Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 04-02-26_THURSDAY_7AM

Episode Date: April 2, 2026

04-02-26_THURSDAY_7AM

This hour of the Bill Myers Show podcast is proudly sponsored by Klausur 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. More stimulating talk. That's what we do here in southern Oregon. KMED, KMED, HD, H.D. One, Eagle Point, Medford, KBXG grants pass. 993 FM.

I appreciate you being here. And yet we will be taking your calls here on Conspiracy Theory Thursday. That could be rather stimulating. I especially like the crazy people. The crazy people, the crazy people, yeah, you know, but I say that affectionately. I really do. But along with the other, the news and the noise, I wanted to talk about in the next few minutes after news and after the Hannity update, the city manager in Grants Pass wants to keep all talk or any evaluations private.

And what I'm going to ask you is if you think that it should be. This is Aaron Kubik, Aaron Kubik. And I don't know, Aaron. I talked to him one time, I think, looking for a little bit of information, but he makes more than $200,000 a year in the city. And I guess he's not happy having the evaluation out in open forum, I guess. And this is the way that always done it in the city of Grants Pass. And now the talk is, and this was reporting done by the Daily Courier.

And by the way, Daily Courier has been doing some good reporting on, this story and also how the Medford city manager was the same sort of thing. You know, you want to hide this and blah, blah, blah, blah. Of course, we lost one and, you know, he ended up going away and they ended up doing a story about how the past city manager in Medford was just going crazy, shilling for the ball stadium, the whole ball stadium project, right? And all that ends up coming after. They ended up getting some freedom of information act or, you know, getting public records

on that kind of thing. But yeah, Aaron Kubick wants it kept quiet. And do you think that those evaluations should be kept quiet or should they be out in the open as they have always been? And he's asking the city to hire a $17,000 facilitator for the facilitator to come out in, well, here's the report. And then the report can be delivered, if I understand correctly, in executive session behind the scenes, hidden from view. Does that sound okay to you? Generally speaking, if the information supports you, you'd think you'd want the entire world to know about what a great employee you are. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

Maybe I just don't understand how being a public employee works. But let me know what you think about that afternoons and more. This is the Bill Meyer show. Okay, what happened to my... Okay, wait a minute. They're supposed to be a large kaboom. Okay, this is the problem because I could be a bit of Italian and I've talked with my hands and I wave them around and I hit... buttons. So let's try it again. Power up your project with Husk. Now more with Bill Meyer. It's

conspiracy theory Thursday. And an open phone segment here before Dr. Dennis Powers rejoins the program. We're going to bring him in for a special Thursday morning edition because he ended up listening to the entire Supreme Court birthright citizenship battle or the oral arguments. And he has a, well, I'm going to get his take as a legal eagle, you know, retired professor of business law. So we'll talk with him in about 20 minutes on this. The general consensus coming out of the legal community is that President Trump is going to lose this one. That's the general consensus that I'm reading from the legal eagles. And I'm not talking about liberal, just liberal legal people talking about this.

I'm seeing this from conservative jurists too, and I'm trying to figure out why. Because I was looking up the history of the 14th Amendment because it all has to do with subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I mean, you've heard about this all. And I'm thinking about the speech of Senator Jacob Howard. He was a Republican from Michigan back in the day. And this is the guy who actually introduced the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Senate in 1866. And they were debating this stuff.

They were debating this stuff. And there's a record of this. And the record is pretty clear. And what Senator Howard said was that the phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, was inserted for a particular reason that it was put in the 14th Amendment to exclude foreign nationals, which would be aliens or illegal aliens, as we call them here, foreign diplomats, and the Indians. because the Indians owed their allegiance elsewhere, and I think Congress had to pass a law later to have Native Americans who were actually giving birth to more Native Americans,

actually giving them American citizenship, because they weren't, you know, for a long, long time. And even when he was debating it on the floor, he said openly, and this is the guy that brought it forward, this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States. This is the quote from the congressional record. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

And, you know, I read that, and to me, it's just, it's such common sense, and it's so clear. And what I'm trying to figure out is how has the court precedent or that, that Wong-Von-Arc thing or, you know, the 100-year-old legal decision about the 14th Amendment, how did it muddy these waters? I'm going to talk with Dr. Dennis Powers about that here in the next few minutes. And I don't know if you have a take on it, too, but you know my number, because it is conspiracy theory Thursday. 7705633-770 KMED. Another one here, should Aaron Kubik, the Grants Pass City Manager, get his evaluations done in secret? Now, he's only paid $200,000 a year. It's not very much money.

