Loading summary
Transcript77 lines
- [00:02]
A
Welcome to the no Spin News Weekend edition.
- [00:07]
B
So I hope you read my column on Communism. It's on BillOriley.com Sunday column. It'll be there all week. And I felt the need to explain communism because many people in America don't know what it is. And I have to confess that when I wrote the book culture warrior about 12 years ago, I never thought that a communist movement would have any credibility in this country. I knew progressives were coming on the march. I knew the far left was coming, but I never thought it would morph into outright communism. Okay? So that's the talking points Memo. I call the column the Red Menace. So communism is a belief system, a governmental system that says the state controls means of production. So the capitalistic marketplace is banned in places like China, Cuba, old Soviet Union, on and on and on. So government tells the people, this is what you can do, this is what you can't do in pursuit of money and business. Now, of course, there are exceptions. When I was in China last year, there were very wealthy people there, and most of them worked on the behest of the government or there was some kind of entrepreneur. So there's a little bit of room in some of these places. Not North Korea. No. So in New York City, a communist was elected. Zoran Mamdani. Okay? He is the mayor here. Now, he does not admit he is a communist. He says he is a socialist. Right. And that he believes in free voting and all of that. Democratic socialists. There are no democratic socialists. That party doesn't exist. Never has existed. Never. Because you can't impose rules of economic welfare and say that you're a democratic, though. Nobody's voting on these rules. It's you. Just last week, Mandani said every apartment in New York City will be rent stabilized for two years. No rents go up. Whether, like, the landlords had anything to say about it or the tenants. Your hot water heater goes down, who's going to fix it? Not Mandani. Not going to do it. But that's means of production. You got to live someplace. And then Mandani wants desperately to open grocery stores to undermine the grocery stores that are there in the city now by regulations. Okay? So the city is in charge of feeding you, so your city's in charge of your dwelling and your nutrition. Can't be democratic. Those are impositions. Okay? Now, in New York, there's a big disparity between the wealthy and the poor. Everybody knows that if you move here, if you live here, that is the circumstance in Des Moines Iowa, you don't have that, okay? Or at least not close to what we have here. The next move, and it's going on in California right now, is a wealth tax. This is private property. Remember, communists do not believe in private property, okay? So the wealth taxes. A government official would come to your house, evaluate everything that you have and accumulated after tax dollars that you bought and you get taxed on it. Whatever the government says, this may pass in California, where there are just millions of migrants who have no tradition in capitalism. Don't care about it, don't understand it, okay? They want money given to them by the government, that is the wealthy, because that's where the taxes would go. All right? So all of this is taking on a momentum very, very dangerous. Now, on the history of it. We fought a Cold war against the Soviet Union, 1945 on. We won because we literally outspent them. The Reagan and Bush, the elder administrations, and their economy collapsed. And then subsequently, Putin says he's not communist, but he is. Putin's controlling the means of production in Russia, okay? There's no private property in Russia. Putin wants your Dachai. He's going to take it and there's nothing you can do about it. But the big thing is that when you live under a communist system, your potential, okay, is severely damaged because there are things you can do and things you can't do. So if you're an entrepreneur, if you invent something, if you want to get something done, if you want to get a license, all of those things have to be okayed by the government. And I go through all of it in this column, which I hope you'll read now, if you don't believe me, listen to this. George Soros and his son have spent more than $100 million in fighting five months to get progressive socialists, Democratic socialists, elected in November. Okay? More than $100 million. There's nothing on the other side that counters that the media is compliant with this. The Disney's, okay, the NBC's, they are sympathetic to this communist movement because they feel that the United States is not really a noble nation, that those of us who have prospered, we did that because of the government. Obama told me that in person, face to face during an interview. It's not you, Bill. Your success isn't driven by you. It's the government. So of course the government has a right to take anything I have. Now, most Americans have no blanking clue about what's happening here. None. Okay? And they're voting for Democrats, Progressives who promise them Stuff Mandami. Free bus rides, okay. Discounted food, rent freezes on and on and on and on and on. Okay. Health care and child care, free. College tuition, free. That is the pitch for the communists. It's a bitch. And there are enough people who believe it. That Mandani is sitting there in Gracie Mansion as mayor of the largest city in the country. It is shocking. And that's a memo.
- [08:37]
A
You're listening to the no Spa News Weekend Edition.
