B (3:22)

Mr. Sanford has been covering town for 35 years. I think he knows more about Memphis than anybody. And when I go there next, I'm calling him up for the best barbecue because he knows what he's doing down there. Now, from reading your columns, Mr. Sanford, you don't want the Guard there. Am I wrong?

D (3:41)

Well, it's not that I don't want them here, is that.

D (3:47)

They are not really contributing all that much to the crackdown in crime. Governor Bill Lee said in August that.

D (4:01)

They were not needed here in Memphis because crime has been going down in Memphis for the last couple of years.

D (4:09)

You cited the 40 plus percentage since the task force has been here. Overall, in 2025, it's down. Homicides are down 23% over 24, and it was down 22% in 24 compared to 23. So crime was already going down.

B (4:30)

All right, but I don't necessarily see where the couple of things.

B (4:36)

That'S the same argument they make in Chicago and Oregon and every place the crime was going down. We don't need the National Guard. But when the National Guard is there, and you may be absolutely right, it's a show of force because National Guard doesn't have arrest powers. Okay? But when you combine the task force and the Guard is part of the task force, as you know, and 48%.

B (5:01)

Is down on homicide, that's hundreds of people's lives.

B (5:08)

So even if you didn't say it's vital, no skin off Memphis's back or Tennessee federal government pays, why not have them if lives are being saved? I'm a simple man. That's my simple question.

D (5:23)

Well, I mean, you make a good point. And crime is down. There's no question about that. And I have, you know, gone on record as saying that there are a lot of people in Memphis who do appreciate the Guard and the entire task force being here. And really, the National Guard is not the big issue here in Memphis. They are escorting police. They are the eyes and ears of the law enforcement that's already here. The big issue here is how the task force, especially ICE agents and border Patrol agents, are policing the city and really wreaking a little havoc with law abiding immigrants.

B (6:12)

Okay, but that's a separate thing now. All right? It's different departments. I agree.

E (6:17)

Right.

B (6:17)

And look.

B (6:21)

Both sides in the ICE debate have points that should be considered. As I said, I think that they should be. And I told this to Tom Holman on worldwide tv. You've got to be a little bit more methodical about this and explain what you're doing. But getting back to the crime situation, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, you know a lot more about your town than I do. It was driven by drug Gangs. All right. The violence, you know, I was shocking that a town like Memphis, when there's no reason for it to be so violent, becomes the most dangerous place, according to the FBI. It's shocking. So I think, Lee, the governor, did a smart thing by stepping in and saying, look, yeah, we may be driving down the violence a bit, but now we're going to obliterate it and we're going to bring in the National Guard to help. I would have done it. I bet you, Mr. Sanford, if you were governor, you would have considered it, too.

D (7:20)

Well, again, the governor did say in August that the National Guard was not needed.

B (7:27)

Yeah, but then he asked Trump to send them in. He asked Trump to send him in. So, come on, you can change your mind if you're a politician. It doesn't make.

D (7:36)

Well, he did change his mind.

B (7:38)

He did. Right. And that's fine.

D (7:40)

And of course, he had two senators who helped him change his mind.

B (7:44)

You know the game. But if they're right, if people's lives are being saved, we should all celebrate that last word.

D (7:52)

I don't disagree with that. And again, people are behaving themselves a little bit more. You know, the crime that is in Memphis is a factor of. Yes, a lot of gang activity.

B (8:06)

Yeah, but poverty, I. Look, poverty drives that. But you're never going to solve the poverty problem ever. But you can help it. But not when chaos reigns, not when people are afraid to go out of their houses. Kids are afraid to go to school and get beat up. Whatever. Not the way to do it. You need order. Mr. Sanford, thank you very much. We really appreciate you taking the time.

A (8:35)

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

B (8:40)

Let's go to our neighbor to the north, Quebec. Beautiful place. Have you been? Oh, Quebec City. I love it. I stay at the Chateau Frontier, right on the St. Lawrence river, the old. Oh, great. And then mountains. And.

B (8:58)

I really, really enjoy going up there. But they're crazy.

