Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 03-05-25_WEDNESDAY_7AM

Episode Date: March 5, 2025

Former fed prosecutor John O-Connor, author of postgate talks the Supreme Court breaking news, one against Trump,another against EPA, and what about that Epstein dump, hmm? Open phone then

The Bill Meyer Show podcast is sponsored by Clouser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at www.clouserdrilling.com. Here's Bill Meyer. A lot of Supreme Court news this morning. I wanted to touch on some of it. There was some breaking news that the Supreme Court just stopped the Trump administration from blocking $2 billion in foreign aid spending.

We haven't had a chance to really read much about that yet, but there are some other stories going on too that I wanted people to dig into with John O'Connor. John O'Connor is a great guy. He's one of my favorite legal eagles that I get to talk to every now and then. He served as an assistant U. assistant US attorney in Northern California, representing the United States in both criminal and civil cases. You were Deep Throat's lawyer, right, John? Just want to make sure. I was, I certainly was. Yep, you were Deep Throat's lawyer back in the day and author of Postgate, his amazing book. It's how the Washington Post betrayed Deep Throat,

covered up Watergate, and began today's partisan advocacy journalism, which by the way continues to this very day. Fair enough, John. Welcome back to the show. Well, that's why I wrote it. I believe that the Watergate slanted reporting, and it was really fraudulent reporting, set the tone for what's been happening for the 50 years since. You have a media that could

actually get rid of a president. Think about that one. They could get rid of a president through their own power, and that has been the hallmark of the media ever since. They teach it in journalism school. Look how cool journalists are. We got rid of President Nixon. And that led to the day, and a very straight line to the day, when they think that they can get rid of Trump. And that led to the day, and a very straight line to the day when they think that they can get rid of Trump. And, you know, and unfortunately, there has developed, of course, the ecosystem in the internet and so forth, podcasts, talk radio, all the things you really didn't have in 1972. And they really don't quite

have the power. And what's happened is people don't believe them anymore. And so there has been a great development since then. And much of Trump's strength comes from him fighting the media. People don't like it. But it all started with Watergate. All this that we get today that we're so sick of, it started with Watergate because they were so successful in getting rid of Nixon. Yeah. I was talking with a network correspondent who had worked with many different news organizations yesterday, Don Taylor. And he has worked for Fox and CBS and NBC. He would do what he sees.

He covered lots of war. It was one of his things. He was big into the adventure side of it. And even he admitted that, yeah, the budgets aren't there, things aren't there. And I think the budgets aren't there because the eyeballs aren't there because people aren't believing them. I think that's you know really where we're finding ourselves right now. Okay. That's right and of course there are many different outlets now too so that's that's a bad thing and I think if

the major media would have done a better job they'd still have a lot of their budgets but they didn't they lost their eyeballs. John I wanted to to pick your legal brain on a couple of things here and one of them Like I said the the Supreme Court has blocked Trump on trying to rein in the foreign spending and I guess You know foreign aid that that that's kind of a big loss You haven't had any even had a chance to look at that it just broke about ten minutes ago He's when that that kicked out there, but just broke about 10 minutes ago is when that that kicked out there but

The Empire is fighting back would that be a fair assessment or is even the Supreme Court saying yeah You can do a lot that President Trump, but you can't do everything you want to do. Well, that's right. That's right I think they're very very sensitive to the relationship between the various branches of government. And I think when Congress allocates foreign aid, I think there's the thought that, you know, something, you ought to spend it. Now, if there's enough time, if there's a...for it to be fully briefed, they don't like also some of this is procedural. They don't like a president who's so crazy that they're gonna be asked to rule every three days. So I don't know Bill who it was. Was it Trump who went to the court on this?

