← Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Highlights from O'Reilly's No Spin News - June 13, 2025
00:41:43
Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:12]
Bill O'Reilly
We're trying to get accurate information about the ICE protests last night. Very difficult to get that information. Shouldn't be. But it is. And I'll tell you why it's difficult to get that information. And we are assessing why social order is collapsing in the United States and it really has to do with American fathers. So we got Father's Day coming up. I think you'll find this segment fascinating. We have a terrific guest for you on it. The Talking Points memo is the ICE situation. Here's an update. What happened on Tuesday evening in Los Angeles. Finally, the mayor declared not martial law, but a curfew in one square mile area of downtown la. Only took her four days. Days. That's all arrests. They're not telling us how many people were arrested on Tuesday night because not many were. This is dying out as I predicted it would. 200 people have been taken into custody since we last spoke to you, but I don't know how many of those have been arrested. You know, they're kind of gathering people around. There was no looting or vandalism last night. And I do not believe there will be any going forward. Could be wrong, but this doesn't have a constituency. Most Americans, they're not upset by ICE going to find criminal illegal aliens. Now, there are mistakes being made. Sure you're going to have that in any kind of a mass action. In New York City, over 80 arrested. None of them will be prosecuted for anything. Very small. Cops say 1500 protesters. I have the number at less than 1000. At 9 o' clock they all went home. So they wanted to watch something on TV or something. It wasn't it. Denver, 17 arrests again. Three of those were for graffiti f the ice, you know, that kind of stuff. San Francisco, 200 protesters is nothing. There's nothing in San Francisco, which is the most progressive place in the country. Chicago cops won't tell us how many arrests. I don't think there were any at all. Atlanta, six people arrested. That's nothing. Philadelphia, 15 arrested. That's nothing. 150 protesters to cops say in Philly. 150. And these are all hardcore anarchists. They're not people actually protesting a cause. They hate the country and they'll come out for any reason. All right, so let's get down to it with Governor Newsom. I told Hannity on his radio program today and it's worth listening to because we not only cover ice riots, we cover China and Iran. And it's on BillORiley.com, but I told him a very provocative Thing, I believe Gavin Newsom wanted these riots to get out of control. And I'm not an irresponsible guy. I'm not an ideologue. I believe he wanted them to get out of control so that that would provoke President Trump into doing something that Newsom could use against Mr. Trump. And let me back it up. So when your police chief in Los Angeles says, we're overwhelmed, which he did on the first night of the riots, our police officers are in danger, we can't protect property, and the ICE agents are in danger as well. When your police chief says that in a press conference and you are the governor, what's the first thing you do? You call out the National Guard. You have to. Newsom didn't do it. Still hasn't done it. Still hasn't done it. And I don't know of any increased state police presence in Los Angeles either. Maybe there is, but it's negligible. Now, if you are a logical thinker like I am, that says to me, Newsom did not want to stop these riots. He wanted them to get out of control so that he could blame them on Trump, which he did anyway. All right, now, the president, understanding what happened after George Floyd isn't going to sit for this. As soon as the police chief said, we're overwhelmed, bang, federal authority took over. He has the legal authority. We went over it with the 1807 act, okay, yesterday, if you're concierge or Premium member Bill O'Reilly.com, you get a transcript. These. All these lawsuits are just nuisance lawsuits. They're not going to stop anything. Okay? So I would have done exactly what Trump did. Exactly. I would have sent in a guard, and I would have put 200 rings in there, okay? To give the guard some relief, to back the guard up. The Marines are right down the road. 29 palms. As an American citizen, I'm not outraged at all about this. And the polling shows that most Americans agree with me. But the most important point is that Newsom, who wants to be president, wanted this. Now Bass is just befuddled. The mayor of LA, way in over her head, all right? She's down 1,000 police officers. The LAPD is 1,000 light, and they can't recruit. Who wants to work for the lapd? Nobody. They'll go to the county. And the fires. You saw Bass. She's over in Africa. I mean, this is ridiculous. Now, it's said to cost 134 million to deploy the guard. A lot of money. I'm waiting an audit. But what else are you going to do? If you're president, you got to protect lives and property. That's your job. Have to do it. You don't wait till it gets out of control. You cut it off. Once the cop says, I can't do it, then you have to move in. That makes sense to everybody. I hope so. All right, so the basic line of the Hate Trump Brigades is that he is a fascist dictator, and they'll do everything they can to try to prove that point. Now, here are the 10 most militant sanctuary people in public service. All right, Newsom, Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston, Governor Pritzker, who testifies tomorrow about sanctuary policies. And I'm all over that. That will lead the show tomorrow. Pritzker is worse than Newsom. Okay. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, aoc, you know, Communist Mike Johnson, the mayor of Denver, Governor Tim Walls of Minnesota, who was almost vice president. Oh, boy. Kathy Hochul, New York. The governor, Westmore, Maryland. The governor wants to be president. This is going to hurt more. And Mayor Jacob Fry of Minneapolis. Those are the top 10, in our opinion. Okay. Are they looking out for the country? They looking out for you? No. And that's the memo. All right, Nancy Pelosi, you know, I would say she's one of the most dishonest public servants I've ever seen. Here's what she said about the riots.