B (9:04)

The government of Quebec, which is totally different from the government of, say.

B (9:12)

Calgary or Edmonton or, you know, one of the western provinces, they're trying to ban all religious symbols. Now, you couldn't do that in the United States because freedom of expression says if I want to wear a cross or my pal wants to wear a Star of David or my other pal wants to wear a Muslim symbol, we can wear them. Gay. That's our constitution and nobody can do anything about it. In Canada and Quebec, they have a law. Bill 9 hasn't been passed yet or signed into law, but it passed. Not an act respecting the reinforcement of the. Basically away from religion. Secularism, we would call it down here. So here are the two things that are big in the law. You can't wear prohibit certain public sector workers in the public sector now from wearing anything with religious symbols, including crosses. It also expands prohibiting faculty employed in colleges, university, daycare, private schools from wearing religious imagery, including religious private schools. So that means if you go to Catholic school and you have a priest, the priest can't wear a cross. Come on. All right. Joining us now from Toronto is Max Villaquette. He is the former director of communications for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. We are very pleased to have him receiving on the no spin news. So I'm a simple man, Mr. Veliquet Kettle, and my question is why? Why bother with this? What good does this do?

F (10:58)

So the answer is, unfortunately, politics. The governing party in Quebec think of Quebec and the. The governing parties called the caq, which means Coalition Levin, Quebec. So essentially they're a pro Quebec party and think of them almost like a. Think of Quebec as sort of like, like a state. And so the premier of Quebec would essentially be the equivalent of a governor, essentially. And they're doing pretty poorly in the polls right now. And this is a really strong issue for distraction from how poorly the governing party is doing. There's an election coming up soon. It's a great way for them to take a wedge issue and hope that people are distracted by identity politics enough to not focus on some of the other problems.

B (11:43)

Okay, but why would the folks in Quebec want this kind of damage to freedom of expression? Why would they want that?

F (11:54)

I mean, it was so interesting off the top for you to hear that Quebec is a lovely place, but also kind of weird. I've lived there. I would agree. It is a lovely place, but also kind of weird.

B (12:03)

All right, good. I'm glad we're sympathetic on that.

F (12:07)

And I mean, I love it. But it's really interesting. More people in Quebec identify as being Catholic than do in any other province in Canada. And in fact, you have a bigger group of people identifying with one religion, period. There are more people who identify with one religion that being Catholicism in Quebec than any other province in Canada. At the same time, you have the lowest rate of regular attendance of religious services of any province. So there's this big struggle between a cultural history of Catholicism and how important secularism is in Quebec right now. It's that weird conflict that exists there.

B (12:45)

Is there a conflict, though? Look, I understand. And we have it in the United States to the recession of people who go to church. And the Catholic Church is 24, 25% of Catholics down here go to mass every Sunday and so they we understand that. But say I'm an atheist and say I don't like any religion and I'm walking around Quebec. Why do I care? Have you heard of Gold Belly? It's this amazing site that celebrates the best of America by shipping our country's most iconic foods from legendary restaurants straight to your door anywhere in the usa. Now I tried Gold Belly's Maine lobster roll kit and deep dish pizza. Incredible. Both of them. So this holiday season I'm gifting a coconut cake and Junior's red velvet cheesecake to friends and family. Gold Belly's food is high quality. Ships reliably makes giving deliciously easy. So if you're looking for that perfect gift for everyone on your list or want to impress your friends and family with an unforgettable meal and make hosting a breeze this holiday season, please go to goldbelly.com get 20% off your first order with promo code BILL. That's goldbelly.com, code BILL. 20% off your first order. Let's face it, the US economy is under stress. National debt rising, trade war shaking the markets. And meanwhile China is dumping the dollar and stockpiling gold. That's why I protected my savings with physical gold and silver through the only dealer I trust, American Hartford Gold. And you can do this. Get precious metals delivered to your door or place in a tax Advantage Gold IRA. They'll even help you roll over your existing IRA or 401 tax and penalty free with billions in precious metals delivered thousands of five star reviews and an A plus from the Better Business Bureau. You can trust American Hartford Gold as I do. Please call 866-326-5576 or text BILL to 998899. Again, that's 866-326-5576, or text BILL to 998-899. If some priest has a cross or some Muslim wears a hijab or whatever, what do I care? I don't.

