No Spin News - Weekend Edition - July 25, 2026

Summary

Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis

Episode: No Spin News - Weekend Edition – July 25, 2026
Host: Bill O’Reilly
Notable Guests: Isaac Saul (Realtangle.com), Thomas Berry (Cato Institute), Dr. Alan Amendenhall (Heritage Foundation)
Date: July 25, 2026

---

Overview of Episode

In this wide-ranging weekend edition, Bill O’Reilly examines pressing issues shaping the U.S. political and media landscapes. The show explores controversy around recent election interference revelations, America’s evolving urban/rural divide, progressive dominance in selected states, the ongoing conflict between corporate media and the Trump administration, the changing public perception of socialism and Marxism, and debates around immigration enforcement. With a mix of analysis, debate, and sharp critique, O’Reilly aims to provide clarity while engaging with experts and dissenting voices.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The State of the U.S.: Two "Vexing" Problems

• Opening Memo: O’Reilly frames current U.S. concerns as primarily about “people and their money” and the role of Iran, noting relative calm beyond these issues.
  • “We have two big problems. People and their money and Iran... Word of the day: vexing.” ([00:46])
• World Cup as Microcosm: Praises the organization and positive global image of the U.S. during the event, highlighting the absence of major scandals or violence.
  • Trump’s appearance at MetLife Stadium was discussed, with O’Reilly downplaying media claims he was loudly booed.
    • “I watched it six times... I didn't hear a lot of boos. I heard some, but not overwhelming.” ([02:07])

---

2. Trump’s Speech: Allegations of Foreign Election Interference

Key Claims and Responses

• Trump alleges compromised U.S. elections, citing interference from China and Russia, supported by newly declassified documents.
• O’Reilly: “China and Russia interfered and began interfering with our elections after Trump was elected the first time, and it reached this height in 2020.” ([06:23])
• Claims include mass data hacks, accusations of journalists being paid to write negative Trump articles (not fully substantiated), and mention of "vote bundlers" in states like California.
  • “Almost 300,000 names... by people who are dead or not living where they said they were living or in this country illegally or whatever it may be. 300,000, okay, that's not going to overwhelm an election, but it's a lot.” ([10:41])

Critics' Responses & Media Coverage

• Democratic leaders (Booker, Newsom, Warner) denounce Trump’s speech as lies, but O’Reilly challenges their specifics.
  • “Booker says that Donald Trump's speech was, quote, full of outright lies. Like what? Like what? He doesn't say.” ([11:12])
• Mark Warner, despite sitting on the Intelligence Committee that issued similar warnings in 2021, called Trump’s address a “series of falsehoods.”
  • O’Reilly repeatedly asks for concrete examples from critics, finding their responses lacking.

Expert Perspective: Isaac Saul (Realtangle.com)

• Agrees there is foreign interest in U.S. elections but notes the released documents do not prove votes were changed or the 2020 election was "stolen."
  • “None of the documents that he put forward support that particular notion, I think.” ([18:08])
  • “What the intelligence community assessment actually says is that China made the calculation interfering in the election in 2020 was not worth the risk.” ([22:31])
  • “There isn't any overwhelming evidence that shows the state of Georgia... would have turned out differently.” ([19:19])
• The pair agree real vulnerabilities exist, but urge evidence-based investigation and public trust in the process.

Public Apathy & Polarization

• Voter fatigue and disengagement is highlighted as “dangerous” for democracy.
  • “Big segment of the American electorate... They either love Trump or they hate Trump... I don't know if that's healthy for the country.” ([24:00])

---

3. Rural vs. Urban America: The Great Divide

• O’Reilly examines the widening gulf in values and voting patterns between urban centers and rural/suburban areas.
  • “The gap between Americans who live in the big cities and those who live in rural areas or the suburbs is getting wider. That is the key to voting patterns in the future.” ([25:26])
• Focus on Minnesota: Once considered mainstream, now described as “Loonville” due to progressive governance and controversial criminal justice outcomes.
  • Example: Governor Tim Walz supported paroling a man convicted of child abuse, drawing scorn from O’Reilly and being compared to coverage of January 6.
    • “There's no comparison between raping a 10-year-old girl and invading the Capitol building... On the moral chart, none.” ([28:55])
• Large-scale COVID relief fraud involving Somali immigrants is mentioned as an example of failed oversight.
  • “110 [charged]... 66 convicted... Now Minnesota joins California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Washington state and a bunch of others as progressive loons.” ([32:45])

---

4. Trump vs. Corporate Media & The FCC Battle

Secrets and Speech

• Trump administration threatens NBC and ABC with possible license revocation for not airing his recent speech; also seeks reporter records over leaked plane security.
  • “Now Trump wants to know who leaked the information... The Justice Department is issuing subpoenas... The Trump administration is threatening NBC and ABC... threatening to take away their licenses.” ([34:10-38:02])

Expert Perspective: Thomas Berry (Cato Institute)

• Stresses the constraints of the First Amendment: The government cannot punish networks for refusing to air presidential speeches based on viewpoint.
  • “If it turns out that's the reason why a license renewal was denied, I think a court would likely strike down that action as violating the First Amendment.” ([38:29])
• On national security leaks: Real risk must be proven, courts should examine classified evidence privately.
  • “Sometimes national security concerns do win out... But courts have to look for real evidence, not just claims.” ([39:06])
• Says free speech has never been more robust; multiple media channels limit the damage that any one network can inflict by omission.
  • “Free speech is winning because we have more sources of news than we ever have before...” ([40:54])
• O’Reilly worries that corporate media is monolithic and harms public interest by downplaying stories like the Hunter Biden laptop.
  • “abc, NBC and CBS actively downplayed an important piece of news that might have influenced votes... I don't know how that could ever be described as being in the public interest.” ([42:12])

---

5. Debating Immigration Enforcement: Cuomo vs. O’Reilly

• O’Reilly recounts his recent appearance on Chris Cuomo’s News Nation show, sharply criticizing media reliance on orgs like Human Rights Watch (which he calls “radical left”).
  • “You made a big journalistic mistake today... by basing your monologue on Human Rights Watch... Human Rights Watch, just like the Southern Poverty Law center, is an agenda driven organization.” ([48:57])
• Debates Cuomo over whether ICE targets criminals versus low-level offenders:
  • “I don't like the idea of hunting down misdemeanors. Okay, you want to hunt down a killer, hunt them down.” – Chris Cuomo ([52:51])
• O’Reilly counters with polling and federal stats:
  • “Harvard Harris, 55% of Americans want all migrants, all of them, deported. 79% want criminal migrants out.” ([53:20])
  • “70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted of or charged with a crime in the USA.” ([54:43])
• Both agree the data and government transparency are lacking, leading to public confusion and media spin.