I'm being sarcastic. Okay. Not bad. When you include the purrs and everything else, it's health insurance, probably what? More than a quarter of a million dollars a year to run a little city. That's the way it works these days. I think we all should get a turn at being, you know, one year at Aaron Kubig. We all get Aaron Kubik's job for one year.

We all get the city manager of Medford. Everybody gets one turn of it, one year out of your life in which you can make, you know, quarter of a million or 400,000. or a half million, whatever the case might be. I know this is about the professionalization of the governments of cities. You know, that's how that goes. But, Debbie Kerr is reporting on this when I mentioned it at the last hour. But the city manager, Aaron Kubik, recommending that the city pay up to $17,000 to hire a facilitator for his evaluation

and hold discussion of his performance with the city council behind closed doors. and a restrict release of the information about his evaluation to just a written summary paid for by that $17,000 facilitator. So the taxpayers would pay a facilitator to end up hiding the evaluations or whitewash the evaluation of the city manager. At least that's the way it looks like for me, you know, from my point of view. Now, the way that it's been done in the past, every city council person would use a written form, and they would write out a performance evaluation of Cubic, and because it was a written record, it was a public record,

and so everybody could see it. The public and the press could get it via a public records request. And so meeting in a closed-door executive session the Daily Courier writes would leave no paper trail of individual counselors' praise and or criticism of Cubic. He's the top unelected staff member in Grants Pass City Government. He's hired help, annual salary, $200,000. $844, not including benefits.

It's why I'm saying it's the quarter million dollar plus, probably pay package, probably more than that, really. And there you go. There you go. Should he get his way? Should the taxpayers pay another $17,000 to hide the evaluations from the public? I don't know. I'm just going to say, Grants Pass City Councilors, if you go for this, you guys are high. All right, you're on something.

I want to know what, what are you smoking from that, from that green cross kind of store over on 7th Street, wherever it is? Okay, tell me about that, all right? Let me know. Let me know. But, you know, this is the kind of two-step. Public employees, in some cases, can be amazingly privileged, don't you think?

It's just kind of like, man, everybody else is just kind of like, yeah, we just get, we look cross-eyed at the boss, we get hired, or fired rather. You look cross-eyed added. You wear the wrong thing one day. You park in the wrong parking place. You can get blown out. But, yeah, it's different.

Public employee, here's the contract. And yes, I want my stuff done in secret. All right. Now, anyway, let's go to the phone calls because it is conspiracy theory Thursday. I love talking with you. Even you crazy people, too. Hi, good morning.

KMED. who's this? This is John and Medford. We're going to go on the third rail, Bill. All right, John, John and Medford, third rail. third rail is that? I really believe that Charlie Kirk orchestrated his fake assassination or someone helped him with it. Oh, you do? So you believe it is a fake assassination then?

Yes, absolutely. It's the only thing that makes sense because the Tyler Robinson thing makes no sense at all. And too many things have been left out, including the full rooftop video. you know, it was conveniently clipped, and like the, let's fix my gun on demand as I'm running across the roof, you know, and I must admit that one always seemed a little weird to me. But, you know, I am going to be talking about that. I have not really talked much about the Charlie Kirk assassination because, you know, it's supposedly the guy has been arrested, right, that kind of thing. But Nils Grievous, the L.A. private detector is going to come on, and he's going to talk about the, The bullet report, you know, CBS is saying that the bullet finding, or I think it's the lawyer for Tyler Robinson, is claiming that the bullet pulled out of Charlie Kirk's body does not match the gun or it's not consistent to it or it's not able, they're not able to determine this. So this is a big deal.

It wasn't exactly like it didn't match the gun, but they can't really determine, you know, where it came from. Bill, I saw other hunters, you know, duplicate, you know, what that round can do to like a deer's neck. And it just pulverized it. Oh, I know. I know. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense, John. I will concede your point that it doesn't make sense.