F (15:34)

So where Quebec is unique in Canada and I think you've hit on something really interesting is it does well with a bit of an us against the rest of the world mentality. Their state, their provincial motto translates to we remember it used to actually translate to masters where we are like there's a very big thing about the history of Quebec, about how Quebec feels often attacked from the rest of Canada. And I think one of the things we're seeing happening right now is Canada has been a little more united under a tariff and trade war threat than ever in the past. You've actually seen support for Quebec separatism and Quebec solidarity decline amongst Quebecers. So I think this is a great way for a government that's in trouble to say, no, no, no, we're all together in this issue. Right? This is something Quebecers can all agree on. Don't pay attention to anything else that is happening right now.

B (16:29)

But they don't agree on it. They can't agree on it. Look, when I was out there, I went to St. Anne de Povre. I think I'm saying it right, which is the Catholic Church. That is a healing church, and it's a very big tourist attraction there. And I can't imagine that most people who live in Quebec want this chilling. And it is chilling law that would ban people from expression. Now, your Supreme Court in Canada, and it is called the Supreme Court up there as well, has to rule on this. Gonna make a prediction?

F (17:10)

Well, it's going to be a huge challenge because there is something here called the notwithstanding clause that allows provinces to essentially govern themselves if they. It's a. It's a huge thing to invoke, but they can do it, which could conceivably override a Supreme Court challenge. So this is a big enough issue, Bill, that you may actually find not just this particular issue being decided by the Supreme Court, but it being strong enough to poke at some of the very elements in our foundation here, which is the notwithstanding clause itself. Can they use this to get around this? I would just like to add one thing to what you said, though, which is the Catholic stuff, a lot of it is being allowed because it's considered cultural. So by that, what I mean is that there have already been issues of, say, a crucifix or a cross hanging in the provincial seat of government in Quebec. And that was okay to be there until there was a real strong challenge against it because it's, quote, unquote, a cultural thing and not a religious thing. So when your history of religion involves Catholicism, but that's so wrapped up in your culture, Quebec is a very Catholic place. I think the reason some Quebecers may be okay with this is because they know it's not going to be enforced to have an impact on.

B (18:25)

Yeah, but it's still an infringement stolen infringement on their rights, if they really think about it. And here's the irony. We got Christmas in three weeks, and one of the nicest places to go to see Christmas decorations is Quebec City.

F (18:40)

I mean, think about the ridiculousness of enforcing. This is the tree.

B (18:43)

You can enforce it.

F (18:44)

The tree with an angel symbol or.

B (18:46)

A tree with a spotlight nativity scene. Yeah. You can't enforce it. All right, Max, we appreciate the update. You'll be our Go to Canada guy from now on because we do want to have good relationship with Canada and we want to understand what's going on up there. Thank you very much.

A (19:03)

This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

B (19:07)

It's a very complicated situation I do expect with these drug boats being blown out of the Caribbean and the Pacific. And the latest controversy is with two guys that weren't killed. And then the US Forces went back and dropped another bomb on the boat and they were killed. And the Democratic Party and a lot of some Republicans, I wouldn't say a lot, but some are saying, no, no, no, this again against Geneva Convention, whatever it may be. It's not the Geneva Convention. It's a totally different thing. Okay? This is a terror designation. It's a whole different thing than a declared war. And that's the memo. Now let's get another point of view on this. So I looked around, my staff looked around. I'd say, look, get the best guest, okay? I don't care the point of view. Most of the other news agencies, they just get the point of view that, you know, they have the same point of view as. We don't want that. So joining us now from Ida, Ohio, is Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Maurer, and he teaches at the College of Law at Ohio Northern University. He's a former JAG judge. Attic the general, two tours in Iraq. So the colonel knows what he is talking about. All right, Colonel, where am I going wrong here?