---

6. Rise of Socialism & Marxism in America

Data & Trends

• O’Reilly cites a CNBC poll: Positive views of socialism have risen from 19% (2020) to 28% (2026).
  • “Positive on socialism was 19%. So they are up 9%... That's a pretty big leap.” ([58:01])

Expert Perspective: Dr. Alan Amendenhall (Heritage Foundation)

• Describes a “long march through the institutions” by Marxists, citing the infiltration of schools, media, and even the Smithsonian’s training materials.
  • “Southern Poverty Law Center's training materials are being used by the Smithsonian... They're teaching... the scientific method... as signals of nefarious white culture.” ([60:13])
• Argues that ignorance among young people, grievance culture, and ideological indoctrination are fueling the trend.
  • “A lot of it is unfortunately just ignorance among young people... They can't read, they don't do the work.” ([63:45])
• O’Reilly: “An entire political party is now under heavy influence from the Marxist faction. And that is new.” ([64:48])
• Amendenhall: “They're building off this vocabulary... Everything in terms of oppressor and oppressed... young people who are frustrated and want to air grievances are attracted to... grievance culture.” ([65:08])
• Both stress legitimate economic grievances for youth but urge hard work and personal responsibility as antidotes.

---

7. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On U.S. Image at World Cup:
  “It was almost a miracle. Nothing terrible happened. No terror attacks, no brutal crimes, no scandals.” – Bill O’Reilly ([01:22])

• On Accusations of Trump Boos:
  “We could not ascertain how much booing there was... All of these anti Trump organizations are saying he was booed and humiliated. Is that true? It is not true.” – Bill O’Reilly ([02:54])

• On Election Security:
  “We have intel that says 220 million [voter files] were compromised... If a foreign nation wants to get a voter profile on everybody... there's a reason. This is crazy. This is insane.” – Bill O’Reilly ([13:29])

• On Urban/Rural Divide:
  “Minnesota joins California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York... as progressive loons. Places that have no perspective, aren’t interested in justice at all. And their conduct's appalling.” – Bill O’Reilly ([33:03])

• On First Amendment & Networks:
  “If a president doesn’t like a particular broadcast station... because it’s not airing either his own speeches or speeches favorable to him... a court would likely strike down that action as violating the First Amendment.” – Thomas Berry, Cato Institute ([38:29])

• On Socialism’s Rise:
  “The socialistic movement in America is up to about 25% of people who want stuff, they don't want to compete in capitalism. They like the socialism system.” – Bill O’Reilly ([59:39])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Opening theme, setting context: [00:46]
• World Cup reflections & Trump at stadium: [01:22]
• Trump's Speech, Allegations of Election Interference: [06:23]
• Fact-checking Trump critics, foreign interference debate: [11:12]
• Expert: Isaac Saul on election vulnerabilities, media reaction: [17:16]
• Polarization and voter (dis)engagement: [24:00]
• Urban vs. Rural America & Minnesota under Progressives: [25:26]
• Media battles: FCC, network licenses, national security: [34:10], [38:29]
• Debate with Chris Cuomo on ICE, Human Rights Watch, media bias: [48:57], [52:51], [53:20]
• Socialism, Marxism, youth, and the long march through institutions: [58:01], [60:13]
• Final guest & advice to young people: [63:45]
• Closing thoughts and upcoming programming: [68:35]

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers a robust, combative, and wide-ranging snapshot of America’s divided political culture as seen by O’Reilly. With tough exchanges, guest rebuttals, and a steady stream of media criticism, it attempts to demystify recent controversies and ongoing debates in U.S. politics. Listeners come away with a clear sense of partisan divides, the complexities of election security, the interplay of media, law, and free speech, and the growing influence of progressive and Marxist thought — all while O’Reilly maintains his signature “no spin” approach.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, if you're here listening, you know you don't want spin, right? You know that Bill knows that Bill does not mess with the spin. You want it straight. So here's a straight recommendation. I'm Mike Baker, former CIA officer, and every day on the President's Daily Brief, I do for national security and geopolitics exactly what this show does for the news. No agenda, no hysteria, no opinion, just the facts. We tell you what's happening, you decide how to think about it. It's named for the brief that lands on the president's desk. And it runs every single day, 20 minutes in the morning, 10 minutes in the afternoon. Smart, fast, honest. Follow the President's Daily Brief on Apple, Spotify or wherever you listen.

[B]

Welcome to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[C]

Our big problem in the USA right now, we have two big problems. People and their money and Iran and everything else is fairly calm. But those big problems are vexing. Word of the day vexing. And that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. So the World cup is a big success and it was a great display of American society. And think about it, it's almost a miracle. Nothing terrible happened. No terror attacks, no brutal crimes, no scandals, really. So somebody was watching out for us on the World cup stage. And these images are broadcast all over the world. Makes it hard for the American haters to counter those images. I was talking to a friend of mine in Kansas City and he just said not only did the area make a lot of money, but they had a lot of friends and everybody was buoyant, okay, about the World Cup. Now, the only controversy that the anti Trump people could gin up was that he was booed at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey when he was introduced on Sunday. Donald Trump, of course, went to the game. Now I watched it six times. Now I'm watching television broadcasts on Fox six times. I didn't hear a lot of boos. I heard some, but not overwhelming. If I were out there, I would have gotten more. Then I asked my staff, which has better hearing, and I said, look, canvas it Iran. See if you can find a cascade of boos sustained. And let me know because I don't want to look like an idiot here, but all of these anti Trump organizations are saying he was booed and humiliated. Is that true? It is not true. Now, we could not ascertain how much booing there was. We don't have a little meter. And there was very loud music, too, accompanying the president on the field. The one area that is debatable is Sports Illustrated magazine. They hate Trump. And they somehow got some kind of video which shows he was heavily booed. It might have been in the men's room someplace on level six, Nobody knows. But overall, everybody on the field after the game, with the exception of some Argentinian players, were very respectful. I think that's an accurate statement. And the Spanish players were great. And I don't even like Spain now, but they were great. If we were American players up there, some of them would have hot shot at it. You know that some of them would have ran out and, oh, I'm not going to do it. Yeah, not the Spanish young guys. They all put the medal on there. They were respect. Every one of them was respectful. Okay, so then you had the head of the soccer commission, the president then exited. President Claudia Sheinbaum, the president of Mexico, and then after him, the prime Minister of Canada, Carney. Now, they were there because they had games. Canada and Mexico had games.

[D]

But.