I believe so, yes. Well see there you are. I mean, the fact that he had to go to the court for help there is not a good sign. If he acted deliberately, there's probably no great rush. Can he wait a few months? So I do think that he has to watch himself, because he's doing so much stuff that I think in the end is going to be very good. And I think that in the end, the Supreme Court will support him. For example, on this thing of firing the Office of Special Counsel, the head of that. He did it. He did not give a reason for firing the fellow, and I think his name was Hampton Dellinger. And the reason he did that is so he could set this thing up for a showdown

in the Supreme Court. And he wants the Supreme Court to say, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether you have cause or not. You do not have such a thing as a truly independent agency. The legislature can say all it wants, but the legislature has no power to make an agency that's not responsive to the will of the president. Sorry. That's the executive branch. You keep everything in executive branch. There's not three branches, plus anything else that Congress wants to create that's not one of those three branches. It's got to be one of those three branches. And so... You can't have an extra little appendage of government that is independent from the three constitutionally enumerated ones or

created ones, right? That's really what you're getting at. Exactly. And that's the sense of this, that you can't just say, no, we're going to make this independent. We're going to take away the power of the president to run the executive branch in X, Y, and Z areas. You cannot do that. That's been a long tradition in American history where those fights have occurred. The FBI always thought it should be quote, independent, unquote. Well, yeah, I think it should be treated that way. But on the other hand, ultimately at the end of the day, the head of the FBI answers to the Attorney General and the President. Sorry about that.

Okay, and that makes sense because otherwise you're no better than, well, the KGB. The KGB in Russia would have been considered an independent agency. Fair enough? That kind of thing? That's right. That's right. You don't want to have these things that are powers unto themselves, and that does, and you bring up a very good point. This happens in other countries where you'll hear people say, well, you gotta watch out for the military in this banana republic. Well, that's got control of the military, and so forth and so on. So I think this is a very good thing that they set up

for the Supreme Court, which that's an example of using the Supreme Court wisely. But you can't go back and dip your toe to the Supreme Court every few days every time you're having a disagreement with an executive order is what you're saying. That's right. You just can't go there. If you don't have, if you need to go to the Supreme Court for power to do something on an emergency basis, it ought to be really an emergency and not just, you know, going crying to mommy every time. So they're doing a lot of good things. Don't get me wrong. And I also think I'm also in favor of them petting foreign aid whenever they feel like it's silly. But apparently we're going to have to still write some checks to transgender opera centers

in Ireland or wherever it was. Exactly. Correct. They'll still be, the transgenders will be dancing for a while. Okay, for a little while, so it's going to take Congress maybe to whack that. There was another story, by the way, John Connor is with me, he's the author of Postgate, how the Washington Post betrayed Deep Throat and covered up Watergate, began today's partisan advocacy journalism. There was a story I sent you yesterday, another

Supreme Court decision which came out that I thought might have been another example of the EPA getting its hand slapped. And the EPA here in Oregon, especially out on the West Coast with their own DEQ, I mentioned California Air Resource Board that you're dealing with down in the Bay Area and everywhere else. Anything that could make the EPA behave more reasonably, I think, would be good. And there was this lawsuit. And it was kind of strange bedfellows from the way I was looking at this.

You had the city of San Francisco. There were also some mining interests that joined in on this case and some big oil. So you had big oil and mining and San Francisco all trying to get a decision out of the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court more or less kind of slapped the EPA's hand. It had to do with discharging water into the, or like sewage and things into the Pacific Ocean that I kind of slapped the EPA's hand. It had to do with discharging water into the or like sewage and things into the Pacific Ocean. Did I kind of characterize it correctly in your view at this point? Yeah, yeah, yeah. What they did is they had a 300-page permit and San Francisco followed it punctiliously. However,

because of some, you know, the crazy folks who live on Mission Creek in San Francisco. They did some extra big fouling of the water and then the water quality went down and they got a big fine. Well really what happened, what they're really saying is, look, San Francisco filed this permit, it's very complex, but you cannot then punish San Francisco once the water quality goes down. You can't say, hey, do something right now about it or we're going to fine you. Because the EPA once again told them, this is what we're telling you to do.