C (20:31)

Well, good afternoon, Bill. Thank you again for having me here. You did offer me an opportunity to rebut some of your facts and I would very much appreciate you holding up that end of the bargain because I do have some argument here. You mentioned the designated terrorist organization or the foreign terrorist organization designation that unfortunately does not actually provide any legal authority to use military force against any target. It has very specific, limited applicability. It allows us to do certain things administratively, freeze bank accounts, conduct various investigations. But foreign terrorist organization designation provides no legal authority whatsoever to use military force against them. I just want to make sure that's very, very clear.

B (21:28)

Stop you there. If that is true and that is not what President Trump believes and, you know, not what he believes, if what you're saying is right, why hasn't this been litigated? It hasn't been Litigated. There have been no lawsuits, it's not being held by the Supreme Court. And Congress has not proposed any bills at all to limit not only President Trump, but President Biden before him, President Obama before him, President Bush the Younger, that litigation does not exist. So if what you're saying is true, why does it not exist?

C (22:07)

Well, there are lots of reasons why litigation doesn't happen or doesn't happen right away. One, Congress doesn't have all the facts yet because they've not done thorough investigations.

B (22:16)

No. But it's been going on for 25 years now.

C (22:18)

Well, no. So here's another point I want to contrast is that it's a bit of a false analogy to say, well, we've been doing strikes on terrorists before. Yes, we have. The difference, though, the difference, and it's a critical difference between then and now, whether it was under Trump 1 or Bush or Obama or Biden. The difference was we had both domestic legal authority under an aumf. And I'll get back to that in a second because I know you're going to go there. Domestic authorization for use of military force and arguably a basis in international law under self defense that applied to those facts.

B (23:03)

Let me stop you here.

B (23:06)

International law does not Trump, pardon a pun, executive orders by a President of the United States.

C (23:14)

Actually it does. No, actually, actually it does though, because.

B (23:17)

Not unless there's a declared war. Look, we got to get specific out of the world. Theory, you remember.

C (23:24)

It's not the world of theory, Bill. The Supreme Court has said international, remember.

B (23:29)

You remember because you were deployed in Iraq that during his first term, Donald Trump dropped a drone on Soleimani, a citizen of Iran, in Baghdad, killed him right outside the airport. Okay? There was not one piece of litigation put forth by anyone domestically or internationally that challenged that assassination.

C (23:58)

That doesn't mean. That doesn't mean it's lawful, Bill, and you know that. It doesn't mean it's lawful.

B (24:02)

Okay? I mean, but now we're going into the world of theory, Colonel. No, no, no, no, no, no.

C (24:07)

It's not, it's not the world of theory, Bill, because the Supreme Court has said international law does apply and for two reasons. Two reasons. One, international law, the Geneva Conventions that you've talked about are a treaty that we have ratified because we've ratified it. It becomes part of the supreme law of the land, which is part of the law of the land that the President is obligated under Article 2 to follow with fidelity. That is part of the law. The Supreme Court has said, you can't just exercise.

B (24:38)

We're not fighting a war. It's an executive action against terrorism. When Trump bombed. When Trump bombed Iran, okay, Took out their nuclear facilities. We didn't get a declaration of war to do that. He did it under a terrorist EO saying, this nation is a danger, our nation. And I have to act. Again, no litigation whatsoever. Not from the Hague, not from anybody in the United States. So I don't know. Everybody's not obeying the law. Everybody's a scoff law.

C (25:28)

So you bring up lots of precedent. And it's not an invalid argument to make that we've done things before and there was no rejoinder, there was no lawsuit, there was no investigation. That's a fair argument to make. I'll concede that. But that doesn't mean that it is lawful. It doesn't mean it is constitutional. It doesn't mean you can keep doing it.

B (25:51)

There's the real world and then there's the theoretical world. I, and I don't argue theory here. If somebody. And nobody has. Colonel, you could, you're a lawyer. You could file a lawsuit against the Department of War, Department of Defense, whatever you want to call it, saying it's illegal for them to blow these drug boats out of the water. Okay, it will go to the Supreme Court. They'll have to rule on it. I wouldn't mind saying that, by the.

