.

Now, let us move on. This is News Talk 1063, KMED, and you're waking up with the Bill Myers Show. One of my most enjoyable legal eagles who I have on the show now and then is Michael O'Neill. Mike O'Neill, Landmark Legal Foundation. We had a big Supreme Court decision yesterday. I wanted to talk a little bit about that. Hey, Mike, how you doing? Welcome back.

Good to be with you, Bill. How are you this morning? I'm doing great. Tell us about this state election law challenge that was done in the Supreme Court. Big decision. and I guess that, I guess you could sue states now for counting the ballots after the election day. Is that kind of what we're looking at here? Or at least you could.

Exactly. First of all, it's always good to get a decision in January. I like having these decisions from the October, from the October argument session issued in January. So when they don't have to deal with 100 different cases coming down in June, they get lost in the model. But this is great. This was a win for election integrity. And this is a win for political, this is a win really for any candidate, political candidate. who wants to challenge the validity or the legality or the constitutionality of a state election law

that purportedly will undermine the integrity of an election. Let's talk about what the election law in controversy here was. Illinois has a law that requires election officials to count mail ballots. And again, you guys know what mail ballots are out. Oh, yes, we do. Oh, it is perfectly clean. We never have any problems with our mail-in ballots, ever, ever. Exactly.

It allows election officials to count these mail-in ballots. that are postmarked or certified no later than election day, but are received within two weeks of election day. So, okay, so that means 13 days after November 3rd or 4th or whatever, you could still have, the mail ballots can still be trickling in, and they can be counted by election officials. Well, this congressman, Michael Boss, challenged that, wanted to challenge that law and say, look, this undermines the integrity of the electoral process. If you allow these mail ballots to continue to trickle in, it incentivizes people to go out, there and possibly manufacture it. There's a lot, there's a lot of problems with these sorts of laws that are weeks after the day when the election is supposed to be held. And it really

kind of incentivizes a lot of mischievous. Let me just put it as charitable as possible, mischievous activities, if you will. Or if you want to be happy, just say sportiness. It's just a sporty election, right? Very competitive. Exactly. Well, the question here, the question that the Supreme Court wrestled with wasn't necessary, wasn't the propriety of that law. What it dealt with was standing. And you've heard this term standing, and that means whether a party can challenge the law. Oh, you know, this standing, where is it in the Constitution about standing? It is one of the biggest nonsensical aspects of the legal world that just drives me nuts about you have to have standing.

You have to have standing. Well, I'm a voter. Well, you don't have enough standing. You know, that kind of thing. It just drives me crazy. The purpose of it is to act as a filter, right? is to ensure that parties who initiate lawsuits actually have a cognizable harm that they can illustrate.

Otherwise, you could have – the problem would be otherwise you would inundate courts with just too many cases and controversies that they just could administratively handle. So you have to have some initial filter on who can bring cases, who can bring these lawsuits. But, of course, let's go back to your point, Bill. Let's talk about common sense here. You would think that if you're a candidate, of course, you're a political candidate, you have a – you have – you should be able to challenge the validity of a law. And you have the big, and you have the biggest dog in the fight of all as a candidate.

Absolutely. Absolutely. And so common sense certainly dictates this. Well, the courts up until this decision really have kind of put these hard filters on these. Again, as I was talking about these filters, have put a lot of barriers to candidates who wanted to challenge these laws. They said, well, you had to show that there was a risk of loss. In other words, that the mail ballot in Illinois would have, there was a, that law would have increased your risk of losing the election. In other words, you had to show that a certain percentage of those mail ballots that were received after election day and that were illegally counted would have cost you the election, right?

Would have been dispositive in the election. And that's almost an impossible barrier to meet, right? How do you show after the fact that you lost? How do you challenge the election law after the fact? You've already lost the election. So you've already suffered the harm, right? And so what would happen is Michael Boss wanted to challenge this law months and months before the election. And the lower courts had said, well, you haven't showed a sufficient likelihood that this law is going to cost you the election,

going to be outcome determinant. Yeah, this whole idea that you have to lose the election or hurt before you can challenge something means that nothing ever gets reformed, in my opinion. At least that's what I think. Yeah, exactly. And after you lose the election, you have no assets, you have no resources, there's no energy for the case to be heard. And so it really kind of takes the wind down of your sales. so for example. I haven't went out of yourself, really the ability to effectively challenge the law.