I've shot 30-ought sixes too. And, you know, unless it was some kind of a squib load, you know, in which the pot, there which there was no powder in the cartridge. And you just had the primer sending the bullet flying, you know, down there. it would be very low power. I've never seen a 30-od-6 that would just... You're right, not obliterate. Bill, they carried Charlie's full intact body to the black vehicle. There's just no way that...

There's just no way the bill would, like, bounced off and, Bill, please, really? No, no, he had a steel throat, according to his friend. Remember that? I really... Okay, here's... Like a steel spine or something. I know... I can't explain it.

it, though. I can't explain it, but it might be just a cigar, though. Maybe it was just that one bullet that hit just right and did not explode the body or the throat as it hits it, as it struck the soft tissue in bone. I think Charlie found himself in a stranglehold between, I think I think Erica is like the daughter of Tammy Fay Baker, you know, the spawn of Tammy Fay Baker. She's just so fake. And I think Charlie saw that he, the writing was on the wall, between his wife and all that goes on behind her and certain elements in other countries, if I just will just take it that part, like Israel. And he saw that there was no way out of that.

The writing was on the wall. And Charlie, have a great rest of your life, buddy. All right. That's a very interesting theory. I just don't know if you can prove that, though. Can you? Time will tell. All right.

Maybe not. We must order the exhumation of Charlie Kirk's remains. No, no, wait a minute, we can't because he was cremated immediately. Yeah. Yeah, and the whole property was scrubbed. The cameras were pulled. The sidewalks were paved. I mean, everything was paved over.

Oh, it's just a coincidence, John. Just a coincidence. Yeah, he's got, yeah, just landscaping. All right. Okay, the more, okay, I don't know if I'm going to go down your conspiracy theory, but you're welcome to share it. Thank you for the call, John. See, I told you I always enjoy talking to the crazies, too. John, I'm not saying it you're crazy. Hi, good morning. KM.E.D., who's this? Welcome.

Holly, Warren, Josephine County. Holly! How are you? Good morning. Absolutely, Aaron Kubick's e-vall should be public. 100%. He's a public figure. The taxpayers pay his salary. We all know what's going on. He was the one who advised all the new counselors when they came on board, what they should do, what was legal and so forth. he is responsible for a lot of what's going on in our city. His eval should absolutely be public for everyone to see. You know, this kind of reminds me of some of the arrogance that comes in through other government employees. Now, most recently, remember how Herman has talked with me on the show about what would happen when it was time to appoint another county commissioner because someone would resign or there was an opening on the board?

and then you would have the hired help, the staff members come out there and talk about who they would suggest and yeta, yada, yada, and then, and Herman would say, no, this is just our job to evaluate it. Remember that? It kind of reminds me of that sort of thing. No, we'll tell you what you want to do, right? That sort of thing? Just bizarre. Well, I think we have to get more involved. You know, all across accountability is a major problem in so many different ways. And this will hold him accountable. It will allow citizens to see how he's being evaluated and perhaps add their own input. And also conduct yourself in your public employee job as if you know that people will know what you did. Okay? That's all. Yeah.

Maybe you'll conduct. Accountability. Yeah, maybe you'll conduct yourself differently. And by the way, I'm not saying that he would. I'm not – and I don't know, Aaron. All I'm doing is just reading this. I'm looking at this story of the Daily Courier hauling. I'm thinking, man, Ed.

that takes some real hutspah, you know, to ask the city council to spend $17,000 to keep your evaluations more or less kind of private. I could understand his problem right now. I could definitely see why he would want his Eval to be private, but that's a non-starter for me. All right. Thanks, Holly. 770K. Amyty. Morning, who's this?

Welcome. Hello? Hello? Hello, Bill. It's Francine. Oh, Francie. Okay. Okay, so I'm going to come up on the gentleman who called Before Holly.

Okay, this is John with Charlie faking his own death, right? Faking his death. Right. All right. Okay, I can agree with everything to some degree about what he was saying, and how fake everything was. It was a total inside job, and everyone was in on it except Charlie. And here's my reasons why. I feel that way. For one, I don't think his, I never followed him before, but what I've learned about him and from people that did listen to him,

he doesn't seem very likely to be somebody who, oh, they're going to come get me. I better go hide. You know what I mean? I think he's the kind of person that would stand his ground and, you know, stand up and say, listen, blah, blah, blah, blah. I just don't feel like that's who he was, although I don't know this. The second thing is I don't believe the bullet killed him at all. That was just absolutely absurd, as you all discussed. I think they may have given him some kind of injection or, I don't know, something.

did something, but they killed him. You know, I do know that as bad as that wound looked, as bad as the wound, and that was a gushing wound. It was an interstown diameter, you know? Yeah, but remember, we're talking about the, you know, the main carotid artery, high pressure. So it's a high pressure blood spray with something like that. Well, it was just like little splorced in a dribble. I don't know.