C (26:20)

Way, I don't have standing to bring a lawsuit in federal court against President Trump for deciding to use force. I just don't. And that's just not how it works. You mentioned the White House.

B (26:31)

You could do it. You could do it. You absolutely could do it. In fact, there's a lawsuit now in the motion, and we're going to report on it tomorrow because we have to do some investigating. One of the families of one of the dope merchants who got blown up has retained an American lawyer to do just that.

C (26:51)

Sure, yeah. Representing a victim is different from suing the government for an action that we believe the president doesn't have the authority to take. Two different kinds of lawsuits.

B (27:00)

Action. You could do a class action suit against them. You know that. Come on, you're a law professor. But nobody does it because you're going to lose because the precedent, it's precedent after precedent after precedent. You know, the invasion of Grenada, the invasion of Panama, Maduro.

C (27:16)

Okay, let's talk about.

C (27:19)

Talk about the invasion of Panama and Grenada and Grenada. Let's talk about those two. The legal justification for those two were threats to US Citizens. Whether that was exaggerated or not.

B (27:33)

And that's a legal justification for the drug gangs. Drug gangs. Smugglers have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans we just documented.

C (27:41)

So have guns. So have guns. So for us to say. I think it's a false analogy, Bill. A false analogy to say that these drug runners. I am not defending drug runners. Drug runners are criminals. They're heinous, they're terrible, they're violent. I agree 100%, but they're criminals. And do they do bad things? Yes. But let's think about what they're doing. The drug runners in the Caribbean are sending cocaine.

A (28:10)

AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI transformation@rubrik.com that's R U B R-I K.com hi, I'm Logan Urie.

G (28:42)

Hinge's lead relationship scientist. We asked 30,000 people about their dating lives. Gen Z daters told us they want deeper conversations, but they're 36% more hesitant than millennials to start them. We call this the communication gap, the space between wanting connection and starting the conversation. But here's the good news. It doesn't have to be this way. Ask one better question or share something honest and watch the connection grow. Find more in hinges 2025 Gen Z date report now live at Hinge Co. No, no.

B (29:11)

They're sending cocaine threats to national security.

C (29:15)

There are threat to safety and public health, but they're not trying to kill Americans. Why would they kill their own customer base? Why would they try to kill their own customer base? They want US citizens to live so that they buy their drugs.

B (29:29)

But more people die from the actions of a drug cartel than any jihadist organization by far. So Trump has said there are threat to national security because they're killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. You're saying that's not true?

C (29:46)

I'm saying drugs do have a negative effect. But drug runners, drug cartels, while they're involved in getting the drugs there, this is not splitting legal hairs. This is the difference between crime and war. There's a difference, okay? Drug runners.

C (30:06)

You call it invasion or whatever, but they're putting drugs on US soil. They're getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Kids. Got it. It's terrible, but let's think about all the things that have to happen These drugs are not being injected into people against their will. They're consumers. They're buying.

B (30:26)

Look, these are organized cartels under the protection of a Maduro, the guy in Colombia, in Mexico, over a door, protected. Okay, it's gotta be a national security. It has to be.

C (30:39)

All right, I gotta wrap it up. Here's what you do. Here's what you do. Here's what you do. If you, if, if you believe, if you believe, and not just you, Bill, but if anyone believes, including President Trump believes that Maduro is the heart of this, the brain of this, the. The central actor in all, he's a.

B (30:58)

Facilitator, just like Nora. It's a.

C (31:01)

If that is, if that is the case, then you tie these groups to him and you say to Congress, congress, I want an AUMF to go after Maduro. Here's my look.

B (31:12)

If, if it were me, I would run it by Congress. I would. Because to have that power. All right, but you don't have to under what Bush the Younger did way back.

C (31:28)

Those were, those were different cases involving direct, lethal threats. Planes flying into the Pentagon, into the, into the World Trade Center. Direct lethal attacks on civilians. That is not the same thing as drugs being transported. It's just not the same.