- [08:41]
B
The Lisa Trump administration is aware, Biden couldn't care less, okay. Of the intrusion of communism into our capitalistic system. It's getting worse and worse and worse. And then there is the SAVE Act. Now, this is part of the whole movement, Safeguard America Voter Eligibility act, the SAVE Act. This would basically make it much easier for everyone to vote, including foreign nationals. Not one Democrat opposed to this. Not one. All it says is in order to register to vote, cast a ballot, you'd have to have a birth certificate, okay. And a government issued photo ID license, anything like that, okay? Not one Democrat supports it. So therefore it is stalled. They can't get a vote in the Senate. Now, I think most Republicans would support the SAVE act, but it's a mess. And I don't know if Trump's going to be able to cut through that mess. Joining us now from Buffalo, New York is Joseph Perns. He's an attorney, specializes in elections. He is a Republican and he's based in Washington, D.C. so are you surprised not one Democrat wants to have voter ID in play? Are you surprised?
- [10:28]
C
It is a bit surprising, especially if you look at the polling on these issues. So the Save A Barrack act has two main components to it. One is the photo ID to vote aspect and then also the requirement that citizenship be proven when an individual registers to vote. If you look at the poll numbers on each one of those individually, well, number one, photo ID for voting. Not only does it have a majority, overwhelming majority of Republicans and independents supporting it, but it also has a clear majority of Democrats on the other provision of the, of the proposal. You have a recent poll from, from just last month said that you have a majority of Americans that do think you should have to prove citizenship when registering to vote. So it is, it is a bit surprising. And certainly those Democrats that come out of purple states where they could have Senate seats, House seats that could go either way, it is quite likely to their political disadvantage to be opposing it.
- [11:40]
B
Then why are they doing it? Why are they opposing it?
- [11:44]
C
You know, I think if you, I think we, to really get to the Bottom of it. To really answer that question, I think we have to go back a few years to the last time Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. They had their own election, quote, reform proposal called the for the People act, backed by every Democrat in the House, every Democrat in the Senate as well. The only thing that stopped it from passing the Senate was the Republican filibuster. If you look through that, and it hasn't gotten a lot of media attention, but if you look through that Democratic proposal, every one of the provisions is way outside the mainstream of American politics. Whether it's taxpayer funding for congressional campaigns, whether it's a requirement that every state have no excuse, absentee voting, whether it's the requirement that you have automatic voter registration when any individual interacts with a government agency, I think that's their, that's their proposal. That's what they want to happen. That's how they voted last time they controlled Congress. And so anything like the SAVE act that stands in the way, they're not going to, they're not going to support. They're going to, they're going to bide their time until they get back in charge in order to pass what they've always wanted.
- [13:07]
B
All right, I think it's. They want to flood the zone with foreign nationals to get those votes. Point to California, that Reagan was governor for two terms. He had Arnold Schwarzenegger and a number of other Republicans that won statewide races. Now you don't have any. Can't get a Republican elected there. And a lot of people believe it's by the foreign vote. The people come in, they get a driver's license from California, which will give you a driver's license even though you're not a citizen. They show that driver's license to the voter registration. They're on the rolls and they vote liberal Democrat and that's the plan. Am I wrong?
- [13:52]
C
I think certainly California's got a lot of very negative attention these last few weeks since they had their primary. Clearly the state has any number of problems with election administration. And I think what we saw a couple weeks ago with really their inability to count ballots could just be the tip of the iceberg. They've gotten some very fair criticism from, honestly from people across the political spectrum. Certainly the criticisms come in from the President, certainly the criticisms come in from Speaker Mike Johnson. But even Gavin Newsom, the state's governor, a far left Democrat, likely presidential candidate in 2028, even he has said that the state needs to do a better job. So in my opinion, certainly we started out talking about the Save America act, certainly that is a, that would be a good first step because that's a bureaucratic thing.
- [14:50]
B
I'm talking about a bigger plan. And the plan is to get as many ill informed voters or dependent voters that need government assistance on the rolls to dominate the elections. It's simple equation. That's what they're doing.
- [15:11]
C
And certainly if you had something like the Save America act in place, that would be much, much, much harder.
- [15:18]
B
Harder to do. Right. So you don't have one Democrat, not one who wants to toughen up the voter's registration process or require a photo id. It's almost unbelievable. Not one, nobody. And I think it's got to be part of this is our plan to overwhelm Republicans and to take over. Last word.