- [08:11]
Nancy Pelosi
Go in a bipartisan way on January 6th with violence against the Constitution, against the Congress, and against the United States Capitol. We begged the President of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it. Not only would he not do it, when law enforcement people were being harmed, some later died, he would not send it in.
- [08:44]
Bill O'Reilly
Yeah, there was a reason why he wouldn't send it in. Because he alerted the guard. On January 5, Kash Patel carried that message over to the Pentagon. We know. We've documented that. So here's the strange thing about Nancy Pelosi. She was riding in an automobile with her daughter Alexandra, a documentary filmmaker, and her chief of staff, Terry McCullough. Her daughter was taping her in the car. Roll the tape.
- [09:14]
Nancy Pelosi
We have responsibility, Terry. We did not have any accountability for what was going on there, and we should have. This is ridiculous. You're going to ask me in the middle of the thing when they've already breached the inaugural stuff that. Should we call the Capitol Police? I mean, the National Guard. Why weren't the National Guard there to begin with? They thought that they had sufficient resources. No, there's not a question of how they have. They don't know. They clearly didn't know. And I take responsibility for not having them. Just prepare for more.
- [09:56]
Bill O'Reilly
So Nancy Pelosi takes responsibility in a private automobile but then blames Trump. Okay, there it is. Poll, CBS News poll. Okay. About the immigration policies of President Trump. First question, do you approve or disapprove the way Trump is handling immigration? Approve. 50. Disapprove. 50. Second question. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Trump administration is programming to find and deport immigrants or. Or in the USA illegally? Approved. 54. Disapprove. 46. Final question. Do you think the Trump administration is mainly prioritizing dangerous criminals or deporting people who are not dangerous? Prioritizing dangerous criminals. 53. Not dangerous. 47. Now, one of the mistakes that have been made by the Trump administration is the, what I call separation failure. So there's no question that the Trump administration is finding heinous criminals who are protected by the sanctuary system. That's beyond any reasonable doubt. But in the sweeps, nonviolent people, non criminals who are undocumented, do get taken into custody. Those people should be put in a separate facility and there should be federal judges there to go through their files. Okay. To decide whether they should immediately be deported along with the criminals or whether there's extenuating circumstances that wouldn't be hard to implement. I mean, there are a lot of them, but you could do it. And that's what I would have done. All right. Just the News. This is an unbelievable story. I gotta give full credit to John Solomon for this story. Just the news is a news agency like billorilly.com and it's independent. So they did some research to find out who pays for these kinds of demonstrations in Los Angeles. Okay. Well, the main agency is the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. This is funded by far left people like the George Soros Open Society foundation, pours a lot of money into it, and then these people organize the protests. But this isn't the worst part about this. The state of California finances another group, okay? And it is called the LA Rapid Response Network. It also finances the state of California, the Coalition for Maine Immigration Rights. So that's tax money going into this organization. So during fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, the Organic Coalition for Humane Immigration received from the state of California $34 million. 34 million. So the state of California paid for those rights with tax money. Hear that anywhere else? John Solomon had it. We had to pass it along. Staggering. All right, President Trump's at Fort Bragg today, 250th anniversary of the U.S. army. A big dog and pony show. That's a cliche down there in North Carolina. We wish everybody well. Finally. Kamala Harris is living in Los Angeles. She wants to be governor when Newsom hangs it up in 26. And she issued a statement about the riots, quote, I'm appalled at what we are witnessing on the streets of our city. Deploying the National Guard is a dangerous escalation and to provoke chaos. In addition to the recent ICE raids in Southern California across our nation, part of the Trump administration's cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division, unquote. This