[C]

But it was a nice moment to see the president with Sheinbaum and Carney. We need less confrontation now as a country for a while. I mean, bad things are going to happen. We're going to have to do that. I know, but less confrontation is better for everybody. And I'm going. You know that. Whoever put that together, very smart. Very smart. Okay, so we liked all of that. As for the game itself, I fell asleep. I'm an old guy, and I've been running around like you would not believe over the last couple of weeks. I mean, I don't have any idea how I do it, but I fell asleep. One nil was the final. Nil means nothing. I like Neil, and I didn't want to fall asleep. I didn't try to fall asleep. I didn't take. Relax. I just conked. So might have been because I was listening to the Met game while driving back from Eastern Long Island. So that might have set the stage, but anyway, I didn't sleep a long time, but I fell asleep during the game. I got to be honest. Okay. Anyway, the next World cup is Spain, Portugal, and Morocco. And I can guarantee you that's going to be chaos. Number one, it's going to be 110 degrees in those places. They don't have dome stadiums. Morocco. Hey, good luck. Nice country, but able to manage crowds like that. No. And that takes place July 8th, June 8th to July 21st, 20, 20, 30. Okay, so that's four years away. And that's a memo.

[B]

You're listening to the no Spa News weekend edition.

[C]

So Trump gives a Speech is simple. He believes that the American election process is compromised, that in many places, California leads the league, you don't have a fair vote anymore. And so he produces a whole bunch of declassified information to back this up. The main contention is that China and Russia interfered and began interfering with our elections after Trump was elected the first time, and it reached this height in 2020. So what they did was they swooped data, they hacked. Trump makes the accusation that they bought journalists to write bad articles about him that wasn't backed up with any names or any names in what was declassified. Okay. Which for me, I would have put the names out there. If it's in the memo, I would have put them out there. Okay. So I knew you knew anybody who's seeking information, who understands happening in this country. No matter what President Trump said, the Democrats and the anti Trump press were not going to believe him. That's it. Okay. And that's exactly what happened. Exactly. So declassified information that says China was intruding. That's a fact. That's in writing, it's in stone. Now, the press has changed it now to fraud accusations. There are some, primarily driven by President Trump, that there was fraud in Michigan and California and other selected places, Georgia, that manipulated the vote. But overall, the national intelligence people, the FBI, the nsa, the CIA, gave the president memos and said China is hacking us trying to get information rolls and Russia's doing other things. The Hunter Biden situation, okay, all of that. So I'm reading it and I'm going, okay, all right, this is logical. And the one fact that stood out was almost 300,000 names were on the rolls, or probably many of them still are, by people who are dead or not living where they said they were living or in this country illegally or whatever it may be. 300,000, okay, that's not going to overwhelm an election, but it's a lot. And apparently China got access to that, according to these memos. All right, you with me so far? So anybody watching him? You know, like Trump goes, it's interesting, you know, we got two of our adversaries trying to interfere with our election. We should all band together and take that seriously. No way. Not going to happen. Cory Booker is senator from New Jersey. He opens it up, go. Donald Trump's speech was full of outright lies, dangerous disinformation, and yet again, his attempts to, to undermine and subvert our democracy. Now he knows he's headed toward midterm losses, and his only hope is to undermine the validity and trust in Our elections. Unfortunately, Booker says that Donald Trump's speech was, quote, full of outright lies. Like what? Like what? He doesn't say. Newsom in California go. Foreign interference in our elections. That's a real thing. Nothing about what you watched tonight, though, was real. It's make believe. He wants to rig the election in 2026. What's make believe? Now he's a governor of Estate Newsom. He does not have access to, to U.S. intelligence. He's not a federal official. What was not real?

[E]

What?

[C]

Give me one. Nothing. Can't do it. And the press just sits there. So lets this stuff go. Third one. Mark Warner, Senator from Virginia. He, along with Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut, are the two biggest Trump haters in the Senate. Roll Warner. As an American, I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed that the President of the United States tried to speak to the whole nation with a whole series of falsehoods. Like what? Series of falsehoods. Like what? Okay, we called Warner's office, couldn't get through. We're going to invite him on. Do it live. I'm going to the whole rest of the month. I'm going to invite him on every day. He'll never come on. Because all I got to do is say, all right, you told the nation that President Trump's speech was a, quote, whole series of falsehoods. Give me one. Do you think that man can do it? He can't. Yet the press. I don't care. Okay, Now I'm going to harken back to Neville Roy Singham a story that we broke in conjunction with others last January. Now he is working for Beijing and He has pumped $300 million into getting information and organizing anti American demonstrations. This guy lives in Shanghai. His name again, is Neville Roy Singham. It's a huge scandal. There is a federal grand jury seated now investigating all of this. So if you're doubting that China tried to interfere with our election, all you got to do is go over to Neville Roy Singerman. $300 million at least. Okay? Trying to undermine our society. So you're telling me that China's not trying to mess around with our election? That does make no sense whatsoever. None. Then you have stats. So Trump says China illegally acquired 220 million US voter files. That means they know where you live, they know where I live, or whatever. 220 million 350 million people in a country. But when you're born, you get a Social Security number. That's what China was after. Okay, so Trump says, we have intel that says 220 million were compromised. You know what the answer to that is? Well, you can buy that information. You can go to North Dakota and get that information. I don't know whether you can or can't because each state is different. But if a foreign nation wants to get a voter profile on everybody in the country, there's a reason. Okay, this is crazy. This is insane. And Trump also says this is going on since mid 2018, second year of his first term, and it took the intel services a while to figure out what's going on. All right? Then he makes accusation China wanted him to lose. And 20. And on and on and on and on. Then he points to Michigan, where there was a FBI raid that was attached to this. Then he points to the journalistic community. But this was kind of flimsy. I'd like more information says China paid journalists to write bad things about Trump. I'd like more on that. I need to know how that worked, okay? And that Biden Department of justice after 2020 election, they just threw it away. They didn't bother with it at all, which I believe, but you know, I can't prove that, but I believe it. All right? So I wrote the column, and the column is, truth be told. And here's what I believe, all right? That a number of anti Trump people within the intel services, look at James Comey, for example, try to play down all of this information. Trump himself says he didn't get a lot of these briefings. I believe that. I do believe it. Okay, could be wrong, but I believe it. Vote bundlers in states like California have pressed the system to its limit. So they go to house to house, apartment to apartment, homeless camp to homeless camp. They give people $5. The people sign their vote for the Democrat, and they walk away with a big bundle of votes and drop them off. I believe that is happening. I don't think there's any doubt it's happening. There isn't a tsunami of foreign nationals voting here, but they do vote, particularly in California. California is ground zero for all of this. And Trump is not going to get, in my opinion, the Save America act passed, which is why he gave the speech in the first place. It's not going to go for it. The Senate will never put the 60 up to put it on the floor. Not going to happen unless the Republicans win in the midterms. Joining us now from Newark, New Jersey is Isaac Saul. You may know him. He runs realtangle.com Independent Subscriber Supported Newsletter, which I read, which is why he's on A program. All right, where am I going wrong here, Isaac?