San Francisco did what the EPA told them to do. Water quality didn't get better. In fact, it got worse for other reasons. And so the EPA says, we're going Water quality didn't get better, in fact it got worse for other reasons, and so the EPA says we're going to fine you big time, lots of money. And that's the way the EPA has worked a lot of times. It doesn't matter, you know, heads we win, tails you lose. I think that's what's going on, right? Well, that's right. That's right. And I'm not sure that the water quality immediately went down, but at some point it did dip down.

And then they came in and said, okay, if you don't do this, that, and the other and get it up, it's almost like a strict liability standard. You shall get your air to this standard no matter what. Come hell or high water, we want to make sure that they're only this much in way of particulates in the air. And in this case, it was water. We come hell or high water, you've got to do this. Well, no, you can't really rule that way. It's not strict liability. You get a standard of conduct, you meet the standard of conduct, and your

role as an administrative agency is over. And so I think it's a very good ruling in the sense that overall these justices are willing to limit the agencies from just doing whatever they want. And that's a good sign. That's a good sign. It is. It's a good sign. And is this more of that, gosh, what are we, you were talking with me about it, Chevron difference. Is this more of it? That's right. That's right. It's the same thing. In other words, basically the Chevron doctrine says that administrative agencies can essentially make up their own law as to various things and we just got to give deference to what the agency says even though Congress didn't say it. They

could just come up with something that can't be challenged. Well, that's called Chevron deference, and no, you don't have deference anymore. And that's gone. That was gone. That's gone. That's gone. So what we have is we do not have these fiefdoms of power over which no one has control, other than unelected bureaucrats and really the The White House has trouble controlling its agencies when this happens So all of this is for the better the administrative state has really grown In bill I was working in the Justice Department for my father's partner William Ruckels house Walked into his office. He let me do that, just walk in whenever I felt like it.

He was this little punk intern. And I walked in there to talk to him about a case I was looking at, and he was just hanging up the phone. He said, oh, Johnny, he said, this is an encyclologist to have from the White House. They're starting something called the Environmental Protection Agency, and they want me to head it up.

I think I'm gonna do it. And we talked, and I talked for a few minutes with him, and he said, yeah, it up. I think I'm going to do it." And we talked. And I talked for a few minutes with him and he said, yeah, it's really about clean air and clean water. We're going to just try to put things in order. That's what the noble intent was of the EPA. Now let's think about where they've gone on this. They've now gone so far that they're ruling the carbon dioxide, at least under Obama, that carbon dioxide is a toxin. It's not. You and I are exhaling it right now. It's part of the natural cycle. But these administrative agencies have just, you know, they're their own organism, and

they grow up and they strangle everything around it. And so you have all these things now. The EPA has intent, has by all intents really become just, this is just an automatic you know controller and limiter of any kind of economic activity is really what the EPA's turned into I think. Well that's right and Mitt Romney had he been elected was going to combine the Commerce Department and the EPA. So his idea was, I'm going to make you guys fight it out behind closed doors, rather than having the Commerce Department saying, this is bad for America, and the EPA saying, no, we don't care. And

a lot of it has to do with these single purpose outfits, where there is no reason for compromise or conciliation of the legitimate needs of the other way of looking at things. Well, you see, there are no perfect solutions to anything out there in the human world. There are possible solutions and compromises, but there are choices. We really have to just make choices, and there will be problems no matter how we decide it. But it's a way of you have to kind of you have to make judgment calls I guess is what we're talking about here John right? Well yes except that if you have to balance it with a single purpose they they're not there to balance that's the

problem. Exactly everything well you know you're the EPA hammer and so everybody else is a nail for you to pound in right? That's the way it's worked. That's right. And that's what happens with our NGOs. We have a lot of large, we didn't have in 1972, these large non-government operations, the non-profits. And so if you come up to an environmental NGO that has millions to give away to politicians and you say no we want to have a balance on between commerce and the environment. Oh no you don't. Oh no you don't. No we're a single-purpose NGO and all we care about is our little