is posted on X. Okay. You will remember that as vice President Kama Harris was tasked by President Biden with finding the root causes of illegal migration. See a report on that. If you did, please let me know where it is. Okay. Kama Harris was on the border less than an hour. Hour. One hour in four years. She's an open border advocate. No. No constraints at all. Okay. Just a nerve. I mean, this woman was put in charge of this yet find out why these people are coming in. We all know why. She didn't do anything. Nothing. Didn't try, didn't go down there. And she has a nerve to do this, man. Okay, Trump tariffs. So they're meeting with the Chinese. And I know this because unfortunately I got roped into this China stuff and Lutnick, the commerce secretary, Howard. So it's going well with the Chinese on a trade front? I don't know. I have a big call tonight on this. I'll try to report tomorrow if I learn anything. I don't know. All I do know is that if China makes a trade deal with the usa, all of the other countries will follow and all of the fears about a recession and inflation will subside except in a crazy categories. Okay? So it's important. This Chinese stuff is important. And again, you know, I'm not going to go over this, but I was over in Beijing and you know it. We've reported it. If you missed the story somehow, go to billow reilly.com but I'm up to my eyebrows in this thing and I don't even know how I got in it. But I'm doing it for my country. Anyway. Talker research. Pretty good outfit. They talked to 2,000Americans, regular folks, about their spending and here's what they found out, all right, 77% have changed how they manage money due to economic uncertainty. That would be the tariffs. 86% feel the economy remains uncertain. 58% believe a recession is inevitable. Wow. It's a big number. Average American expects financial uncertainty to last another 10 months. Also, 39% are avoiding credit card interest or fees. That's a good thing. 28% are working to improve their financial literacy. They're trying to figure it out. 23% are exploring different payment options. And 90% are seeking more value from their financial providers. Okay. So in February, I did a event with the chief financial analyst at the Oxford Club, and you may know that I have an association with them all the way back to 2003, and they've done very well for me. And we talked about what might happen under a Trump administration in the markets. Okay. But then the tariffs hit, and all of that went to hell. And so Alexander Green joins us now. So, Alex, did you have any idea these tariffs were even being discussed when we spoke in February?
- [18:08]
Alex
I did. I'm a big fan of Trump extending the 2017 tax cuts and deregulating business and extending our position as in the energy renaissance. But I'm not a huge fan of the tariffs, and I didn't really mention the tariffs because I don't think that they're a positive thing. I. I do think that they're positive to the extent that we can get other countries to treat us more fairly. But just to protect American businesses is not necessarily a good thing because it raises costs and invites retaliatory actions from countries overseas.
- [18:43]
Bill O'Reilly
Okay. But what happened was that once the tariffs were announced, the markets went crazy in April and people lost a lot of money on paper. Now, I said to my audience, hang tough. And the markets did recover, but the uncertainty and the fear that came about because of the tariffs is still there. Would you disagree with that?
- [19:06]
Alex
No, I agree completely. Agree completely. You can see that what happens in the market is every time that the Trump administration says we're going to impose or increase tariffs, the stock market goes down. And every time they say that they're going to delay or reduce or negotiate away the tariffs, the stock market rallies. And the reason for this is very simple, Bill. Tariffs create uncertainty. When businesses don't know what their costs are going to be, they don't buy inventory, they don't hire employees, they can't expand because they're sort of frozen by the uncertainty. And so the reason that the markets have rallied now 25% from the market low after Liberation Day to where we are now is simply that investors don't believe that the worst case scenario is. Is going to be what we're stuck with in the end that the, that the tariffs are going to be reduced or negotiated away. So to, to, to that extent the market is celebrated and that's why we're up 25% from the lows of two months ago.