[D]

Bill, you're so good at what you do, man. There's a lot there that I'm interested in in passing. I mean, look, I actually think you did an excellent job summarizing it, because you were careful with your words, and you were careful to talk about exactly what the President said, which I think is more than what. What most people in the press are doing right now. I mean, to me, if I had to point to one qualm that I have with maybe the way you summarize it or what the President actually said, it's just that the context for this is that he obviously believes the 2020 election was stolen from him. And in his speech, he said, you know, we can never watch another election be stolen again. So he's on national TV again, linking all of this to the idea that he lost the 2020 election because it was stolen or rigged. And interestingly, none of the documents that he put forward support that particular notion, I think.

[C]

No, I mean, not specifically, but everybody knows that. Everybody knows that Donald Trump believes he got jobbed in 2020 and that the election was rigged. So I. If you don't know it, then you're just not on the planet. Would you have. Would you have, if you were running NBC and abc, carried the speech?

[D]

I absolutely would have carried it. I think when the President of the United States gives an address from behind the Oval Office lectern, everybody should tune in and listen. He's the president, and I think it's important to add context to the stuff that he said and claimed on national tv, which you can do after the speech is over. So I think. I think it looks bad for those networks not to carry it. But. But I think what you said, just to put a fine point, I think what you said is true and what the President said is true, that we can improve our election systems. They are vulnerable, and there are bad actors out there who want to interfere in our elections and do serious damage. I don't think they have done that damage, but I think they definitely want to, and they have the capability to. To which is an important thing that we should all be worried about.

[C]

Okay, that's a reasonable statement. There isn't any overwhelming evidence that shows the state of Georgia, for example, or any other state that the president points to would have turned out differently. They should investigate it. The next question is, the people that I ran, Kari, Booker, Warner Newsom, they're not going to believe anything that Trump says for political reasons. So they're not serving their people. They're just rejecting it across the board. Or am I wrong?

[D]

No, I don't think you're wrong. I mean, Senator Mark Warner was on the Intelligence Committee that released a report in 2021 which basically said all of the things Trump said on national TV last night, which is that China collected a bunch of voter data, or, excuse me, on Thursday night, that China collected a bunch of voter data that China considered interfering in the election, that China didn't want Trump to win in 2020. I mean, Mark Warner oversaw.

[C]

Then why would he say the president speech, bunch of lies?

[D]

Because I think the thing that Democrats want to attack is the idea that the 2020 election was stolen or that the 2026 and 2028 elections aren't secure. I think he wants people to have faith in and believe in the elections is my most charitable read on that. But also, you know, I think Trump sort of. He himself blurs the lines again. He said in the speech that a previous election was stolen. All the things he said not on national TV and had been saying for six years about 2020 are the context for this. So if you're a Democrat and you want American voters to show up and believe their. Their vote is being cast and counted fairly, then. Then you don't want them to buy what Trump is selling in this Thursday night address. So I understand that. I mean, I think the important thing for people to understand is the president and the intelligence community did not present any evidence that any vote in an American election was altered, changed, corrupted by foreign power. What they presented on Thursday night was that that could happen in the future if we don't make changes now. And I think that distinction.

[C]

Well, it was more than that. There was an attempt to make it happen. And.

[D]

Well, no, they say, they said

[C]

China. An attempt by Russia on a different track. Okay. To get involved with our election. That's why I brought up Singham. Okay? There's an attempt. They want to manipulate our system to get the result they want in Beijing or Moscow. And I think Trump made a good point in getting that out there and saying, hey, this is reality. So we have to pass the Save America act, because that was the driver for the speech, which infuriates the Democrats because they don't want anything to do with the Save America Act. They don't care whether people have phony IDs or shouldn't be voting because they weren't born in this country. They don't care about that, in my opinion.

[D]

I think the distinction that I would make is Much like we heard all this about Russia meddling in the election in 2016. And then what we ended up, the evidence we ended up were presented was that Russia was creating fake Facebook groups and trying to get people, you know, sway public opinion against Trump. What China did in 2020 and what the intelligence community said they did was they tried to sway public opinion against Trump. In the documents the president released that he declassified, which I downloaded and read immediately, because I think they're really. The intelligence community assessment actually says that China made the calculation interfering in the election in 2020 was not worth the risk. They didn't want Trump to win, but they were scared about getting caught by actually trying to, you know, hack a particular voting system or corrupt some kind of vote. So instead they. They took the route that Russia did in 2016, which was they tried to sway public opinion against the President. And those two things are different.

[C]

By bribing journalists. I'd love to know who those journalists are.

[D]

I know you made a great point. We should get some names there. The thing that the report said was that they were. China was flying journalists in to China and giving them these, like, all expenses, paid vacations, basically, and high speaking fees to come visit, hoping to coax them into this sort of.

[C]

Those people were.

[D]

Me too. Me, too. I wish they revealed the names. I'm upset they didn't.

[C]

Okay, so what we have now, though, and the most important thing, as the midterms approach, is that there is a big segment of the American electorate who don't care about really what's happening. They either love Trump or they hate Trump in the middle. They don't want to hear about it. I love them or I hate them. I don't know if that's healthy for the country.

[D]

I don't think it's healthy. I mean, I can tell you from my own work, speaking to a lot of independent voters and a lot of swing voters, I get the sense there are people who are just tuned out. You know, they're just exhausted. They're. They're having trouble consuming the news, keeping up, and so they've kind of thrown their hands up and walk. Walked away, which is dangerous because, you know, it's important that the electorate pass judgment on this Congress and this president and do it with their vote. I think that's a very.

[C]

People don't know what the news is happening. They don't know because as soon as, you know, you got two major networks and, you know, bunch of lies. When I got to, you know, you know, people like, what so it's all harmful. Isaac, thanks very much for helping us out. Really appreciate it. Nice of you to do it. We'll talk again soon, I hope. Isaac's website again, if you would like to check it out, is read tangle1word.com calm.

[B]

This is the no Spin News Weekend edition.