- [15:49]
C
It's certainly hard to imagine. You've got a lot of those Senate Democrats from purple states, from very competitive states and from states where they already have in some respects photo ID imposed at the state level. So yes, it is, it's incredibly hard to believe. Hopefully the pressure is going to continue with these, with these Democrats in the Senate and maybe sometime in the near future the dam will break and we will see the same America act pass.
- [16:20]
B
Well, you need data on it. You need to know how many foreign nationals got in here under Biden. The estimate is between 10 and 15 million. And how many of them are on the voter rolls? That's what you need to find out. You could do that through the census, although people can lie at the census. But you know, I think that my theory here, and I'm not a theorist, I'm a fact based guy, I think it's correct. Councilor, thanks very much. We really appreciate your time today.
- [16:52]
A
This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.
- [16:56]
B
I want to go to July 4th and the divisions in America. And that's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. So the Great American State Fair is underway in Washington D.C. 16 days free. You can just wander by the mall between 14th street and 4th street and look at all the expositions. Unfortunately, nine states, perhaps 10 are not going to participate because they hate Trump. Now, they never say that, but that's the reason. If Barack Obama were president today, all of them would be there. So we all know what the game is. Now, why would the Great American State Fair be linked to politics? Why? It's just honoring the tenor of our country, the history of our country. Now, I understand that there are Americans, about 20%, maybe 25, that despise their country. I got it for a variety of Reasons, none of which are valid, my opinion. But you know, hey, under the Constitution, they can despise their country. And I don't despise them. Unless I believe what they're doing is hurting you, then I'm coming after you. Okay, so the mall, the Great American State Fair is up. Each state has to cover expenses. So if they build a little display, they have to pay for it, but they don't have to pay anything to the government or they don't have to do anything political whatsoever. But still, nine states say we're not doing it. Those states are Connecticut. Now, I live very close to Connecticut. I worked at Channel three up there. I don't know what happened to the state. I can't tell you what happened. I don't know why it's so radical left, but it is. And it's a big Trump thing up there. So Connecticut's not showing up. Will it be missed a little bit? Because there's a lot of history attached to Connecticut and our struggle to be free from the King of England. Maryland says it's going to show up and do something, but nobody really knows what. And that's because the governor, West Moore, doesn't want to be put into radical territory. Illinois gives no reason they're not showing up. It's Pritzker, the governor. You know what the history is there. So Illinois is not showing up. Maine. Maine is just out of control right now. So the Office of Tourism says the summer season is too busy. They can't come down and do a display at the Great American State Fair. Just throw down a couple of lobsters. I mean, come on. So Maine's not showing. Massachusetts. We know what that is. The governor of Massachusetts actually gave a quote, Maura Healey said, this guy that would be the President of the United States tries to get money into his pocket any which way. He invited all the states to participate, wants to charge us to go down and put something on his exhibit. Whatever he's creating for freedom to 50 is just ridiculous. So everything that he might create, Donald Trump is ridiculous. And Healey wants the government to pick up the tap. Federal government, not the state. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And you don't get more left in Massachusetts used to be kind of remember when Mitt Romney was governor there, the Bay Staters usually said, you know, we know the left are loons, but we like them for whatever reason. But we're always going to put in a Republican to run the state fiscally because we don't want to be bankrupt. Taxachusetts, North Carolina, another like Maine, very chaotic state at this point. So they're not showing up. Oregon unless they send antifa display. You know, and I lived in Oregon and it wasn't that way. When I leave, all everything goes to hell. Okay, Connecticut, Massachusetts. So Oregon, you know, it's just radical, radical left. And they're not showing up. Rhode island very much like Connecticut. So very hardcore Democratic state. Very hardcore. And it says that they have their own commemoration so they don't have to do the federal. Well, Rhode island didn't win the Revolutionary War. Signed the Declaration of Independence. One of your guys did. But the feds did that. Vermont is just like Connecticut or Rhode Island. So Bernie Sanders is not going to let anything go down. Sanders, the most powerful politician by far in that state. And then Washington state, Seattle's got a communist mayor. And you guys who live out there know they're going to strangle you with taxes. They're just going to act, absolutely kill you. So it'll be a lot of people moving out of Washington. They say it's too expensive. We can't go to the fair. Okay, Vermont says we have to concentrate on what Vermont did. That would take about 30 seconds. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. That was Vermont's. There were a couple of paddles there. But again, they were fought by federal troops under Washington. Even Allen was a renegade. All right, so if you don't show up, you're unpatriotic. As simple as that. 250 anniversary. You're honoring your nation. Not a president, not an administration, not a state. Your state's just honoring the nation. You're one of 50. But no. Poison, poison, poison. This is political poison. And it's really, to me, I don't care what these states do. I shouldn't say that. I live near New York City. They can't get me, but New York State can. And so I care about that. But what's happening in New Haven, Connecticut? Yeah, you guys, I can't solve all the problems. And that is the memo.