And so the court said the Supreme Court, thankfully, really, and it was actually Justice Roberts writing for a seven-two majority. And five of the justices were in a majority. There was two concurring opinion, and then there was two dissenting opinions. Yeah, who were the dissenters? I was curious. Who dissented against this? Take a while, yes. Let's see, would it be Katanji Brown maybe?

Yep. And. Okay. Who would you expect? Sen. Minnesota Major. Oh, okay. Oh, yeah.

The wise Latina. Okay, got it. Right. No, no surprise. Okay. Right. Not to put you on the spot, but, but yeah. So the five justices actually really kind of sets forth Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts,

and a really interesting opinion, sets forth this fairness standard. So this is kind of a new, unique, and in the words of, in the words of Amy Coney-Barritt, who wrote a concurring opinion, a bespoke really standard for candidate standing now. fairness. And what Justice Roberts recognized was that candidates, political candidates running in elections, have an unique interest in the fairness of the process and the accuracy of the election, of the accuracy of the electoral outcome. And because they have this unique interest in the fairness of the process and the accuracy of the outcome, they occupy a unique position to which establishes, which overcomes this burden that you have to establish that you have

standing in order to challenge the law. So right now what we're going to see going forward is candidates, if you're a candidate in the months, months before, I don't even really, I think, you know, probably even a year before, an election date, you're able to challenge what you allege as an improper election. So for example, let's say a candidate in Oregon wants to challenge the process by which Oregon counts its mail ballot. And if you don't mind me interjecting here, Mike, Mike O'Neill from the Landmark Legal Foundation, what we do in Oregon is that you have up to seven days for the ballots to be faked up, I mean come in from the mail situation and then be counted. So you have up to a week.

It's not 14 days like in Illinois, but it's a similar law that we have here. Right. So if you were in our challenge that, you're most likely, seven days of your most likely be, again, this is a fairly broad standard that the court has set forth here. You're most likely going to be able to overcome that burden of standing. Now, let me be clear here. That's not to say that Congressman Boss is going to see. exceed in his allegations that this is an improper unconstitutional law. Now, I think it's certainly

improper and unconstitutional, but that's for a court to decide. But now, now you're actually going to be able to present, you're going to have your day in court, in other words. You're going to be able to present evidence to adjourn. You can make, you can make your argument there. The challenge that I have all with all of this vote by mail and the seven days afterwards here is that we no longer have an election day. And you can't help but think that operatives that might want to get involved in nefarious activities for the elections would kind of have an initial idea on what is needed in the seven to 14 days. And then, you know, we've heard these stories and it's not uncommon. It's in blue and red states that ballots magically come in, and then

the election results change. It's like the joke has always been that election night. Okay, let's wait until we see the initial count. And then, oh, goodness, more ballots came in in Portland. You know, it's kind of what always happens. You could almost predict it, like, you know, set your watch by it, really, that kind of thing. And it's not really. It doesn't take a lot of votes to be dispositive in a lot of political races. I mean, it's right. You're talking to make hundreds, a thousand votes in statewide races. It's oftentimes very close.

And if you think in the aggregate, it really doesn't take a lot. If you figure, you know, all the counties in Oregon, if you have, if you're able to manufacture 100 votes in all the counties in Oregon and a race is within four or five thousand, you can turn the term of an election. And that window after election day is really, mailed out. are bad enough as it is. And by the way, how about Oregon, the 800,000 inactive voters now that they're being compelled to actually clean up their voter, your voter rolls? Oh, but nothing happened with any of those 800,000 inactive voters ever, ever, ever, okay?

Because the Secretary of State says so. And I'm sure he would never lie. They would never lie. Certainly. So that's one other thing interesting that you can always count on is you can always count on the bureaucrats to defend their institution, right? The Secretary of State's always going to say, Well, of course, everything's fine in my perspective. My house is in order. They're never going to say, oh, there might be some improprieties in the fact that we haven't removed 800,000 inactive voters from our voter list, and that could present a problem going forward for the integrity of our electoral rolls.