That looked pretty gross. I know. I saw a pretty gross, you know, geyser of blood on the video that I saw. That was the very first day, the first day of the... Well, it's probably been altered. I don't know. I mean, the one I thought did not do that. It was really soon afterwards.

It was just like a little splurts of blood came out like you had it in a tube and you kind of gave it a squeeze and it was just like a morgue. No, I thought it was a lot more than that, Francine. I think it was, you know what they can do with video. Yeah. But all I'm saying, though, is that having fired a 30-odd-6 from rifles several times within my life and I just don't think a 30-od-6 rifle from, what, 140, was it 140 yards? Or was it 140 feet?

Maybe 140 yards. That's just a lobbing shot for a rifle. You're misunderstanding. What? You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying he was hit with the 30-out-6, and that was, because the damage, there was no damage like that, is what I'm trying to say. Okay, so you're saying that it wasn't the gun. The gun may have shot, but that.

No, there was something else they did. They killed him. Okay, all right. Maybe there was something, you know, who knows? I don't know what kind of gear they have these days. I'm not an expert in that kind of thing. I'm just saying, I do believe he is dead. I mean, why would they, anybody that crosses them and feels like it could threaten their agenda, they get rid of them.

They got rid of Epstein. Everybody goes, oh, or a lot of people think Epstein's still alive. All right. Now, I'm going to give you my theory. If we're going to start getting crazy on this, which we always do, we start talking about Charlie Kirk, is that all right i have a feeling that somebody probably the cia took the directed energy weapon that brought down the twin towers on nine eleven and they brought that to that area they directed the energy to you know a point a pinpoint on charlie's throat that was timed with another

cia agent in control of the handler of tyler robinson to fire it just as the directed energy goes in there and uh and bores the hole in the carotid artery and and then they plant. I like that. And then they plant the so-called bullet after the fact. How about that? What do you think? Bill, I love it. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Francine. 729. When the wind blows and storms roll through, do you get worried? Hi, this is Jeff. 50730. You're hearing the Bill Myers Show on 1063 KMED. Dr. Dennis Powers, retired professor of business law standing by. We'll talk with him about the conversation, the oral arguments on birthright citizenship here afternoose.

And Ron, you want to take a swipe at the Charlie Kirk assassination. I'll be talking about that with Nils Gravilius from Los Angeles at 8-10. But what are you thinking? You want to weigh in? Yeah, sure, Bill. Let's talk about the things we can confirm. He was a high-value target. Everybody should remember that the exploding pagers that they used on Hamas,

the reason they can't find the bullet is because I believe it was the microphone and it was either high pressure air, water, or some type of projectile. So you think this was just all coordinating then with the Patsy Robinson in your view. Is that kind of how you're saying it, Ron? Absolutely. All right. I appreciate the theory. Thanks for calling. And you don't sound crazy, are you?

Just a little bit. Okay, well, just if we're not a little bit crazy in this world, maybe we're not paying attention. All right, let me go to Oliva. Or did I get your name right? Aliva, yeah. It is Aliva. Hello, Aliva. You wanted to talk about the Aaron Kubik situation.

$17,000, he's hoping that the city of Grants Pass counselors will spend to have a facilitator write up his evaluation, I guess, and disclose it. But anyway, what are you thinking? Well, I'm just thinking that, you know, he's probably concerned with, you know, a questionable evaluation. I didn't know if you said, you know, you were mentioning that he might have wanted to keep that private. And, you know, I just wanted to put out there that we're talking about the same guy who sent out a letter, you know, about the tax referendum on behalf of the city that he had to retract, you know, and so he's probably just concerned with something negative. Well, could be. And like I said, I don't know the man. I don't know the man. But anytime I see this talk, you see, the point is if you do oral evaluations or you do something behind an executive session, that can't be, then you can't request that. So I think that's what he's hoping to have with a facilitator. And then the facilitator, of course, kind of, in my opinion, would be kind of hired to water things down for public consumption. At least that's how I would interpret it, wouldn't you? Yeah.