our little fiefdom. And so what you've got is the special interests here are not the special interests of business, which are far more legitimate, because usually businesses don't spend money unless it's really important to their core business. You have these outfits that sort of go along with the administrative state, that like you say, to them there are hammers and everything is a nail. And it's not good. It's not good because now you have people beholden to them. That's one of the reasons that the Democratic Party is no longer responsive to the will of the people as much as the Republican Party, because they are more in bed with these

single-purpose outfits. The teachers union, the environmental sector, they can't do anything. They can't exercise independent judgment and they have to go down with the ship now. Yeah, they're beholden to it. I don't know if you caught that article or an article since you're in the Bay Area. Did you ever read anything about that point, is it Point Rains Park out on the coast or Point Rains? Yes, sure, sure, sure. I go out there quite a bit. And I read that the big environmental organizations, NGOs, ended up cutting a special, frankly, a corrupt deal in my opinion there. All the ranchers that were out there in that park that had that land way back in, they

sold it to the federal government only under the assumption that they were going to be able to continue to ranch there. And just recently, and this was cut in the very last days of the Joe Biden administration, they cut this secret deal and they throw them all off of it in spite of the fact that they sold the land to the government. But these big environmental NGOs, Nature's Conservancy and all the rest of it, they paid them off, like maybe $30 million, but they took it from them. And the power and corruptness of these environmental groups is something to behold, especially when the government gets in bed with them, John.

I don't know if you've kept up on that story. I just read that in one of your papers. Well, we do. And my wife, and I'll just tell you this, it's pretty funny. My wife has got a wonderful friend out there who is just a passionate environmentalist, a conservationist. He leads the ladies along nature hikes and so forth, and he's passionate about protecting the elk and all this stuff. And he was always on the side

of getting rid of the ranchers. No, I'm not her husband. You know, it was their land, you know, it was their land. And it's like... Well, that's right. And so anyway, so what happens though is, is that they say, yeah, like you say, they say we're allowed to keep ranching there, that was part of the deal, and so forth. And then, and all that. But so my point is, I would rather see them keep ranching. I'll tell you why. Because I think they supply needed foodstuffs for the Bay Area. You know, you've got basically dairy and you've got just meat, cattle, and so forth, and cheese and so forth. And come on, you've got thousands and thousands of acres out there. We do a really good job out here of preserving land. And so this whole

place is like a big... I'm in Marin County, where Point Reyes is, and I'll tell you, you've got... It is the biggest piece of land you've ever seen in the major American city, and we've got 250,000 people in it. I mean, it's just... This county is as big as Rhode Island, just about. We've got 250,000 people. So we're preserving land 250,000 people. So we're preserving land all over the place, and the elk have plenty of places to go. Now, if you say that in front of my wife, she's been convinced by her guy, who's a wonderful guy, he's a sweet guy who loves the elk and so forth and so on, that they don't, elk don't like to, you know, run into fences that want to graze here and graze there, and gee,

they're fighting with the cattle over there, certain kinds of grasses. But I think, and then the other thing the Obama administration did out in the same area is, they closed down an oyster operation that had been going on for 100 years, that was in one of the, what are you going to call it, sort of a... Estuary or something? An estuary. Exactly. Good word. Thank you. He was in one of the, what are you going to call it, sort of a... Estuary or something? An estuary, exactly. Good word, thank you. He was in an estuary.