[C]

So the gap between Americans who live in the big cities and those who live in rural areas or the suburbs is getting wider. That is the key to voting patterns in the future. There's a different point of view in the countryside than there is in Miami, in San Francisco, in la, Chicago, New York, Boston, on and on. Very different. And it's hurting the Democratic Party and helping Donald Trump and the Republicans. So we're going to get into that a little here tonight with facts because we just don't bloviate about stuff unless we know what we're talking about. So the progressives are now firmly entrenched in about 15 states and that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. One of the most shocking situations is Minnesota. So over my life I've been there many times. I used to take a few days up in Rainy Lake on the boundary waters and go fishing and jump in the lake. And you know, Minnesota was always a very nice place to visit. Now it's Loonville. And I know there are good people in Minnesota. I know that you're not all crazy, but your government is crazy and the majority of Minnesotans elected them. So there are 10 electoral votes in Minnesota. There are 3.8 million registered voters there. Big immigrant community, a lot of Somalis, as you know from the recent criminal action. But the problem in Minnesota is political correctness and lack of perspective. That is the problem. And I'm not privy to why it's happening. I suspect it's the school. So let's start with the governor of state, Tim Walz. He was almost vice president so Kamala Harris picked him as a running mate. He didn't do well in a campaign. He's not a very smart man. But he's an ideologue. I mean he's a far left progressive ideologue. So there was a guy who was convicted of a heinous crime, crime in Minnesota, 42 year old to Lou Vang. And he for years abused a 10 year old girl. He was convicted, okay, of first degree sexual conduct, criminal conduct, okay. Now his case then became up for parole, if you can believe this. The guy should have been put away for life. But in Minnesota they were going to parole him and Walls supported that and they did parole the man, if you can believe this. Just step back, step back, no emotion. So the governor of state and the parole board said, we don't care that this guy did this horrible thing. We're going to let him out on the streets of Minnesota. Didn't have to. It's unwarranted. They did it anyway. Okay? Now we reported on this extensively yesterday. So Secretary of State Marco Rubio swoops in, says, no, you're not, gets the Laotian, deports him back to Laos, and there we believe he'll spend whatever horror of his life is left. So you would think that this would be an embarrassment for the state of Minnesota, right? Wouldn't you be embarrassed if somebody in your family member did this and wasn't held accountable to the full extent of the law? So the big newspaper there is the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Crazy laughter, going out of business. You know, they're not a powerhouse anymore, but they used to be. So the Star Tribune headlines cheers to Governor Tim Walz. Cheers for letting this man out of prison. And then they run a column by a person named Rochelle Olson. Quote, Vang's actions 20 years ago were awful. But so were the violent protests at the U.S. capitol on January 6, 2021. And those folks received presidential pardons of the deportation, Walls said. And just by picking them up and taking them out with no due process, it just seems unfair. Cheers to Walls for standing behind the pardon. This is printed in the Minneapolis paper. So first of all, this woman does the what about ism, which when you get somebody doing that means they have no argument. So what about January 6th? There's no comparison between raping a 10 year old girl and invading the Capitol building. None. On the moral chart, None. If you don't know that, you are a so called loon. Now you can argue Trump's pardons all day long. I wouldn't have done it. I would have taken it case by case, okay? Because some of those guys were bad guys in that capitol, okay? There are anarchists. They wanted to overthrow the system. Unacceptable. But none of them were as horrendous as Vang. None of them. And for this woman to put that out is outrageous. And then due process, where he had due process, lady, he was convicted, okay, of child rape. That's due process. So Minneapolis Star Tribune disgraces itself. Now Minnesota. So you know about the Somali fraud. 110 individuals arrested. They won't give us a breakdown ethnically, they the state of Minnesota, they're not all Somalis, but most of them are. So they Ran a Ponzi scheme of $9 billion where they applied for Covid relief, saying that they wanted to open food distribution centers. And there's no evidence they ever did that they stole the money. Okay. And it was whole case wasn't cracked by Minnesota, it's cracked by a journalist. Okay, and now you have how many convicted here? Okay, 66 convicted, found guilty. 66.

[D]

All right.

[C]

110 charged. That's a lot. Now Walls and the rest of the legislature in Minnesota, are they repentant? No, they blame ice. What about ism or what about ice? Okay, now Minnesota joins California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Washington state and a bunch of others as progressive loons. Places that have no perspective, aren't interested in justice at all. And their conduct's appalling. Rational people know this. Irrational people don't. They believe what they want to believe. Whataboutism all day long, whatever it may be. They don't care. But rational people, and I believe most Americans are, they know there's something very wrong with this and it's tied into the Democratic Party. So they may not like the voters, Trump or the policies, but they're not going to vote for the Democrats who are this extreme. And that's a memoir.

[B]

You're listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[C]

Trump in the corporate media. So the war continues there. It's never going to end. Talk about a war that won't end even after the President leaves office. Still going to be. He'll be sued, he'll be this, he'll be that. You just wait and see. So he flies. The President does last week on Air Force One, the new plane given to us by the country of Qatar. He flies to Turkey from D.C. and the, I guess Secret Service find that the plane, the gift plane, doesn't have the security measures they need to protect the President. So he flies back to the USA from Ankara on our regular Air Force One. The New York Times prints all this. This is national security stuff. When a president has to change planes for security reasons, that's, that's a big story. Now Trump wants to know who leaked the information that the plane from Qatar was not properly outfitted with protective measures. So the Justice Department is issuing subpoenas to force the New York Times people and some of their relatives to give them their phone records. Of course, the journalists aren't going to do that. We've seen this play out many, many times. Okay. And, but this is just another one. In the end, the Trump administration probably will not win it. But you know, there's a slight chance that other things could arise that would make it more, that would make it easier for the federal courts to say, you know, we can't have national security secrets being slipped out to any media organization. The law says that the television networks, the three, are beholden to the federal government. This is the FCC's Ballywick. And in addition to the subpoenas, the, excuse me, Trump administration is threatening NBC and abc, the companies, because they didn't run Trump's speech last Thursday, threatening to take away their licenses. Here's what it says. Subject to the provisions of this section, the commission, that's the fcc, shall determine in the case of each application file with it to which section 308 of the title applies, whether the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by granting or extending some of these applications. All right. Just because the government owns the airwaves. Okay. So you can't fly in US Airspace without permission. There's airspace. Interesting. Love sea space is 12 miles, as we've explained. So again, now the court's going to have to get involved to see if NBC and ABC are serving the public interests or they might get their license yanked. I don't think that will happen, but it could. Joining us now from Washington is Thomas Berry. He's the director of Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. So did I frame both of these stories accurately in your opinion?

[F]

I think you did. But I think the big additional point is the First Amendment. And what role does that have to play here? So you're exactly right that the statute says pretty vaguely that broadcasters need to serve the public interest and that the government can pick who gets particular parts of the spectrum of the airwaves based on the public interest. But the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has consistently held, doesn't allow the government to play favorites based on viewpoint.

[D]

So.

[F]

So if a president doesn't like a particular broadcast station because it's not airing either his own speeches or speeches favorable to him, and it turns out that's the reason why a license renewal was denied, I think a court would likely strike down that action as violating the First Amendment, even if it's consistent with the statute.

[C]

What about national security? If you have a reporter printing or broadcasting information that might put the president of the United States at risk. Okay. Does that enter into the First Amendment debate?