I just wanted to come on and say that's a bunch of baloney. All right. That's it. All right, Aliva. There we got two saying, baloney. We appreciate the call. Dr. Dennis Powers. We're talking birthright citizenship.

Next. And what the Supremes were arguing about yesterday. Finding great candidates to hire. Hi, this is Lisa, the Hughes Lumbergirl. And I'm on 106.7, KMED. Let the Good Times roll. Yeah. I don't know if that was intentional with Dr. Dennis Powers, a retired professor of business law,

a SOU coming up here. But anyway, Doc, welcome back. It's great to have you on a Thursday morning edition because you were listening to the oral arguments on the birthright citizenship case. Welcome back. What is your initial thoughts on that? Go ahead. Well, thanks, Bill.

It's always a pleasure. Yeah, I listened to all of it. And first of all, when I listened and was taking notes, I could say, this is more than an uphill battle on birthright citizenship. That, you know, just in terms of the differences in approach by our Solicitor General versus the ACLU's attorney. Yeah, I wanted to ask about that. You know, the ACLU's attorney, of course, pretty articulate Chinese woman, for what I understand. And then the Solicitor General kind of sounded like a legal version of RFK Jr. Arguing out in front of the court.

He did. And it also really showed that you could see with the ACLU that sees its moment in terms of taking over the country as to going ahead advertisements about its position, no on any limitation on birthright citizenship. Also, you know that she was paid a lot of money with many types of attempts, and what we saw with our solicitor general was a little bit of stumbling, but also the total civil war against our Justice Department in terms of all the ways that they are stretching it, that being the far left, that being, quote, unquote, the Democratic Party with the radical socialist. Are you implying, though, that the solicitor general took a dive in your view or didn't really use as strong of an argument or a point as he could have? What does that really mean, I guess, when you... Well, what it means specifically is that they being all of the, you know, a lot of the discussion had to do with a Supreme Court case that was over 130 years ago. rather than other types of citations, rather than talking about statutes, it was all based in

terms of the U.S. versus Wong Kim Ark, which is really held all those years ago that a child born the U.S. to foreign citizens, Chinese, that the child is the U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment, and it affirmed apparently, and I looked at it, and I saw where it could be interpreted different ways, affirmed the principle of right of birth, and it ruled that citizenship applies to the child, regardless of, quote, the ability to naturalize. Huh. Yeah, because the parents, those parents were actually naturalized citizens. They were citizens of the United States.

Yeah, and so there's a lot of ways you could have distinguished, but, you know, that case from the intent of the 14th Amendment, and I was struck really not only by that, but even on the argument, which was, I thought, a very important one, that, look, you had an administration that did not go ahead and uphold the immigration laws, it was something that we have. never seen in the history of this country as the people just en masse crossing into our borders and then being flown to different places where they could sign up for welfare for all these other programs. And then you contrast it. It almost seems like the system is trying to tell us, or at least the legal system is trying to tell us that you can allow everything to be open, wide open, no problem with this, but if you try to enforce the law, you can't do that.

Am I wrong to perceive? That's what the system is legal people are trying to tell us? Well, as soon as John Roberts was saying in terms of that times have changed, he stated, and this will go down in history, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. Well, yeah, that's just it. The Constitution doesn't change. It's because the world has changed. You can change the Constitution if you wish, but it's a pretty high bar to do so. But that's his argument. And as soon as John Roberts said that, I said that it was so clear that this whole thing is a typical Roberts type of thing, especially with Amy Barrett. And with her type of question, I said, oh, it's five to four against what Trump was trying to do. So that is your estimation or your prediction then on how it's going to be five, four against Trump? Okay.

Yeah, at least. It could be 6.3. It could be 5.4 against. But the reason is, Bill, you and I, for all these years, my friend, have talked about different major Supreme Court decisions. And there was, I remember our discussion on Obamacare. That was this tortured decision that Roberts did to uphold Obama's socialized medicine. Oh, yeah. I mean, Roberts, it was like a, like he was trying to limbo.

under a stick, a legal stick, you know, somehow, you know, trying to find some way to drag it to success or to victory, I guess. And it was sophomore, and I had made the points. I didn't even check this with some very learned friends of mine. They said, yeah, we read that decision, too, and it just, it sounded like a second year law student at Harvard Law School. Then you had tariffs where he went ahead and he took the argument that it wasn't in the legislative. that set up the ability. It wasn't the transfer of power that you wanted to see from the legislature into the president. So he's going all over the map to go ahead and get tariffs knocked off.