And I say, now, what are we doing? We're cutting out a really good supply of oysters for what overall purpose? It's not really going to affect the Pacific Ocean much. And you know, but that's sort of the stuff environments like to do. They don't think, look, this thing is not really a big deal. Let it happen. We can't have perfection here. We are a species like other species on the planet that change things a bit. You know, beavers come in and damn things and you know and so forth and so on and sorry about that but that's part of nature and we're part of nature too and we ought to be able to

have our little incursion in the natural order of things. But you know, like I say, you see the other side if you don't care about the bigger picture. And it really is sort of a microcosm of the type of morality that we're fighting here. The morality of the far left focuses only on a few things to the exclusion of all else. The morality of the more conservative or traditional people involves a much broader scope of morality. Yes, conservative or normal people want to help the disadvantaged, but they also want to keep things balanced for the rest of society, because society has its interests beyond just a few little portions of it. And so I think that's the fight here.

Should we have a little more balance in our environmental outlook? And I think that's what Trump stands for. Yeah, he is. In fact, yesterday in his speech, he was talking about the common sense revolution, touting that. And I think that's an appropriate way to look at it. There has to be some universal truths here. Truth is not fungible.

All right. Hey, before we take off, though, I did want to get back to something in the Trump administration. And I'll bet you, you being an attorney had an interesting take on, I mean, Pam Bondi really came on a lot of fire for releasing the Epstein, well, there's the Epstein files dump, and it ended up not being what, or at least how it was sold there.

What do you think happened there and what's going to happen next in your opinion? Well, it is. And you know, I'm something of an historian on the FBI, and I've written about the FBI, and my client, deep throat, was of course, his whole thing was the FBI. This is not unusual that there are two strands meeting here. One of them is that traditionally in the FBI, the New York field office has been its own power. It rarely is responsive to the

Attorney General or the head of the FBI, and that's sort of a known joke within the Bureau, and they've just always been tough to lasso under. And that's part of this. But the second part of it is something that just developed in the last 20 years, and that is the politicization. I say 20 years, more like 10 years under James Comey. He politicized the Bureau, and he politicized it in D.C. and New York big time, because those are the centers of power. As a matter of fact, I think his daughter is even the prosecutor there in the Southern District of New York.

He's just very influential. But what he did do when he had the FBI is he got rid of the old salts, the grumpy guys that would not stand for politicization, and he brought in the Andrew McCabes of the world and moved them up very quickly. And that's the way that Russiagate happened, because he surrounded himself. Call him what you will. I mean, call me, he's a smart guy. I don't. I think he's not a great guy, but he's a smart one. And he surrounded himself with people that will do these things. One of his first acts in the FBI was to get rid of the old-time

straight guys and bring in the McCabes of the world and the Peter Strokes. So anyway, that's the background here. And so what we have is I think the FBI is protecting some political favorites. You will find when the names come out that there will be some political names on there and they will be more on the democratic side. So that to me is the double whammy here, the combination of New York's field office arrogance that is traditional plus the recent politicization meets up in this one. Now, why did Pam or do you think Pam was misled that there was more to it?

Because generally speaking any time a prosecutor is going to put the information out or the evidence out They usually you know make sure that they have it before they talk about it I don't know maybe now of course the Trump the Trump administration has been working though on a very much we got a hurry up and hurry up and I understand kind of what they're what they're thinking about because you know the the attacks are coming so fast and furious in reverse too they're thinking we got to get as much done as much possible right away but I think this one bit them a little bit huh yeah yeah yeah you know she rushed too much it wasn't wise she didn't know what was in there and so she shouldn't have shut off her mouth. But she's probably under a lot of pressure from the White House.

They're saying, when are we going to release the Epstein things? And you know, they are very, very much go, go, go. And it bothers me a little bit because they're in such a rush. The Romans had a saying that I had to learn in high school in Latin, I don't know what it is now, but the saying translates, make haste slowly. The Trump administration is not making haste slowly. I would like to see them sit there, look at organization charts, bring in the head of an organization and say, look, I want you in the next two weeks, I want you to come up with a plan to cut

30% of your employees, and you tell me why, and tell me what functions you're going to be hurting. If you did that across government, I think people would be happy that people are doing this, and we might see cuts three or four or five or six months from now. It doesn't have to happen right away. I think people would be happy that people are doing this and we might see cuts Three or four or five or six months from now doesn't have to happen right away I don't like the idea of rushing so much that you know that we're cutting people that they get embarrassed or cutting people that are Essential yeah, or that it gets but it ends up being reversed by by court action, too And it's like always trying to see what you can it's it like always trying to see what you can get away with rather than what you can actually make stick. I think a lot of people have gotten concerned about this too. It would take Congress though probably to make a lot of that stick and maybe that's the issue.