- [24:05]
A
You're listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.
- [24:09]
B
All right, Supreme Court. So let's take them one by one. The first one happened earlier this week, that you can count ballots according to Supreme Court. And that's top of the Pops. You don't get high, you can't get hired. There's no appeal. So if you are a state and you have mail ins, the mail INS come a week after election day, they can be counted. Simple as that. And the reason that was made is based on a constitution. The States control federal elections. So if the state wants to have this crazy mail and stuff, then it can have it. Now, if voter ID and all that stuff ever got through, which I don't think it will under President Trump, you could circumvent that by a new law. All right, second one is the big one, birthright citizenship. So this is your a Honduran woman and you sneak across the border and you give birth to your baby in Texas. Well, your baby is an American just by the fact that he or she was born here. Birth right citizenship, that has been in play since the Civil War because the Congress, after the north defeated the south, said, you know what, you Southern states, they're going to disenfranchise these black slaves and they're not going to make them give them what all Americans get. So we have to pass a new law. And they did. All right, So I accurately predicted this on July 24, 2025. Well, the Trump administration, as you know, does not want birthright citizenship. The law says now, and it's in the Constitution, that if you are born in the usa, you are automatically a citizen. Trump administration wants that done away with, and they are losing. The U.S. court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, California took up a case, 2 to 1 ruling. Both liberals voted to keep the birthright. The judge that was appointed by Trump voted against it. Okay, this happened yesterday, but this is not going to change. And the reason it's not going to change is it's in the Constitution. So you can't start the Supreme Court. Remember what I said at the beginning of the program, they don't make the law, so you can't say, oh, it's in the Constitution. I don't like it. We're taking it out. Okay, you can expand upon the law and you can do other things, but Congress is in charge of the law. Now, in order to change the 14th Amendment, which this falls under, you would have to have two thirds of Congress and 2/3 of the American people vote for the constitutional change. That's a pretty high bar. It's not going to happen. Not going to happen. And the reason is, if you are an independent thinker or a conservative, you can see that if the Supreme Court started doing this kind of thing, they could change every law. Every law could be changed. So, yeah, you might get your birthright citizenship banned or tweaked, but then every law that the liberals don't like, the progressives don't like would be subject to the same interpretation. There are three justices on the Supreme Court that believe the Constitution is a quote, unquote living document. That means you don't have to follow it. Whatever they want, they can do. That's not democracy. The six conservatives are basically, no, if the Constitution says that, we're going to uphold it. And that's what happened today. Okay, so six to three vote. Those dissenting were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. Ironically, all conservatives. Okay? You knew the liberals were going to vote for it because they want as many immigrants as possible to come into the country. You knew that. Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh all joined Kavanaugh for a technical reason. But, you know, I got mail on this and, oh, no, no, it's wrong. It's wrong. It may be wrong. It may be wrong. It may be a ruse, it may be a scam, okay, Border babies, the cartels do it, but that doesn't mean you up. There's upheaval in the entire constitutional process. All right, the last one is the easiest one. There are 24 states that have made laws that women who were born men can compete on athletic fields with women who were born women. Does that make sense? So if you're a trans, you can't compete against biological women. And it just makes sense because you're stronger. You have a different DNA composition. You have an advantage. It's crazy. So 24 states, including Idaho and West Virginia. All right, who brought suit? And the Supreme Court says, yeah, six of three. Again, the states have a right under the equal protection clause to carry out what they feel is in the public safety arena. So now the other states, California and Massachusetts, that want this, they can't have it. So the three dissenters were Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Kenji Brown Jackson, all extremely liberal people. Jackson wrote the dissent. Okay. And the dissent is interesting. It gives you a mindset on what these three liberal Supreme Court justices are all about. She says, quote, because the majority inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors, that would be trans people, without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions. I respectfully dissent. So it's, you know, it's another bureaucratic throw it back into the hopper because this is so unpopular among the American people. Every poll shows that. All right, so President Trump, I think, knew he wasn't going to win the border babies thing. He's happy with the trans thing, and he's not happy with the mail in. But again, I don't think he had an expectation of victory. Joining us now from Utah is Michael McConnell he is a law professor at Stanford. He teaches constitutional law. He's a big expert, and that's why we have him, because he knows more than I do. And not only is a professor in a classroom, but he was a circuit court judge for the U.S. court of Appeals, 10th Circuit for seven years, appointed by President George W. Bush. All right, first of all, am I flunking your class, or did you stay awake during my monologue? Or what happened? What happened?