And, of course, who doesn't remember the way that he was falling over himself on abortion, where Merrick Garland, and he has never forgotten this, did what was the most atrocious thing, showing to me that this was a very bad. civil war that was going on that no one, well, most people didn't see about because of the way the far left media was handling it. But with people going ahead, radicals, banging drums, firecrackers at two in the morning against Supreme Court judges, I've never heard or seen or been around something like that. So when you look at all the major decisions where he really, John Roberts, with Emmy Barrett, are going to be in there.

And, you know, you and I, my friend, talked about this, oh, within an hour, you know, after those were off. And now I'm seeing where others are saying, yeah, it looks like a really uphill battle. No, Roberts has again done his thing for his legacy. He's never going to be controversial or take a stand on anything that has to do. So remember what you and I, my friend, were talking about having to do with Obamacare, and we were laughing about this? gee whiz, what do they have on John Roberts? Well, yeah, I've often thought that they got the naked pictures of him in bed with a boy someplace. I mean, because he behaves like a justice that has that situation in his closet, so to speak.

All right, Dr. Dennis Powers, I want to ask you a couple of questions, though, because was anything brought up in the oral arguments? Because I wasn't able to listen to it. A lot of it was going on while I was on the air, okay? Oh, I certainly understand it. Did anything come up in the oral arguments about what the people who wrote the 14th Amendment actually intended? Because it's out there in the congressional record. I looked it up overnight and brought some of it here to talk about. Did any of that get brought up at all?

Well, you see, it was wordsmithing. And, you know, you see this, if you've been in the law, a long time. And what that means is that on the wordsmithing, it had to do with what does the 14th Amendment, what does the phraseology subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? And so they get into this word smithing of, well, is jurisdiction meaning ability to change your domicile? Or does it have all these things? So, you know, you're listening to every result reasoning that's around. but then you and I, you know, will go ahead in a very detailed professional manner and look at these arguments. But really, when Roberts goes ahead and just says, as he did, you know, that, hey, it's the same Constitution.

Don't bore me with those type of things, because we got a case that in the dictum, and then they had this long, I mean, it's all, it was very technical. You know, my friend, I was thinking, you know, I really enjoyed my time. in the law because of all the people I met I worked with. I tried to avoid being in the courts, but I would go over there to be sure I knew it was going on. But I would have enjoyed being an impolid attorney. You make good money, and all you do is make intellectual arguments, and then you decide to see if the people who have bought it will go ahead and use your legal arguments. I mean... So is this kind of what you thought you heard yesterday in oral arguments? Essentially a lot of theoretical.

But I wanted to bring it back here. So they didn't bring up the original conversations about the people. And here, I'm going to share it with you, okay? And so to me, it just seems so perfectly clear here. Okay, this is when the citizenship clause was being debated in Congress, okay? All persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. Well, Senator Jacob Howard is the man who introduced the 14th Amendment.

And he helped write it. And he explained that the phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, was inserted to make sure that they excluded foreign nationals and aliens, foreign diplomats, and tribal Indians. In fact, they had to pass another law to bring Indians into the citizenship deal. And on the floor of Congress, he stated, this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. That's a direct quote from the testimony in Congress as he brought this to it. How could anyone in the Supreme Court hear that and then say that subject to the jurisdiction thereof means,

hey, you crawl across the border and you drop a kid, instant citizen? Very easy, because what happened, Bill, was that when they argued those individual exceptions that came in, They were definitely in the briefs. I have not had a chance to read the briefs, but I really have a feeling that reading them would be the same thing as what you're articulating now. Going on that assumption, what we have been seeing is that they talked about Native Americans, but of course what I love was that the ACLU attorney on talking about really details and specifics is saying, well, I'll use the term of art, Indians.

I mean, that is how politically correct it was going on. But what happens is that they discussed all that, but in quick-firing type of motions. But to me, that shouldn't have been a quick-fire. This is the case, you know, that Trump is bringing forth here. That it was never meant to be the way they've been interpreting it all these years. I understand. And there's no question. That's what the Solicitor General was bringing up.