[F]

It certainly does. And that would be a more difficult factor that the courts would really have to get into the facts of seeing. What level of danger did this actually risk? There have been a lot of famous cases going up to the Supreme Court, like the Pentagon Papers case, for example, where the court had to balance the interests of news gathering and news reporting on. On matters of vital public concern with national security concerns. And sometimes national security concerns do win out. Just recently, the Supreme Court upheld the law banning TikTok nine to zero because the government had claimed that TikTok at the time raised national security concerns due to connections to potential Chinese ownership. So it's really a fact bound matter. But understandably, courts have to look for real evidence, not just claims. And I think it's a lot better if courts behind closed doors evaluate potentially classified evidence rather than simply assuming what the government claims is correct.

[C]

Of course. I mean, you want the jurists who make their decisions based upon reality, not political propaganda. We all know that President Trump believes that he doesn't get a fair shake from the network news and a lot of the cables, but the cables operate in different rules. So we don't have the. We don't have the free airwave stuff because people pay to get our product, whereas the networks are free. And that's the difference. So you're sitting there and you're watching this war between the President of the United States and the corporate media. That's pretty much what the war is. Who's winning, in your opinion?

[F]

I think in the long run, free speech is winning because we have more sources of news than we ever have before. A lot of these doctrines about spectrum Scarcity, about the FCC's control over the broadcast networks, those were decisions from the 40s, 50s and 60s, the old era where you had three broadcast stations and that had kind of a monopoly of television news. Now you have cable, now you have the Internet, you have talk radio. There are many, many sources where people can go for conservative viewpoints in the media. And I think that conservatives and Republicans should be embracing that fact that we have a better free market of speech than we've ever had before. And I think it's concerning and eventually could well backfire if the FCC is overly aggressive here and tries to create a new standard that a president can, by coercion, force broadcast networks to carry a president's speech. Just four years ago, many networks decided not to air President Biden's speech about elections and democracy Shortly before the midterms. They similarly thought it was more political than newsworthy. That should be a call that each of them makes on an individual basis. I wouldn't want to force Fox broadcast networks to carry Biden when they don't want to, and I wouldn't want to force ABC to carry Trump when they don't want to. If people want to watch Trump speeches, they're going to. There are plenty of outlets on cable and online where they can do so.

[C]

But there's an extension of that, and that is that the corporate media ignored the Hunter Biden dossier story, by and large, which had an effect on the vote between Trump and the Democratic Party. Biden wound up not running, but the networks, abc, NBC and CBS actively downplayed an important piece of news that might have influenced votes. And I don't know how that could ever be described as being in the public interest. Mr. Barry.

[F]

I think what we've seen is a big reaction to that and in many ways a counter reaction that's been helpful. So Twitter similarly suppressed that news story. And as a result, Elon Musk buys Twitter. And now if anything, it's more favorable to the President than, than any other big social media site. And similarly.

[C]

But that, you know that. I understand what you're saying here, but that was a calculation based on business. This is a government's role. So if you have. Look, it's totally possible in the next 10 years that the communist movement in America gets even stronger than it is now and becomes a player under the guise of democratic socialism, whatever they call themselves today, there is a possibility that would happen. And if the network news. All right, and most of the corporate media buy into. I don't think they will, but it's possible. Let's be communists if the whole thing blows up. Last word.

[F]

I think that we should totally change the paradigm. Sell, have auctions so that companies have to pay billions of dollars for the rights to these important spectrums. That would be a huge boon to the Treasury. It would be a win, win, a hole in one. David Sacks, President's advisor, had suggested that get rid of the amorphous public interest standards and treat it like private property, like real estate, billboards, everything else in media.

[C]

But the highest bidder wins the networks. And they're all, in my opinion, pretty much against the Republicans and the conservative movement, all of them.

[F]

I have faith in a free market. The right wing conservative talk radio flourished in the 1670s and 80s despite a lot of FCC attempts to suppress them, especially under John F. Kennedy. In the long run, when the more power you give to the government to pick winners and losers in the speech marketplace, often conservatives are losers.

[C]

All right, Mr. Barry, thanks very much for debating us. We really appreciate it.

[B]

This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[C]

Okay. The talking points memo is my appearance on Chris Cuomo's News Nation show last night. I hope you watch that. I mean, we're all once a week with Cuomo. I like Cuomo. I like him personally. I like them on television. He's talented. He is a confirmed Democrat. Nothing wrong with that. His whole family is Democrat. His father, Mario Cuomo, is a Democratic governor in New York. Nothing wrong with it. Okay? But he and I see the world much, much differently. And this was a fascinating shootout we had last night. Okay? So the prevailing wisdom among the Democratic Party and the progressive left is that ice, Homeland Security is the devil. They are abusers, they are fascists. It's a terrible agency hurting Americans. Six people, three U.S. citizens have been killed by ICE this year. And it is getting to the fact that. To the point, I should say, where it's influencing elections in Maine. Okay? Now, I am a pretty good judge of effectiveness in government. I've been doing this a long, long time. Here's what I said on January 12. Go. Now, the federal government at this point has a couple of obligations. Has to enforce the law, has to. But they can de escalate violent confrontations. So if ICE agents see that there's a person like Ms. Good impeding their investigation with a automobile, the vehicle, then you de escalate that and then a vice stands. Now, last night, Chris Cuomo was wailing on ice and okay, but he and News Nation are responsible enough to bring on an opposing point of view. Me, you don't see that much on cable anymore. I made my whole career off debate on Fox News. Now, the hosts or anchors, whatever you want to call them, they don't like to debate. They just bring on people who agree with them. You know that. That's why it's boring and it's across the board. Okay, so we started out. I started out criticizing Cuomo for his monologue. In that monologue at the top of the program, he was citing Human Rights Watch as an agency that was defining ice. Now, Human Rights Watch, you don't get more left wing than they are. You don't. And I'll prove it to you in a moment. And I'm going, wait. If that's what you're using to base your analysis on, that's not fair. Roll a tape. You made a big journalistic mistake today. What did I do? And it was by basing your monologue on Human Rights Watch. Now, the mistake is this. Human Rights Watch, just like the Southern Poverty Law center, is an agenda driven organization. Now, I don't mind you quoting them, but you have an obligation to Quote, a counterpoint. Not to put up Human Rights Watch as the benefactor of the truth. That's a journalistic mistake. Sorry to bring it to your attention.

[E]

It's a journalistic mistake.

[C]

I'm older than you, I've been in the business longer.

[E]

It's a journalistic mistake. If there is a salient counter to what they said, we don't have one. Because this administration won't be transparent about what it found when it reviewed the complaints.

[C]

Because you don't base your reportage on an agency that has an agenda.

[E]

That's why their agenda is human rights and going after people who violate them.