No, of course not. They never actually own that. But back to this story, though, now the candidates can sue. What I'm curious about, though, is can voters finally get standing too soon? I would love that. of course, we have to have, and this is an interesting point. This kind of brings us back to some safe act, the federal legislation that's pending in front of the United States Senate. No, right now, there are certain instances where you can't have private parties to. And actually, that was the case in Oregon,

right, under the NBRA, if a state isn't doing enough to ensure to remove inactive voter rolls, inactive voters from their voter rolls, or inactive individuals or dead individuals or individuals who've moved out of the state from their voter rolls, there is a private cause of action in that that statute allows that private cause of action. However, we want the SAVE Act to pass, right? We want the Save Act, which broadens that and broadens the ability of private parties to bring other types of lawsuits. Like, for example, if a state doesn't remove illegal immigrants or non-citizens from

their voter rolls, there should be a private cause of action. If I can plausibly allege and demonstrate, again, a plausible argument that Oregon hasn't, has, number one, has non-citizens on its voter rolls, and number two, hasn't taken any steps to remove those non-citizens from their voter rolls, then I should be able to bring a cause of action to compel Oregon to take steps to remove those individuals. I would agree with you. Now, of course, Oregon has had illegal aliens on the voter's role, the voter rolls rather, at least they admitted to about 160. I looked at that as kind of like how the CIA would put out something of sort of a limited hangout, you know, in which, yeah, we'll admit to 160, don't look any

further. Don't look any deeper into the situation. It's kind of how. I looked at it. Yeah, exactly. But going back to the boss decision, this was a win for election integrity, a win for candidate standing. This is a good thing. The more scrutiny that these elects, that these liberal left, I mean, I say liberal, I mean liberal in the general, so these broad, you know, permissive state election law,

blue state election laws that are on the books, the more those are challenged and brought to the light of day and all of the improprieties with that in court, the better it is. Remember, and again, this is just a swing back to something. Remember, a lot of the Trump election malfeasance that we talked about, a lot of those cases got mixed on standing, right? So I'm all, in other words, you never got the opportunity to challenge what happened in Georgia, challenge what happened in Chicago, challenge what happened in Detroit, challenge what happened in Wisconsin, because those cases got mixed on standing.

They never even got the opportunity to present evidence to a jury. But it was presented in the news media as if, well, these have already been decided. No, it was never decided. It was just said that you couldn't sue. There's a big difference. There's a big difference in that. Yeah, exactly. You couldn't overcome that standing burden that you rightfully, at the beginning of our conversation,

expressed a lot of frustration about because oftentimes, again, it could be used as an exit ramp by courts if they don't want to have to handle thorny issues like, oh, maybe this election was wrongly decided. Okay, well, if I could mix this case on standing, then I'm never going to have to answer those tough questions or have to face the facts that litigants might want to present in court for in front of a jury and have a, you know, an objective group of citizens actually deciding some of these cases. So this is a good thing. Again, Congressman Boss is going to have his day in court, which is good. I think we're all happy with that. And I think going forward, look for candidates to bring some more challenges to the propriety of a lot of these

left, I say, you know, these permissive election laws that really undermine the integrity of our electoral system. Mike, do you might be throwing a curveball at you just a bit here on on this standing issue, how is it that Sierra Club cannot be living, is not necessarily living out in the, in the middle of the national forest, but yet always seems to have standing to sue over on behalf of some bird that might be getting oppressed by a logger, let's say. How does that happen? Well, what they'll do oftentimes is there's something in, there's organizational standing, and then there's organizational standing that Sirs Sierra Club will assert.