But you see, when you have three people there right off the bat, they result reason. They're going like Jackson. They're just not going to vote your way. Yeah, you know that. And then you're getting to John Roberts, who's going to say, well, you know, I have to result reason on this. He's not going to go against birthright citizenship. He even just said it when he was discarding the other detailed question have to do with Scalia. But then the other detail that comes in is Amy Barrett then goes ahead and kept bringing in the questions about Indians,

and they would have a debate about that. And you could just tell that she wasn't satisfied as to why it didn't put that language in the 14th Amendment. But so you see, all the details in the wordsmithing that are going on is the reason why you and I came to the same conclusion way before. the media got into it just because of listening to it. It's just John Roberts, again, driving his horse in terms of trying to be a John Marshall, but he's more like the Chamberlain of the legal world. That is just, that's very disappointing. Oh, it's very disappointing.

So, you know, trying to guarantee what was going on with, you know, the Supreme Court. That's never, it's very difficult to predict this, of course. But we were right. I felt right from the beginning that he was going to lose on the terror. tariffs and he did. But of course, but the other thing I will say, though, is that the Supreme Court in that decision did kind of give him a roadmap to other laws that he could use to tariff. It's almost like they were saying, hey, you can't do this, but you can go here, you know, with that. Would that be fair to say when you look at the actual decision?

It is, Bill, and that's a good point. On the other hand, the devil lies in the details, because these have to be investigations on the tariff side that is preempting what the decision can be. So there's a long lag time. The other thing is that I was shocked that in terms of the nuclear deal where we had John Kerry unloading, what, $1.3 billion of cash, and frankly, what he was doing, we haven't heard a word from him because the fact that he was close to just being a traitor, he could have very easily known about October 23rd. But in that deal that I didn't know, because I didn't read the whole thing, we just relied on what we saw that Fox News, that the New York Times brought in, I couldn't

believe, you couldn't make an inspection in Obama's deal unless there was a 24-day, in other words. Yeah, 24-day notice, right? Three and a half weeks notice. Yeah, you can hide all the good stuff, right? Yeah, you can hide all the good stuff before the inspectors show up, right? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So all this billions of cash was going in.

So what the heck is going on? And that's the problem we have now. the big difference between, I think, my friend, Watergate, and what we've been seeing now is because we have the New York Times that's rolled over during these decades. Now, Watergate is looking like child's play compared to the scandals we're having lately here, Doc. Seriously. Oh, it is.

I couldn't agree with you more. All right. We'll have to dig up Richard Nixon say, hey, Dick, we're kind of sorry. We were really hard on you back then. I mean, you were a piker. You know, when it came to what's come ever since, all right? You gave us some jokes. Along with Richard Agnew and don't put him on a golf course.

Yeah, that's right. Richard Nixon. I always missed him. You know, I know this has nothing to do with the law or anything else, but the part, I always felt a little sorry for Richard Nixon in one respect because, you know, that one day, remember the picture of him walking on the beach in San Clemente in wingtips, right? Remember that? That is a good point.

I just want to say, poor guy, you're not comfortable in your own skin. You know, if you can't walk in the sand with your toes with your toes in the sand. But I guess... Yeah, could you imagine if Richard Nixon, instead of the eavesdropping problem that he had, what if he was the one that had the dress in Monica Lewinsky? Because Bill Clinton was certainly able to make it. Yeah, I don't think it would have happened. I don't think it would have happened.

All right. It happened. Doc. Oh, yeah, before we ring off, I just going to say, you do a great job reading the news. Well, I appreciate it. Thanks so much. And we will catch you on the history side of things on Monday morning, too, all right? Thanks, doctor.

Okay. And you take care. And thanks so much. All right. Thank you. Dr. Dennis Powers, retired professor of business law, Dennis Powers, books. dot com. It's 756 at KMED.

KBXG. Don't Portland on KMED. Good morning. This is News Talk 1063 KMED. And you're waking up with the Bill Myers Show. Great to have you here. I remember something I heard when I was a little kid

because we were talking about Richard Nixon, about Richard Nixon the Watergate thing there. And I talk about that every now and then with the Postgate author, John O'Connor, you're the attorney. former federal attorney. I remember David Frye had a comedy album back about 50 years ago. That was a little boy, and I had a copy of it.