[C]

Okay, I got it. The ACLU's agenda is freedom of speech, right? So the ACLU, Human Rights Watch in the Southern Poverty Law center are the three biggest drivers of progressive thought. And if you are going to base any of your fact based analysis on them, you're not being fair. That was my point. So we want everybody to go to Human Rights Watch website and here is what you will see. First of all, there's a big quote. It says we expose abuses against border communities, migrants and asylum seekers and call for policy changes to meet humanitarian needs. We advocate for the fair policies that respond to migrants. Various rights base rationales for seeking to enter the United States, including hoping for protection, responding to the effects of climate change change, finding work, returning to locations where their communities have resided for many years and reuniting with family members, unquote. That's an open border policy. If you don't like the climate where you live, you come here illegally more. And come on, you know this is Loonville, okay? That's where they are Human Rights Watch. But it's not just in migrants, it's everything. Here's another quote from their website. Racial justice considerations inform all our work, which includes research and advocacy to secure reparations for the enslavement of black people in the US and its continuing impact. Protect immigrants and and borders rights. Okay, so you can see with your own eyes how radical, how progressive Human Rights Watch is to their credit. They don't lie about it. They're like members of the Democratic Party that lie. They don't lie. We're radical left. We want open borders. We want to give immigrants rights under our Constitution. If you're not American citizen, you don't have any rights. Okay? Now when you come to the United States and you stand on our soil, then the constitutional rights kick in. But theoretically, people who live in Peru don't have American rights until they get here. Which is why they Want to come here? Okay, so if you're a journalist, you got to know this, but they don't care. And I don't know about Cuomo, whether he cares or not, but I do know that he does not want Homeland Security and ICE to be hunting down criminal aliens. Go. You are not bullish on hunting down criminal.

[E]

That's not true.

[C]

That is a fact. Every blanket.

[E]

I don't like the idea. I don't like the idea of hunting down misdemeanors. Okay, you want to hunt down a

[C]

killer, hunt them down.

[E]

But that's not who they're getting. Bill their own numbers, which are obviously cooked, show that it's barely 50. 50.

[C]

It's way less than 50. 50. Okay, as far as taking people into custody who don't have credentials to be here. Now, I am going to mention there, and I'm going to give you the government stats, which are shaky. The federal government should be doing a better job informing we the people exactly what ICE is doing. Cuomo's got a legitimate point there. All right? Now, according to Harvard poll, Harvard Harris, 55% of Americans want all migrants, all of them, deported. 45 don't criminal migrants. 79% want them out, 21% do not. And the Democratic Party does not want, and I use the word hunt down because that's what it is. See, the problem is that ICE goes in looking for the rapist, the gang member, the bank robber, whoever it may be, and then around that person, inevitably, are other migrants who may not be committing crimes, but they're in association with. With the criminal. So they're all swept in. You know, they don't sort them out while you stay. You say they all come in, which is the only policy possibly have. So we went to Homeland Security, asked for the data, and they haven't released data in a while. In fact, if you go there and you ask for it, you'll get a server error message. Not good. Okay. In December, last December 2025, their website had 35,000 criminal illegal aliens arrested. Those are not people who just crossed the border, as Chris Cuomo was implying. Those are people who came here and committed felonies or have a rap sheet in their home country. Okay, so 35,000 in December was the number. More than 600,000 migrants have been taken in for not having the credentials to be here. Now, most of those are deported, but the press will have you believe that they're abused, they're beaten, they're. Whatever it may be. But again, it is up to the courts to decide. Who stays and who goes. Many of these 600,000 have detainers on them because they didn't show up for a court case or they didn't answer this complaint or that complaint. In fact, I will submit to you that most have a judge signed an order there to be deported. You'll never hear that from the media. Ice is bad. Ice is the devil. Okay, according to DHS, 70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted of charge of crime in the usa. But that's a little misleading. Okay, so they're arresting these people for the first time. They're not taking into account the ones that have already been deemed to have criminal activity on their sheet with the judge's order for deportion. Okay, they're being deported. That should be in there. See how confusing this is? Most have to have a PhD in math. So Americans, I think many of us are confused. We see the dead people and that is something we have to see. I suggest, I continue to suggest to Tom Homan and to Mullen, the head of dhs, lighter, not as harsh, lighter. And they're going to say to me, hey, these guys are armed, they're dangerous, they're selling narcotics, they're murderers. We can't go in like Little Bo Peep. I got it. But if there's any doubt, you pull back because you don't want dead bodies in the street and help anybody. And that's the memoir.

[B]

You're listening to the no Spin news Weekend Edition.

[C]

All right. The rise of socialism and communism is somewhat tied into open borders. And the movement far left movement has gained traction, particularly in states like California and Arizona because new voters are voting for entitlements and the Democrats are the party of entitlements. Okay, so CNBC had a poll and a thousand voters. Okay, we're fine with that. Here's question number one. Rate your feelings toward each. Socialism. Positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, very negative. Socialism, 28% positive in July of this year. Big number. 19% neutral. That means they don't know what socialism is. Negative, 48%. And combining the negatives would be 67%. In January 2020 six and a half years ago, positive on socialism was 19%. So they are up 9%. All right, 9%. That's a pretty big leap. I have some other data, but I think that that's good data. I think the socialistic movement in America is up to about 25% of people who want stuff they don't want to compete in capitalism. They like the socialism System, whatever it may be. Joining us now From Washington is Dr. Alan Amendenhall. He's a senior advisor for the Heritage Foundation. So do you believe that the socialist, Marxist, slash communists, democratic socialists, all of these people, all right, are on the rise or is it just a trend?

[G]

Well, I think it's both. I think they're on the rise and it's a trend. So my background, Bill, is I'm a Lawyer with a PhD in English and I had to come up through all these humanities programs and had to read a lot of Marxism in order to get a PhD. And obviously I reject all this Marxism. But you look at the 19th century classical Marxism of Marx and Engels, and they're advocating for the proletariat to rise up against the bourgeoisie. But what happens? The workers don't rise up against the capitalists. So all these Marxist humanities figures in Europe basically convene and reformulate Marxism. So people like Gramsci and Adorno and Marcuse and Erich Fromm and Althusse. And Althusse has this theory of ideological state apparatuses. And he says, look, the churches, the schools, the media, entertainment corporations, all of these institutions condition people to believe in capitalism. They socialize people to believe in capitalism. And so these left wing people say, look, we have to have a long march to the institutions. We have to capture these institutions in order to transmit our Marxist beliefs. So look at the Smithsonian today. You mentioned the Southern Poverty Law center earlier. Well, you kind of teed me up there. The Southern Poverty Law Center's training materials are being used by the Smithsonian. What are the Smithsonian's training materials teaching? Well, they're teaching that rugged individualism, the nuclear family, the scientific method. All of these are signals of nefarious white culture. And you should be aware, teacher, when you hear people promoting the scientific method, that this is code for something that's white supremacist. And so if something like the Smithsonian can be captured ideologically, then anything can be captured. People think that I exaggerate when I say, look, this is Marxism. And they say that's just hyperbole. Well, look, I came up through these PhD programs where I had to read it, where I'm reading these theorists and they're saying, this is what we have to do. And then I'm watching them actually do it and I say, well, this isn't hyperbole at all. This is okay.