He doesn't have a big, big, big Republican majority there. Maybe that's the issue. Well, I think more considered action would be the best. If you looked at this and it looked like there was a plan of an employer to do something, then I think it's more likely to be upheld by the courts. But you know, that's the fight we've got here. And I think in some ways the Trump administration relishes the public fight because it does give them some public support. Now, is the public going to get tired of this, or are we going to end up two years from now having a Democratic Congress?

That's what I worry about. I hope not. I hope not. But I also understand why they're looking to get a lot of victories or a lot of things, you know, throwing a lot of dust in the air, too, because as you can also see, the opposition, democratic opposition, doesn't seem to really have a plan other than to hissy fit and complain. You know, at this point, hold up signs that say, you know, false or whatever it is at the speech.

They don't really have a plan. Well, that's right. And last night, they looked terrible because they did not... they just sat there glumly the whole night and they wouldn't clap for someone who'd lost their kid. Oh, and not standing for the cancer survivor who was named the honorary Secret Service agent, right? You know, that kind of thing. And they're all sitting on their hands. What is it? Have you no soul? Have you no heart is astounding to watch that well, that's right and all of it was because Gee, we don't like Trump. Well, I'm sorry. Don't act like little kids and they are they really acted very maturely

These are supposed to be legislators Slayers who are wise they tell so wise they are on the talk shows, and then they act like this. I'm sorry, it just doesn't go with the American people. And as Ted Cruz said, he used to like these State of the Union addresses because he always would try to figure out who stands for what. And that is when something is announced, how much of the Democrats will stand up and clap and how, when they won't? And also for the Republicans, which ones will they stand up and clap when they won't. And also for the Republicans.

Which ones will they stand up for? And of course, not everybody stands up. That's fine. You may be from one state that has one interest. But don't sit there en masse and do nothing. It's like your little junior high cabal. That's what you are, and it doesn't look good. John O'Connor, author of Postgate, out of the Washington Post, betrayed, deep throat,

covered up Watergate, began today's partisan advocacy journalism. John, thanks for taking a few minutes. We went a little bit longer than I thought we would, but you know, when I get a good legal eagle who has been a prosecutor and done all this stuff, it's kind of, it's fun to delve into all of these cases because something tells me that court decisions, we're going to get a floodgate of those. Would that be fair? Or a fire hose? Well, there's going to be a lot of them. Yeah, it's a fire hose of decisions and it's a field day for the professors who are dealing with the various conflicts between the branches of government.

This is all going to come in. How much power do the courts have? How much power does the legislature have? And how much power does the executive have? And also the executive versus the administrative state. So stay tuned because this is going to be a continuing source of discussion. John, always a pleasure. Thanks for coming on and giving us your time, okay? You be well. Okay, take care, buddy. See you.