And it was a parody of Richard Nixon, and this was when the Watergate stuff was starting to crank up. And what if I had my own radio station? My own radio station. My own radio station. And then the jingle singer is coming like it was a dream. 72 WNIX 110% American

Are you The jingle singers from that day, right? And it was Richard Nixon broadcasting in the deep end of the White House pool From the deep end. Pretty funny stuff. It didn't provide it wasn't funny at the time

The actual situation, but you know, the second-rate burglary Of Watergate ain't nothing compared to the stuff that's been going on, especially in the intelligence circles ever since those days. That's for sure. They go to Gino. Gino, good to hear from you. It's conspiracy theory Thursday. It's on your mind. It's not a theory, Bill. Okay. Go ahead. So first before, I want to read a piece that Jefferson wrote about admitting people who are

who do not have the built-in talent from their culture to live in a free society. Oh, okay. So, yeah, not all cultures are protective. They're not ready to be here. All right. I want to mention, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the United States is unique in the world and the world history in that the only way to become an American citizen is to volunteer. You have to know the script, know what the rules are, and say, yes, I want to join that club. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof in this country is a voluntary act that's taken with

volition. In other words, you did it on purpose. It's not something that just happened to you. So here's what Jefferson says. Many will come to the United States as refugees escaping from tyranny, but tyranny will have shaped the ideas about politics. They are unlikely to have learned either how to live peaceably respecting the rights of others or how to be vigilant in the assertion and defense of their own rights. They are unlikely to even have a clear idea about the meaning of rights themselves. Admitting persons who are not prepared possesses a fundamental problem to the American experiment. American experiment, I've got to make sure you point that out. The experiment was in self-governance, okay? And again, that's a voluntary thing. Sure. They will bring with them the

principles of government they leave behind imbibed as in their early youth, or if able to throw them off, here's the key part, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as usual from one extreme to the other, it would be a miracle if they were to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Having no experience or understanding of liberty, it will be difficult for immigrants to conduct themselves in a manner of refitting free citizens of a republic. They will either continue to be servile, lacking in self-assertion, or, free from the shackles of tyranny for the first time in their lives, will exceed the proper bounds of Republican liberty and act licentiously, lacking self-control. If they are admitted as citizens, they will share with us the legislation. In sufficient quantities, they could undermine the free character of the Republic,

thereby endangering the rights of all. In such a situation, the government would be derelict in its primary responsibility to secure these rights, should they allow non-prepared citizens into the citizenship. This is from his notes on the state of Virginia. You know, Gino, Jefferson was a pretty smart cat, wasn't he? Unbounded licentiousness. Gosh, I wonder where we could see that. Let me give you a real American salute, first off, for bringing this up. And I would dare say that Jefferson's notes warned us against admitting the Elon Omar's of the world, essentially.

Exactly. The unprepared of the licentious. Yeah, it's like it's describing. Now, I'm just picking on Somalia because that, That's been the one that has been the biggest in the headlines here. But you import the third world in which the entire culture is about what can I get and what can I get for free. And we're not going to worry about the consequences, et cetera, et cetera, very short time preference. Can I go another pulse with this? Okay, sure. Go ahead. A 12, 13, 14, 15-year-old boy is sort of like released, right?

And he has a tendency to be really dumb with, as he explore, his capacities and expands his barriers beyond his limits, right? Right. And if the 15-year-olds is brought to bear by, shall we say, an adult father, mother, and the family, a good culture around him, then he's going to be the worst kind of human being. I love the way we said that giving power and money to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenage boy, nothing good can come of it.

Good point. Gino, good talk. Thanks for bringing it up here. It's not a conspiracy theory Thursday, but that's a real American salute, a conversation that Jefferson had with the people. This is KMED and KMED HD-1. Eagle Point, Medford, KBXG, Grants Pass. Translator K-294A.S. Ashland, K-290AF Rogue River. And we'll have Fox News coming up here in just a moment.

And then the Kim Commando Digital Update and Nidels Gravilius. He'll be speaking to me, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Meyer, and the bullet and the defense attorney for Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk assassination. He's a private eye. He's going to go down that rabbit hole for conspiracy theory Thursday. Find out what he thinks.