- [20:02]
Bill O'Reilly
Yeah, but that's what people want to believe. That's not necessarily, that would happen. So I told my audience last week that I have sold off some stock that are speculative. Not my core group, not the group that provides dividends, but the ones that are speculative, I sold them because anything could happen on any day. And with these Chinese negotiations and all of that, it's very complicated. Now. When I was in North Asia 10 days ago, I did not see one American car in Japan or China or, or Korea. Not one. And I was on the road, I mean, we were going. And I said to myself, you know, in theory, Trump is right. We're getting hosed. These countries are not taking our cars and a lot of other of our goods. They're making it impossible for us to sell them abroad. Biden and most of the other presidents ignored it completely because it's such a hotel issue and could go either way. But Trump decided to take it on. Now, that leaves the investor in the land of uncertainty, correct?
- [21:19]
Alex
That's correct. And again, to the extent that we can use the tariffs as a bargaining chip to get other countries to reduce their tariffs, I'm completely in favor.
- [21:27]
Bill O'Reilly
But that's happening, Alex. I mean, he's going to have a 10% tariff on everybody. He's to going, that's the admission fee to do business in the usa. That's going to happen. He's not going to blast that out. But if they make a deal with China, and again, very complicated with China, but China's hurting, Chinese economy is hurting big time. But investors, they, they're getting whipsawed all right. Every day like this. So then my question to you as a stock picker is what do you do?
- [22:02]
Alex
Well, there's a few things you can do. First of all, I'm not a market timer. I do commend you, Bill. If you're, if you're going to lighten up your positions, do it after the big rally we've had over the last couple of months.
- [22:12]
Bill O'Reilly
That's what I did. That's what I did.
- [22:14]
Alex
Good. So good for you. But I'm an optimist long term because you can look at the long term start of the market and it goes up into the right. So we know that things that do well over time, but, but what you can do now Is number one, you can avoid investing in companies that are hurt by tariffs, and not just by tariffs of countries exporting to the United States, but also countries that are exporting that face retaliatory action. So you can avoid the companies that have the big tariff problems. You should also be aware that one of the reasons you don't see a lot of American cars on the road when you go overseas is quite frankly, they make very good cars in South Korea and Japan and other parts of Asia. The best selling sedan in the United States is the Camry, then the Corolla and then the Civic and then the Accord and so on. So it's, it's even Americans that like a lot of these Asian made cars. But as an investor you want to invest in those companies that have such a competitive advantage are either not hurt by the tariffs or they operate in industries that are not, that are resistant to the tariffs. A lot of service companies, for instance.
- [23:18]
Bill O'Reilly
Well, that's a lot of research though, Alex, for the individual person to figure that out. I mean, you're going to be up real late trying to, trying to do that.
- [23:28]
Alex
No, you're right. Listen, Bill, I'm a stock picker. That's the kind of company I'm looking for for the average investor. You know, what they should really do is do what you've done with your core portfolio, which is sit tight and ride out the inevitable ups and downs. Because you're right, no one knows exactly how this is going to play out, not even Donald Trump, because he only controls. He can't know what the other side is going to do in retaliation for what we do. So that's all the uncertain. Why the stock market is up and down is because no one really knows how this is going to play out. But let me just say that research shows that if you miss the best 10 days in the market over a 20 year period, your returns are cut in half. So if someone gets out of the market completely, they, they run the risk of missing some of the biggest gains because you just don't know. Because things could be resolved very positive, positively for American businesses. And that means good things for corporate profits and good things for the stock market.
- [24:23]
Bill O'Reilly
There's no doubt that could happen. I mean, but China is the key to it. And China is very rough. You know, when I was speaking to them, I made this point to China. I said, you know, in the United States, if we have a recession, people have 401ks, they can refinance their, finance their mortgages. Many people have savings accounts that Fall back on. You guys have nothing, okay? Nothing. Your 1.5 billion people have to eat. Your economy goes south, it crashes. Because the worldwide economy would be affected, all right? You're gonna have problem. So it's best for you, China and the United States to make a trade deal. That was my presentation. There was no pushback because the Chinese people have no reserve. They don't have any money. That's cocky.
- [25:19]
Alex
No, you're right, Bill. There'll be political unrest. They're already afraid. They quit publishing. How many young people are unemployed because they don't want them to see that it's a nationwide problem.