B (31:46)

Great debate. You should show it to your students. And we'll get a lot of mail and I'll read all the mail tomorrow. And we really appreciate it, Colonel. We appreciate your patriotism very much. Two tours in Iraq, I mean, that, that tells me a lot. So thank you for helping us out tonight.

A (32:04)

You're listening to the no Spa news Weekend edition.

B (32:08)

Now a quick update before we get to our special guest tonight, Reverend Franklin Graham. I have a lot to talk with him about, including President Trump. All right, so Portland, Oregon is Loonsville. And I have a deep affection for the town because I worked there as a local anchor at KATU Television. It was an ABC affiliate at the time. And Portland's a beautiful town, but it's nuts. So every year they have a Christmas tree lighting display in Pioneer Square. Okay, great event. But now they took the word Christmas out of it, so it's a tree lighting. Okay, you simpletons. There wouldn't be any tree if it wasn't Christmas. You get that? Morons. Okay, not only that, but they invite a pro Palestinian zealot to speak at the tree lighting. Roll it.

C (33:05)

You know, there's a full blown genocide happening live streaming in 4K. You know, I feel like this is.

B (33:11)

The perfect time to bring this up.

C (33:13)

You know, there's A lot of genocides.

B (33:14)

Going on in Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Lebanon.

C (33:18)

You know, Haiti, all the oppressed people around the globe.

E (33:23)

Yeah.

B (33:24)

Perfect time to bring it up. The Christmas tree lighting.

B (33:28)

And you know, is like, okay, how crazy do you want to be? Very few people object because if you object, you are ostracized in Multnomah County. That's where Portland is. But one guy did, guy's name is David Medina. Here's what he put on X go.

C (33:47)

It's okay to say Christmas, but you guys don't want to say Christmas because it's for Christians. Right.

B (33:53)

But if it was a Muslim thing, you guys wouldn't have a any problem saying it.

C (33:56)

But Portland, this is the Christmas tree, the Portland Christmas tree.

B (34:01)

Let's take back Christmas.

C (34:03)

Let's not let them take Christmas from us.

B (34:06)

Okay, so there is a war on Christmas this year, not the one that we fought and won a decade ago when I was doing the O'Reilly Factor. But now the Christian left is attacking people who want immigration law enforced. And I read this, this is a repeat here. I'm not going to do a lot of it. But this is from a guy preacher in Kansas City, John Pavlovitz, quote, the brutal Yuletide assaults haven't come from atheists or agnostics this year, not from humanists or Muslims, not from the coffee franchises of the liberal media or progressive Christians or the with mythical woke mob. The very white conservatives who are loudly sounding the alarm are the incessantly advancing whores. The alarm, of course, about illegal immigration. So I want to talk to Reverend Franklin Graham. You know, I'm, I'm the son of perhaps most famous evangelical minister ever, Billy Graham. And Franklin Graham runs a charity, a billion dollar charity called Samaritan's Purse. And all over the world, they protect Christians and try to do the right thing in advancing peace across the globe. So Franklin Graham joins us now from Boone, North Carolina. Pleasure to have you here, Franklin.

B (35:34)

I know you're friends with President Trump and I told him you're going to be on today and he was happy to hear it. We'll get to that in a moment. But I'm sure you're aware that Christianity, like every other faith, has got conservatives, it's got liberals and now the liberal wing. And some people include Pope Leo in that are criticizing and saying, oh, you're wrecking Christmas because you support ice rays and things like that. How do you process those accusations?

E (36:03)

Well.

E (36:05)

I don't try to process some places. It's just there. The point is, I believe what the President is doing is right. We have a right to get people out of this country that are coming here to do us harm. As they walked across the border illegally, they should be asked to go back or sent back and let them come in legally, let them get in line like everybody else. But I just stand behind the President 100%. Again, I don't agree with everything he says, but his policies, you better believe it. His policies are designed to protect you and me and every other American. So when it comes to the liberal churches in this country, they got off track a long time ago, long before this. They quit.

E (36:50)

They support things like abortion, they support.