They'll say, look, we have to devote our resources to, you know, to changing the outcome of this law, to protecting this outcome, to protecting this. And if an organization has to devote resources, that's known as a pocketbook injury. That means they've suffered a monetary loss for having to try their challenge. So they've used that. Also, what they're really good at doing, Bill, is really good at finding a one individual, one member, if they're a membership organization like the Sierra Club, you're a member and you say, well, I, for 20 years I've gone out and I've hiked the blah, blah, blah,

and I always see the bird here. And if I don't see the bird, you know, I'm going to affect my enjoyment of it. And again, I don't think that's really necessarily jumps over that. I don't think that satisfies the standing doctor because I don't think that's a cognizable injury. But oftentimes, of course, you get in front of a judge who's more predisposed to be sympathetic to that particular issue. And it's going to say, okay, yep, bring the gavel. You did it. So again, oftentimes it's just as important to judge you have in front of you than the issues you're actually arguing.

All right. And a final curveball question is before we take off. And I appreciate you joining from landmark legal, landmarkleag.org. and that is President Trump is threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act against Minneapolis because of what has been going on there, the soft and hardening open rebellion. I guess does that mean that he just puts troops on the streets and then no court can really say anything about that? What does that actually mean? Yeah, yeah.

I mean, if you're going to remember what an Interaction Act, that's been invoked as recently as the Rodney King riots in 1991 by President Bush. You know, President Eisenhower did it when we're talking about the desegregation. But the power, the president has, the deployment of the National Guard wasn't involving the invocation of the Interaction Act. The Interrection Act is a really powerful tool the president has. And his authority really isn't subject to any kind of second guessing by courts if you're going to invoke power under the Insurrection Act. And again, what's you going to have to do is deploy active duty military. So look for, you know, anybody, 80 second airborne, 101st Division, 1001st Airborne Division. Those were the, remember, the 101st Airborne Division was the one that was deployed.

in Selma, Alabama to help with the desegregation cases, the desegregation of the school systems. So, yeah, I mean, if he's going to pull the trigger on Interaction Act, that's a broad power the president has to utilize at his disposal. Boy, that is a big baseball bat with which to bring down on the heads of those folks, isn't it? Yeah, and President Trump has been leery of doing that. Remember, he hasn't done. He sought other means for, you know, deploying these National Guard troops to these respective cities. But in the case of Minnesota, I mean, if you're having the political, the elected officials,

the mayor and the governor, whoever, actively saying that ICE officials are going to be arrested, then you're, you know, that's really. You really are in open rebellion at that point, aren't you? I'm reluctant to go that far, but yeah, I mean, you have to, you're starting to, you're starting to get to kind of scary areas when you're saying that you're going to not only not, you know, turn your back on them, but actually take active steps to, apprehend federal law enforcement officials. I mean, that really is almost sedacious action. All right, very good. Hey, I really appreciate the analysis this morning. Landmark Legal Foundation's Michael O'Neill, landmark legal.org. Great group. Please support it. Please keep up with him too. Michael,

thank you. Be well. Take care, Bill. Have a great day. 0-7-450-M-60-5-629. Do it signing 10K miles per year. This is KMED and KMEDHD-HD-EG grants pass. 7 o'clock. We're going to check Fox News here in just a moment or two, had any update. And then talking about the drama last night, I have not had a chance to watch the meeting. I ended up getting an email late from Sam over in Joe County.

He says, Bill, I'm sure you'll hear about it, but good golly, maybe try to take a listen to tonight's Board of Commission meeting. There was plenty of opinions to go around, but when Chris Barnett had the opportunity, he spared no one in his line of fire. Well, except maybe you, Bill. Okay. This listener said complete embarrassment that includes attacks, threats, insults, and gratitude, but to himself, of course. But anyway, I'll be listening to what you report on it.

It's what you said. All right, Sam, I did not get a chance to watch the meeting. In fact, I was even asleep when you emailed me last night, just kind of the problem of being on the toddler schedule. You're on the toddler schedule, you know, 8, 8.30, and I'm sitting there and snoring. at that point, if I can help it, at least. But you know, someone who did watch it, and I think he may have been involved in it, I don't know, but former Josephine County Commissioner,

former state senator Berchiger, and he said, I'll call. We'll talk a bit about that. I understand there was some interesting testimony, and Herman will share some of that after news and more on the Bill Myers Show on KMED. This isn't...