- [25:29]
Bill O'Reilly
But the government will employ you there. They have enough resources. So if you're out of work, they'll give you a broom and you'll get enough to feed yourself. But if the more factories close, and that's what's happening now in China, the factories that make the hats and the shirts and all of that stuff, they're closing. And because this month was the. Was the worst month for Chinese exporting into the United States in 25 years. And that'll continue, the Americans hold some advantage. And I don't want to get to microeconomics, but the last question I have for you is that people are terrified, Alex, because this is beyond everybody's control. You know, human beings like to control their environment. They like to control their money, their security. They can't control it. And if you got IRAs, if you got college funds, if you've got mutual funds, you can't control that. You're at the mercy of forces far beyond you. And I don't think that's a healthy thing.
- [26:34]
Alex
Well, you're so right, Bill. With these tariffs, nobody knows. But think about it. Under ordinary circumstances, you don't know what GDP growth is going to be. You don't want to know what inflation is going to be. You don't know what corporate profits are going to be. You don't know whether the market's going to go up or down. Uncertainty is just part of the cost of admission when it comes to investing. No one can tell you what all those things will be. But we can look back at history and see that nothing has outperformed a diversified portfolio of US Stocks over time. And the best thing that most people can do with all these uncertainties they're facing is not to freak out and run to cash. Because if you do that, the risk that you run is that while you're in cash, the market does something like it's done the last two months, which Is it goes straight up and then you're, you're faced with the choice between, oh, do I stay on the sidelines while I'm missing all the action or do I get in and having missed the rally, be in for the next sell off. And that's the position you don't want to put yourself in. So I think what you've done is wise, Bill. You trim back you your more speculative positions if you're uncertain about what lies ahead or particularly anxious about what lies ahead. But stick with your core portfolio because even after 9, 11 and after the pandemic and after this tariff episode is behind us, we know that over time sales rise, profits rise and stock prices rise. And so the average person should really be doing what Warren Buffet suggested you do, which is sit on your hands and just ride it out.
- [27:57]
Bill O'Reilly
All right, Alex, chief investment strategist of the Oxford Club. We really appreciate your expertise. Thanks. Taking the time today. Joining us now from Washington is a senator who does not like the bill. I said he might not vote for the bill. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. My positioning this in a fallacious word of the day way.
- [28:21]
Ron Johnson
Senator, I think you have a pretty accurate assessment. I don't really disagree with it. And by the way, the bill, as it goes, as far as it goes, I don't have too many problems with. The problem is it just simply doesn't go far enough. And if we do this as a one and done bill and we don't do anything further, and that's pretty much the indication we have, we're simply not addressing the massive long term debt deficit. That from my standpoint is the biggest issue here. So let me just throw a couple numbers at you, just put these things in perspective. In 2019, we spent $4.4 trillion. This year was spent over 7 trillion. That's a 58% increase. Next year, about 7.3. But here's the one that I've really been focusing on now. Average deficits over the last presidential terms. Obama came in, shot deficits up almost $1.3 trillion average in his first four years. But then the Tea Party, I'm part of that, came in, we put some restraint that got knocked down to about $550 billion a year for his four years. Trump came in, had to do deal Democrats that went up to about $810 billion per year. Then you had Covid a $3.1 trillion deficit. Just a massive bipartisan spending spree and responsible leadership would realize, okay, that's an aberration. We got to return to Pre pandemic levels, we should have gone down really below 5 trillion in spending and certainly below $1 trillion in deficits. It's not what happened. We kept spending at pandemic levels. Biden averaged deficits of $1.9 trillion. And if you look at the scoring of the big beautiful bill right now, those deficits just continue to increase from about 2.2 trillion in the next four years up to about, I think, 2.9 trillion. That's off the top of my head. Again, we're not bending the deficit curve down now. You can. I'm going to be issuing a report I've been working on over the weekend. We're doing different scenarios based on different growth scenarios. You literally have to get to about 4% growth before you start bending that deficit curve down that trajectory down toward balance, 3%. That kind of flattens it out to averages about $2.1 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. I'm just not willing to accept that as new normal.
- [30:33]
Bill O'Reilly
Okay, now, what you just said, nobody understands.