E (36:55)

Same sex marriage and so forth. And they can do that. But that's not where I stand. That's where I think. Most of the American churches don't necessarily agree. They believe that marriage is between one man, one woman. That's what the Bible teaches and that's what I believe. That's what I stand for in immigration. We're all immigrants and I support immigration. But to walk across the border and do this illegally, or however you come into the country illegally, any other country in the world, they'll put you in prison. You can't do this in Mexico, they'll lock you up. You can't do this in Canada. You can't do it in any country of the world. But in the United States, they want open borders and that's wrong. We need, we need to follow the laws. And these churches are supporting a system that doesn't support the law. They want people to break the law. So, you know, I just say, well, good for them. But that's not what I stand for. That's not what I believe in. And I want people to know. The churches ought to be about telling people how they can be saved from their sins, how they can be forgiven, how they can have a relationship with God through faith in his son, Jesus Christ. This is the job of the church and all these other policies. That's the responsibility of the United States government. From the President, we have Congress. Why are they doing that?

B (38:13)

Bleeds over, right? So you were familiar. A couple of weeks ago, the Roman Catholic bishops met and they came out with a statement saying, look.

B (38:25)

You have to be humane. So some of these ICE raids, they go over, they brutalize people. This is the accusation. And Jesus wouldn't be asking for a passport or papers. If there was somebody poor that needed help, Jesus would help that person. I believe that too. I give money to help migrants. And I'm not demanding that. The charities that do that check their immigration status if somebody needs help, I think as Christians, we need to help that person. But that doesn't mean we allow an open border and we allow lawlessness in the immigration area. I think that there has to be common sense across the board. But when you hear Pope Leo, I'd love to see a debate between you and Pope Leo on the immigration matter. I think that Christians all over the world, you know what kind of rating that would get.

B (39:17)

Because there are two points of view in the Christian world on this. Correct.

G (39:23)

This is a real good story about Bronx and his dad, Ryan. Real United Airlines customers.

A (39:28)

We were returning home, and one of the flight attendants asked Bronx if he wanted to see the flight deck and meet Kath and Andrew.

E (39:34)

I got to sit in the driver's seat.

B (39:36)

I grew up in an aviation family, and seeing Bronx kind of reminded me.

F (39:39)

Of myself when I was that age.

G (39:41)

That's Andrew, a real United pilot.

B (39:43)

These small interactions can shape a kid's future. It felt like I was the captain.

A (39:48)

Allowing my son to see the flight deck will stick with us forever.

F (39:51)

That's how good leads the way. Hey, it's Sean Spicer reminding you to tune into the Sean Spicer show every weeknight right here. You're not going to want to miss our analysis, whether it's the media, politics, campaigns, the upcoming midterms, Supreme Court rulings. We've got it all covered for you.

C (40:09)

With the best guests in politics, the.

F (40:12)

Pundits, the pollsters, members of the House of Representatives, members of the Senate, candidates running for both, and key members of President Trump's administration.

C (40:21)

You're not going to want to miss it.

E (40:24)

Well, there may be more than that, but again, we need to follow the law, and I believe in the law. And so it's just an issue whether you're going to support the policies of the president and trying to defend this nation and follow the laws of this nation, or are you going to encourage people to break the law? I want to stand on what's right, and that's the law. Now, the immigrants, people that are poor, that are in this country, and I don't blame people taking advantage of the fence not being there or the wall not being there and, and wanted to slip into America, however they can get here to find a better way for their. For their families and just try to have a better life. I understand that. And. But they still should leave and come back legally. Now, there are other people that came in who are here for a purpose, and I believe they were sent in by other countries to do us harm.

B (41:17)

And yeah, and I mean, Jesus was.

E (41:21)

All they can to protect us.

B (41:23)

Jesus was clear on render to Caesar. So Samaritan's, Persia, all over the world trying to protect Christians. And President Trump raised the issue of Nigeria not protecting Christians because Nigeria is a chaotic country. Their armed forces are not up to speed, and they have a Muslim component that's running around killing Christians. But the president says you better knock it off or United States is going to get directly involved. Are you involved with that situation?