Thank you. 743 KMED, and running a little late on the news, we'll get to that next, and then, boy, we'll take your calls and maybe do a Diner 62 quiz. Got a lot of fun on the way. Matt here with the Josephine County Republican Party. It's time for Patriots to Unite. Hi, I'm Stephen with Stephen Westwellven westwood refining and i'm on some open phone time here seven seven oh five six three three was your impression last night my favorite part of the speech was still

about the kids protecting the kids that's the one that was the uh... the money quote for me you are perfect as you are if we can protect the kids. That's the one that was the money quote for me. You are perfect as you are. If we can't protect the kids and keep them available and keep them mentally healthy, keep them physically healthy and straight and on the narrow path, if we can't tell the truth about gender, about boys, girls, men, women, all the rest of it I think is just nibbling around the edges. That's kind of how I see that. 7705633. James is in Selma. Hello, James. What's on your mind? I was looking around today this morning and on InfoWars in the middle, there's a General Flynn, there's an article of General Flynn where he

talks about Victoria Nuland's gonna feel the pain about the two assassination attempts against the president and then he went on to say that Ukraine's money laundering about half a trillion dollars and he's saying that well we do know that Zelensky supposedly has some secret or maybe not so secret accounts and In more than one house for sure. So he's done. Okay Elan's they investigated that the money's coming back to to that the money's coming back to Washington DC to different pockets, but they're going to investigate that where the money has been going, and also that

that Zawinski's friends with Putin, and so it's quite a... That's an interesting... okay, so he's friends with Putin. Right. So is this just all a fake job then? A put up? I don't know. Maybe it's to clear clear out... You know, this isn't conspiracy theory Thursday. You're kind of taking me down that... No, but it's from General Flynn's own lips. Well, Flynn's a patriot. I mean, there's no doubt about that. It was treated very badly in the situation. I'm going to have to look that up myself. I usually try to stay away from infowars a little bit. Sometimes things are stretched a little bit. It's right from General Flynn's lips. It's a video of him saying it. All right. Okay, yeah. I don't always trust videos either. Heck, I was watching,

speaking of which, I had more than one person, even my brother, sent me the AI. I think it was on Martin Armstrong's website, Martin Armstrong, the financier. And there was an AI interview. It was an AI conversation. It was obviously Zelensky and Trump, but it was done in computer modified AI. How the interview really went, it was incredibly crass. And I couldn't play it on the air for you. I couldn't play it on the air, but it was very funny. That is the problem when someone says, well I saw it from someone's lips. Unless you're watching something live, I don't know what to tell you. I mean it could be a real... it can be real tough to discern what was actually true and what is not. That's all I'm getting at. Makes it a real challenge. Speaking of

which, what is true and really is not. Yesterday, listener David from the Bay Area, I don't know if you caught this, this was at the very end of the show and I don't have a call screener, so I take people live and we just kind of converse and that's what we do, 770-5633 by the way, and and he called me in the last couple minutes yesterday on Pebble in Your Shoe Tuesday. And he's saying, Bill last couple minutes yesterday on Pebble in Your Shoe Tuesday. He was saying, Bill, you better reboot your computer because Putin is coming after us and Trump has turned off all of the cybersecurity and this and that and the other.

And I didn't really know what he was talking about. And my boss, George, even said, gosh, you know, I was kind of waiting for a punch line out of that, thinking that he was crazy. Well, I think I figured out what David was calling about. Now he is from the Bay Area, and sometimes he could be like those same people that were downtown hissy fitting in Medford too, a certain worldview. This is what I think he was talking about. And he stretched it to say, well, they're turning off cyber

security. Now this is from CNN. United States suspends offensive cyber operations against Russia, according to a senior US official. It's suspended operations and planning for offensive cyber operations against Russia. In other words, you are fighting or intentionally going after Russia. And the suspension is a major blow, the officials said, especially since planning for such operations, this is from CNN, takes time and research to carry out. According to the secret official, the concern is that the pause on offensive cyber operations against Russia will make the US more vulnerable to potential cyber attacks from Moscow, which has a formidable

cadre of hackers capable of disrupting US critical infrastructure and collecting sensitive intelligence. That's not quite the same, though, as implying that my Microsoft Defender antivirus is now going to be taken over by Vlad. I don't think that is so it's a bit of a stretch so I think that's what David was talking about. Okay? All right. Next we're going to be talking about the Diner 62 real American quiz. Why don't you jump on this? I'd be happy to give you a $20 gift certificate at Diner 62. The amazing, oh gosh, the lunches and the breakfast