- [30:37]
Ron Johnson
I'm sorry about that.
- [30:38]
Bill O'Reilly
It's all right. It's impossible. It's impossible. No, I know. Average voter. So I'm a simple man and I'm putting myself in your seat. I'm a senator, and here's my calculation. You're right. The federal government spending is wildly out of control and the waste is phenomenal and our system needs to be more disciplined. You are right. But we're in a crossroads in history here where the Democratic Party doesn't want any spending cuts. Maybe a little in defense, but they don't want any. Okay, you know it. Everybody knows it. They want to increase it, in fact, more. They don't even want supervision of Medicaid, which we'll do tomorrow. They don't want any reform. They hated Musk. They hate Doge. They don't want anything. That's where you start. The Republican Party is the party of. Of responsibility now fiscally. But if the Republican Party gets its butt kicked in 26, it's over and the gates open and you'll have way more spending than you have now. Is that true?
- [31:54]
Ron Johnson
You're right. Listen, it's easy to be.
- [31:57]
Bill O'Reilly
Wait, wait. Stop, stop.
- [31:58]
Ron Johnson
Go ahead.
- [31:58]
Bill O'Reilly
So I'm right, okay? So what Trump has done, and I know this because I have access to the president, he says, I know this bill Jack spending, but my tariffs are going to bring down the deficit and debt. And as you know the recent report, in one month, the tariffs have cut the deficit in half. So Trump says I'm going to get my trade deals. We don't know whether he will or not. Okay. And then all the money coming into the treasury is going to bring this stuff down. So keep me in power with no tax rise and that'll start to come down because of the money coming in. Is the President wrong?
- [32:52]
Ron Johnson
Yes. Hate to say it. I'm a big supporter of the President. But right now the White House is putting out a memo saying that tariff revenue over the next 10 years will be about $2.8 trillion. Again, that compares to a $22 trillion deficit. And by the way, if you extend the tax taxes, they admit that the baseline goes up to about $25 trillion. So it might reduce. Rev. It might reduce the deficit by about 10%, and it's still not adequate. And the tariff revenue is very problematic. It's being tested in the court whether President Trump really has this executive power. If the courts decide, he doesn't. And I think it, you know, again, I'm not a, I'm not a legal scholar when it comes to this tariff law, but if they strike that down, I doubt that Congress is going to impose sweeping tariffs like that. So again, that, that revenue is very uncertain. And let me make a final point. I support President Trump because I want him to defeat the deep state. You don't defeat the deep state by continuing to fund it at present Biden's level. So for me, it is, it's spending, spending, spending.
- [33:53]
Bill O'Reilly
We may disagree, but if you hold firm, if, if you hold firm center, and you vote against it, and others do, Republicans do, then it all blows up. If you vote for it, I think there's a big possibility that if the, if the economy surges, that you'll have a much bigger majority going forward where you can revisit this whole thing without the razor thin majority in the House and the Senate. Now, you know, you can introduce new spending bills anytime you want to introduce them. And if you have the power of the party controlling the Senate and the House, you can revise this kind of thing. But if you have no power, then it's over. Last word.
- [34:41]
Ron Johnson
Understand? So again, what I've been saying is I want a commitment to a reasonable pre pandemic level and a process, a really strong, robust process to achieve and maintain it. Now, that gives pretty wide latitude. Again, a one and done single bill in this Congress, and that's what I find unacceptable. I'm more than willing to work with the administration. You know, what is that process? You know, what can we do to make sure that we don't do a one and done bill. So again, the game, not a game. The process has just begun here in the Senate and I'm just trying to make this a whole lot better.
- [35:13]
Bill O'Reilly
All right. And that's your job already.
- [35:16]
Ron Johnson
We would have already had the border funding, we would have already extended current taxes, take that tax increase off the table had we done it. My approach, President Trump decided one big beautiful bill. But again, if it's a one and done bill, we're really short changing ourselves here and we're really blowing a historic opportunity. There's no guarantee we'll have the House, the Senate and the we'll have the presidency in 2027, but we can't count on having the majority in the other two chambers. So we've got to do it now.
- [35:44]
Bill O'Reilly
I don't know about. You have access to the president, he returns your calls and stuff. Right. You have a dialogue with him, Correct?