E (41:54)

No, I'm not involved in that situation. But we do work in Nigeria and we've got people in Nigeria and we've done a lot of work among the Muslim community as well as the Christian community. When we work in a country, Bill, we don't differentiate between the Christians and non Christians and we just help everybody. And so Nigeria is a country that has a lot of need. But I appreciate the fact that the president is standing up to that government. And I believe the president's a Muslim and his wife is a Christian. But he's made it clear if you're going to allow this to continue, we'll be in there and we'll protect the Christians. So my hat go off to President Trump. Thank you for standing up for Christians. No other president has ever done that, Bill. No one. He's the only president in my lifetime that has taken a stand to protect Christians. So I'd say God bless him.

B (42:45)

Okay, Now Christians are under fire, pardon a pun, in Muslim countries mostly. And Putin, China. I mean, I don't want anything to do with Christians, but they don't. They're not as blatant about it, but they're pretty brutal. In China, Putin calls himself a Russian Orthodox, but my God, the guy's a mass killer.

B (43:11)

When you go, do you speak to these people in a Muslim world and say, hey, you got to protect, like Turkey. Turkey used to have a vibrant Christian community. Now it's less than 1% in that huge country of Turkey is Christian because they've been battered for decades. Do you get involved with the foreign leaders and say, come on, knock it off?

E (43:38)

I do. And I had the ambassador from Iraq in my office this past week, and one of the concerns he had was that Christians were leaving Iraq. They had a large Christian community, and it's dwindling. They're leaving. Okay? And I said, Mr. Ambassador, I said, you need to change the education system, make it a secular system. Right now, it's a children go. You get Muslim and indoctrination, Islamic indoctrination and a Christian family does not want their children to come under that. Change it and make it a secular if you want Christians to stay. So I do speak up and I do speak out. And when we work in these Muslim countries where we know that we are at risk, I always make it clear to the leadership. I was in the Sudan, met with the president of Sudan, or he's the general, just a few months ago, and it was very clear, this is who we are. This is what we believe. This is what we stand for. And if you want our help, we're glad to come help you. But you have to understand who we are. We don't want to hide the fact that we're evangelical Christians. We want everyone that we help to know that God loves them and that God cares for them and he sent his son from heaven to this earth for their sins. We want the whole world to know that. And I find when I'm up front with the Muslim leadership and they appreciate that, and they allow us to come in and work. So we have not had any problems in places like Sudan. We've been to Sudan for over 35 years, and it's a very difficult place to work, but we're there. So. Bill, the world is a mess, no question about it. But the only one who can put this back together is God himself. And I believe the only way that can happen is when we put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ came to save us. He didn't come to condemn us. We were celebrating Christmas. You had the Christmas tree lighting where the Palestinian athletes were speaking out. Okay, that's fine. But Jesus Christ came to save us, not to condemn us. And I want the world to know that Christmas is about God giving the first gift. His son, Jesus Christ. And he came for the purpose of taking our sins.

B (45:46)

Yeah, I agree. I'll fight the secular war. Reverend, you don't have to do that. You just keep doing a good work you're doing all over the world. How can people get to Samaritan's Purse?

E (45:58)

Well, go to our website, samaritanspurse.org we always need help. And you see behind me is that DC8 airplane. We have 32 airplanes. This one is going to go to Liberty University this next week, and they're going to use that in their school of aviation, not to fly it, but to work on it. But it's DC8 and it's come to the end of its life, so it's going to spend the rest of its days parked at Lynchburg Airport.

B (46:24)

All right, Reverend, you have a nice Christmas. Really appreciate it. If we can ever be of service, you let us know. Okay?

E (46:30)

Thank you.

A (46:32)

Thank you for listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

A (46:38)

To watch the full episodes of the no spin news, visit billoreilly.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's billoriley.com sign up and start watching today.

G (46:53)

A T shirt and jeans. Mac and cheese. Some things in life are an obvious match, like RIAS and Schwab Advisor Services, the number one choice for independent advisors. The difference is so obvious, it's schwabvious. Learn why@schwabius.com.