that I get from their place, just amazing. One of the most recent lunches I had though was still the Diner 62 burger. And if you have not tried that, man, you're gonna love it. Diner 62 burger, you get a nice big juicy hamburger, you get onions, sweet potato fries, I mean all these kinds of things. I ended up getting it, it has a hamburger and then and then ham and then like sliced ham on top of that and all the

fixings and I swear that hamburger could feed three people. But I don't know. They gave it to me anyway. I love it. You can try that and all sorts of other things. And they have a half ham special still on effect 1115 Monday through Friday during the morning show. All right. alright your lunch destination breakfast and more. Diner 62 7705633 let's play it next and have some fun. At Grover Electric on plumbing service is everything. To back it up this com... The Bill Meyers Show on 1063 KMED. 756-962, Real American Quiz.

And joining me right now is Jerry. Hello Jerry, how you doing? Good morning Bill. Jerry, great to have you here. Now it's tomorrow in history. March 6, 1982, best-selling writer and philosopher, Ayn Rand. She dies at the age of 77. Couple days later at the funeral home visitation,

a floral arrangement shaped like a six-foot dollar sign stood next to her casket, symbolizing her passionate belief in the philosophy she called objectivism, espousing rational selfishness, unfettered individualism, and unregulated free markets. Now, Ayn Rand, who was born and educated in Russia, moved to the US at the age of 21, after wanting to escape the West and witnessing the badness of Soviet rule. I understand that. Hoping to become a screenwriter, she lived in Chicago, then Los Angeles, working in the movie industry before settling in New York City.

Ayn Rand, known in Russia as Alssa Zinovienna Rosenbaum, changed her name to protect her family in Russia because she didn't want them attacked by the Ruskies. She was known by another name besides Ayn Rand. What was her name? What was her American name? Was it A? I didn't know this so take a guess. I won't pick on you, okay? Okay. Her American name, was it Lisa Roberts? That's A.

B, Rose Baumgartner. C, Alyssa Rose. D, Zena Evans. Or was it E, Alice O'Connor? It's one of those five. What do you think? What was C again? C was Alyssa Rose.

I'm going to go with B. Rose Baumgartner is very close to the other way. No. I'm sorry Jerry, I was pulling for you. Let me go to V. V's in trail. Hello V, we're talking about Ayn Rand's American name when she was here. So it's not Rose, was it Lisa Roberts, Alyssa Rose, Zena Evans, or Alice O'Connor? I'll go with Alice O'Connor and I

don't know why. You know, I think you're... are you psychic? Maybe if you give me the prize. Yeah, it's a good day. Yeah, Alice O'Connor. Does that sound about as Irish-American as it gets? Just kind of like everything? Alice, right? You know, that kind of thing. At some point, Ayn Rand changed her name to Alice and then married Frank O'Connor, who was an Irish-American Catholic while working in Hollywood. They met on the set of King of Kings Kings where O'Connor played a Roman soldier and Ayn Rand was an extra and they got married. Now Rand drew cultish admiration and also nasty rebukes for her philosophy of objectivism here. It taught that selfishness is a virtue and altruism is a vice. I'm not

quite there with her but her passionate defense of laissez-faire capitalism endeared her to a bunch of political conservatives and CEOs. Alan Greenspan, former chair of the Federal Reserve, is a big fan. Critics decried her elevation of reason at the expense of human emotion and her focus on extreme individualism with no concern for the greater good is misguided and toxic. And then we look sometimes here, V, at how the greater good means that you get screwed. So we've got to get some balance in there one way or the other. But I'll tell you what, we're going to have some altruism. We're sending you to diner 62. Okay? Thank you.

And we'll take care of business. And then we'll take more of your calls too. 770-5633. KMED, KMED, HD1, Eagle Point Medford, KPXG. Grants passed.