- [32:23]
D
Well, Bill, I think you got it almost entirely right. Maybe one. I. I would just point out one possible mistake, which is on the transgender athletics case, you indicated that the states that do want to allow transgender athletes to compete on. On female teams now can't do that. That actually isn't what the court held. It upheld the states that want to prevent that, but there was no holding that the Equal protection clause or Title 9 compel states to stop transgender.
- [33:01]
B
So if you're a liberal state and you want to have this, you can have it until the next lawsuit that goes to the Supreme Court.
- [33:09]
D
That's right. There will be arguments. There'll be other cases, but this case didn't decide that.
- [33:14]
B
All right. On the 14th Amendment case, everybody, you know, I got letters, oh, no, it's not fair. It's not fair. It's not fair. Okay, fine. But almost every legal expert knew that the Trump administration is not going to prevail. Do you believe that it should have been brought anyway?
- [33:37]
D
Well, I also predicted this. I predicted on the first day of class last year that this would be the way it would come out. Just one observation, Bill. That if. If President Trump was really serious about getting this accomplished, that he shot himself in the foot by doing this as an executive order. Because, you know, whatever you may think about the underlying issue, the president doesn't have the power to decide who is a citizen or not. And, you know, no justice supported the idea that the President can change the law. You were quite right in saying the Supreme Court doesn't make the. But the truth is the President doesn't make the law either. And Justice Kavanaugh wrote a very interesting and plausible. I'm not saying it's correct, actually. In the end, I think the majority probably had it right. But a plausible argument that the Constitution does not compel this answer, but that Congress has legislated that both illegal and temporary persons in this country are citizens, and he takes a position that Congress could change that. I think if President Trump had gone to Congress and asked them, under their Section 5 enforcement power with the 14th Amendment, to legislate on this subject that the case might have come to the court in a somewhat less loaded posture.
- [35:11]
B
All right. But he never would have gotten it through the filibuster in the Senate. That would be impossible. But you're, of course, correct that Congress makes the laws, not the president. What the president did by writing the executive order was challenge a law that he believes is insane, that it's a con, it's a ruse, it's an industry, and this is happening at a level that's hurting the country. So I think it was more of a statement that Trump was making on day one when he took over second term than a hope that he was going to win. I think he always knew he wasn't going to win this at the Supreme Court.
- [35:57]
D
Well, that may be right, but I think most people who supported President Trump wanted results, not statements, not performative acts. And.
- [36:06]
B
And, oh, you'd be surprised, professor, that rhetoric, you know, that magic.
- [36:13]
D
Just say it may be there. There certainly are good reasons why. Why the people involved here, you know, good reasons why that perhaps they shouldn't be made citizens. But to call this a ruse or a con is. Is a real exaggeration, because whatever, however the case should have come out, the majority cited a great deal of history. I don't think it's even disputed.
- [36:39]
B
But I'm. I'm coming from a different law. Yeah, but I'm coming at it from a different point of view than the historians. I'm coming at it is there is an industry in Mexico that smuggles people into the United States, a lot of people. And under Biden, they made more money and put more people that were born foreign nationals into this country than anyone else in history. That's what Trump recognized. I got to stop this. I'm going to close the border. That's going to be one way to stop it. And I'm going to cut this industry that the Mexican cartels have formulated to make money, of course, by, you know, bringing in these pregnant women and having them give birth here. So I'm coming at it from. Not a legal point of view. I'm coming at it from. Trump knew that what was happening was, in his opinion, injurious to the nation, but also an industry that should be wiped out.
- [37:42]
D
Well, you may very well be right about that, that there needed to be a change in the law, but he didn't argue for a change in the law. He argued that the law had been this way, way back to 1868, and that's just not true.
- [37:57]
B
Okay, but the Law was formulated, as I said, to make sure that slaves were not denied the rights of citizenship, Correct?
- [38:08]
D
Well, that's true. But during the debates over that, there were the side. Other, other people are totally side issues. But for example, there was a direct discussion of Chinese immigrants and whether they could become citizens. And the answer was yes.