[C]

But the question then becomes, in six years, they've added nine points to their roster of people who like that. Why are they adding number one? Is it about President Trump, why are they adding? And number two, is there another factor in all this? So it's not like the 1950s were in a cold war with the Soviet Union and they were our enemy. Now the socialist communist movement are friendly people. We're going to give you things. And Mamdani is the best example. He's running the largest city in the country and he's a communist. And outright communist. There's no doubt about it. Means of production. He wants to control it. That's what communists do right before they seize your private property. Okay, so I'm not sure whether the bump up in six years is just because the society has changed from passive from active to passive. Look, when your whole life is lived here rather than on the street making a living digging trenches or whatever, when this is your whole life, your psychology changes as well.

[G]

Yeah, Bill, I think a lot of it is unfortunately just ignorance among young people. I taught in the university system for a long time, time. And I remember this young student that was wearing this Che Guevara T shirt. And I had this conversation with him and I said, how could you wear that T shirt? And he gave me sort of socialist talking points. And I said, are you aware that socialism and Communism killed over 100 million people in the 20th century? Over 100 million people. You wouldn't come into this school wearing an Adolf Hitler T shirt. And we know that The Holocaust killed 6 million Jews, over 11 million people. And you wouldn't wear a shirt bearing his image. And yet you're going to wear a shirt bearing the image of somebody that stands for the deaths of over 100 million people. Why do you think that's okay? And it's because they don't know.

[C]

They really just don't know, was his answer. I don't know. I don't believe you. What was his answer?

[G]

I think it was something like that. It was just

[C]

when you can. But an entire political party is now under heavy influence from the Marxist faction. And that is new. That has never happened. Never happened in this country. That's new.

[G]

That is new. You're right.

[C]

That is new. Why is that happening?

[G]

I think part of it is they're building off this vocabulary, rhetoric and these concepts from residual Marxism, which. Which frames, rather than framing it, working class versus bourgeoisie. It frames everything in terms of the oppressor and the oppressed. And it's very easy to start squeezing racial categories, gender categories, theories of sexuality into this oppressor, oppressed binary. And for whatever reason, young people who are frustrated and want to air grievances are attracted to, to this grievance culture. And so I think that's what pulls them in. They're upset, they're angry, they're frustrated. They find an ideology that sort of explains things to them and they gravitate to it, but they ignore the facts.

[C]

I mean, we're the most affluent country in the world outside of Switzerland, maybe. Why are the younger people upset? When I graduated from grad school at Boston University, first thing I did was get a job, and I didn't. I got a job in Scranton, Pennsylvania. I had to go, I had to do it if I want a career. I wasn't thinking about the government filling my car up with gas or anything else. So what is the difference? What is the mentality difference that we have now?

[G]

Well, I think there's some illegitimate concerns and some legitimate concerns. I'll start start with the legitimate concerns for these young people. A lot of them struggle to find housing. They're delaying family formation. The economy is difficult for young people. They have a tougher time finding jobs. That's all legitimate. Now, I will say, as somebody who taught a lot of young people, they can't read, they don't do the work. They, you know, they struggle in the classroom. They are dependent on artificial intelligence in order to give their answers. So there's stuff that is their fault, but there is stuff that is not their fault that was sort of hoisted upon them without their choice. So they have some legitimate grievances and then they have some problems that are of their own making. And, you know, my advice to young people is, look, work hard, get out there and find a job. You don't have to have the cushiest job in the world. Take whatever you can get, do the best you can do in that position, and then doors will open, you'll find another job. But what you can't do is say, I'm too good for this position.

[C]

That's why millions of people want to come here, because it is still the land of opportunity. But they don't have the will. Many of these Marxist people don't have the will to do that. They don't want to go to Scranton. They don't want to work hard. They just want to give it to them. And Mandami goes, I'm going to give you everything I can give you and take it away from the rich people. Last word.

[G]

Last word is you're right. And I see a lot of these people getting paid to protest outside of this building all the time. And they say some of the foulest things to people. It's stuff that you can't imagine one human being saying to another human being. And these protesters are getting paid to do it. It's disgusting.

[C]

So you think this is a lasting movement and not just a trend, huh?

[G]

Well, I'm hoping it's just a trend, but it's definitely on the rise.

[C]

Yeah, I can't predict it. Okay. Doctor, thanks a lot for helping us out. We really appreciate it.

[B]

This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[C]

Okay, final thought. So nineteen and a half years ago, Geraldo and VERA and Bill O'Reilly went on the O'Reilly Factor and shot it out, much like Chris Cuomo and I did last night on News Nation, shot it out over criminal, illegal aliens. It was one of the most rambunctious interviews in the history of television news nineteen and a half years ago. And you can Google it. It's all over the place. You can get it. So what I decided to do tomorrow is to interview again, Geraldo Rivera to see if he has changed his point of view on anything in this subject matter. And he has. So that is our Do It Live long form on YouTube. You go to billorilly.com and everything's there, make it easy for you. But boy, it's a fascinating interview. And we get into other stuff like the media and how it's changed and all of that. And so I really enjoy that. Okay. 19 and a half years, I can't believe is that long ago. So that's on and we'll drop it for premium members at noon. Everybody else in the world can see it at 6 Eastern Time tomorrow. And I hope you guys will watch it and let me know what you think. Billoriley.com [e-mail] so, Geraldo, and next week, I understand we have Dr. Oz on the long form. We'll do it live. And I'm looking forward to talking to him. A lot of stuff he's involved with. So with this thing is chugging along and it's really worth your time to check it out. All right. So we're coming up at the end of July now and we want, as I recommended to President Trump, want everybody to kind of decompress a little bit if you can, you know, I mean, because it just gets so overwhelming. You just get kind of foggy if it's just if you don't have a break. And I'm going to cut back a little in August. But we're going to be here because the Iran situation, I mean, you got to watch that anything could happen at any time. And we have some very good stuff that we're going to bring to your attention. All right. Sunday column. I'm already working it. You'll like it. Always check in with us over the weekend because we'll have the latest breaking stories, my analysis of those stories. I am Bill O'Reilly. We do thank you very much for watching no Spin News. And we'll see you soon.

[B]

Thank you for listening to the no Spin News weekend edition. To watch the full episodes of the no Spin news, visit bill o'reilly.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's billoriley.com Sign up and start watching today.