- [35:51]
Ron Johnson
Correct. He's not real happy with the I've.
- [35:54]
Bill O'Reilly
Just been talking, you know, he wants what he wants when he wants it, but it's all negotiation, you know that. Are you optimistic in the end that you're going to get a bill that will pass and so the taxes will not rise? Are you optimistic there?
- [36:09]
Ron Johnson
Yeah, we're not going to increase taxes. And by the way, I had to hold out on the Tax Cut and Jobs act too, because the bill delivered by the House is only going to cut taxes for 5% of American businesses. So I'm the guy that had to dig my heels and say, hey, what about the 95% of American businesses that are pass through entities? First of all, I did educate my colleagues in terms of what a pastor entity was. But again, I dug in. I got the snarly phone calls from the White House at 10 o' clock at night. But in the end, everybody thanked me for holding out. So again, to make this a whole lot better than what it is again.
- [36:39]
Bill O'Reilly
When do you think the vote? Is your whole summer going to be ruined or are you going to be able to vote fairly soon?
- [36:46]
Ron Johnson
Well, in order to get it right before July 4th, we won't have it right. So this may drag on again. We all want the same result. We don't want to increase. We want to fund the border. We want to take what's spending in reduction that the House has already pocketed and just do more and again have a process for starting to bend that deficit trajectory down, which this bill doesn't do, unfortunately.
- [37:10]
Bill O'Reilly
All right, Senator, we really appreciate you taking the time and we'll talk again soon, I hope. Thank you.
- [37:15]
Ron Johnson
Have a great day.
- [37:17]
Bill O'Reilly
All right. Trans madness. I don't know how this issue really got out of control myself. There are so few human beings that want to become a gender they weren't born into, not many at all. But it is dominant now in our culture, and it has, of course, become a big issue in hammering the far left, which wants trans people do whatever they want, and the far left wants us to pay for it. That's where I draw the line. So, as a study by Gallup. Gallup's a good outfit. Okay, 1003 US adults. Here's what they asked. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general, it is morally acceptable or morally wrong changing one's gender. Morally acceptable, 40%. Morally wrong, 54%. Do you think transgender athletes should be able to play sports on teams that match their current gender or the one they were born with? Okay. Able to play on teams that match their identity? Now, 24. Born with 69. That is an astronomical plurality. And again, that hurts the progressive left because that's not changing. That's not going to change. It's not like gay marriage or these other things that evolved over time. This is never going to evolve. People know it's not fair to have biological males compete on against females. They know that they're not going to change. Next question. In your view, being gay or lesbian, something a person is born with or upbringing and environment. Born with 45. Upbringing, environment. 38. Both 8. Fairly close. Final question. In your view, is being transgender, some person born with or acquired. Born with 30%. Upbringing, environment. 50%. Both 7%. And that is the danger of children getting involved with this madness. There should be laws in every state, 50 states that you are not allowed to do surgery on a minor under the age of 18. Okay, that's it. The change of gender. Absolutely. All 50 states should have the law to protect immature minds. Am I wrong on that? No, I'm not. All right. Here's the final thought of the day I did this last year. I want to wish a happy Father's Day to the good fathers. The good dads, and most dads are good not only in America, but around the world. And I. I could never, as I said yesterday, associate with a father who neglected, abandoned, or abused his children. That's a disqualifier. All of my friends are. Not all of them, but about 80% of them are dads, and they're good dads. No no, dad is perfect. Dads are annoying. I'm annoying. I know my kids think I'm annoying, but I'm annoying because I'm trying to protect them and help them. Of course, they don't think they need any protection or help, but that's a whole nother matter. It's the effort. And I hope you had a good father because that's so important, as we did. If you missed our interview yesterday, if you're premier and concierge members, you can see anytime you want. It was really good about the disintegration of social order in America. Right? It's the fathers not being in a home. That's it. That's it. That's the bad education, the. That's all of it. So dads are so vital, so important. I know the movements have emasculated men. I know men aren't treated fairly in the civil court system. It's horrible in many states. I know all that. But you got to soldier on. And you've got. The most important thing in your life is to love your children and do the best you can to provide opportunity for them. Happy Father's Day. See you Monday.