- [38:25]
B
Yeah, but they had to go through an onerous process. You'll remember that the Chinese workers on the railroads, they had to go. Some of them were sent back to their own country, some of them were isolated. I mean, they didn't make it easy for these people. It wasn't a snap like it is now. Last.
- [38:41]
D
No, but their children who were born here were citizens from day one.
- [38:46]
B
Yeah. There wasn't any challenge to that. It was, let's discourage the Chinese people from coming here in the first place.
- [38:55]
D
In 1888, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion act, which is, I think not one of the more honorable moments in our history.
- [39:04]
B
No, we're not going to be waving the flag for that on July 4th. And again, no country is perfect. I really appreciate your expertise, Professor. I hope you'll come back on legal matters because we do need some sanity in this. And happy 4th of July to you.
- [39:22]
A
This is the no Spin News, Weekend edition.
- [39:26]
B
Back in Washington, the strife between the two parties continues. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo, A tale of two Parties. Okay, I'm going to lay it out for you now so you may remember. Sheridan Gorman, 18 year old, Loyola University student, Chicago, shot and killed March of this year by a Venezuelan illegal migrant. The Suspect, Jose Medina, 25 years old, simply opened fire on a group of college girls and Ms. Gorman was killed. Okay. Medina is pled not guilty. He remains awaiting trial. Also, Lake and Riley probably heard that name, got a little bit more attention. Augusta University, Georgia nursing student murdered February 2024 while jogging. Okay. A Venezuelan illegal migrant, Jose Ibarra, pled not guilty, but then waived his right to a jury trial. And he has been sentenced to life without prison with, to life in prison, I should say without parole. Okay. Now there are many, many others, thousands of others of American citizens who were harmed by illegal aliens. As Geraldo Rivera would say, that doesn't mean all illegal aliens are bad. That would not be a accurate correlation. On the other side, you'll remember Renee Goode, 37 year old in Minneapolis. He was protesting against ICE. She was violating the law and an ICE officer shot her to death. That was January 7th of this year, 2026 is outrageous. About a week after that, two weeks after, to be exact, Alex Preddy. Same thing. Interfering with an ICE raid, carrying a pistol, which was legal. And then he got shot to death by ICE agents. So you got a tale of two fatal activities. Four, if you add them all up. Now, this has led to an amazing brawl in the House of Representatives yesterday between Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a very, very hard left progressive, and Congressman Mike Lawler from New York, who's a very conservative man. Okay? The two went at it in a, let's say, vivid way. Roll it.
- [42:31]
E
So while some of my colleagues may not want to hear the truth,
- [42:36]
F
the
- [42:36]
E
same outrage you feel about Renee Good and Alex Pretty, about Sheridan Gorman and Lake and Riley and every angel family in this country. I do feel that outrageous. You do not. Because if you did, you would not support. You feel the outrage about Alex. You should be ashamed. You don't belong in this committee. You should get the hell out of here. You don't understand the rules of the committee. You don't understand the Constitution. Say one word about. Get rid of. I did. I wrote a whole New York Times op ed about it. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Imposing sanctuary policies that resulted in their daughter.
- [43:20]
C
The committee will be in order.
- [43:21]
G
Mr. Chairman, I. I just want to say we. We will not allow for. Thanks to Mr. Lawler's outrageous outburst, we will not allow this to happen again. This was an agreement between the chair and the ranking member. And unfortunately, you're not able to control your members. So it is time for us to proceed.
- [43:37]
E
Your opening statement was outrageous. You should be ashamed of yourself. I yield back.
- [43:42]
G
Get off of it.
- [43:45]
B
Let's try to conduct ourselves in a civil manner. All right, so that's not going to happen. There's too much emotion. So the right believes that sanctuary policies are leading to death and crimes against Americans. And the left believes that they should all be let in here. Now, I am generalizing, but we had four years of President Biden's open border. You didn't hear. I didn't hear. And if you did, please let me know. I don't hear any dissent from the Democratic Party about those policies. And that's what Lawler is getting at. Now, both sides have some point of view that's legitimate. So on the right, though, ICE has modified. You haven't heard of Homan very much. You have a new ICE chairman. They've modified. There's no doubt they have. Left is still running wild with this stuff. Let them all in.
- [44:50]
F
Let them in.
- [44:50]
B
Let them in. Protect them. Protect them. Protect them. Being illegal migrant. So There's a couple of truisms here. If you are an open border person, admit it right off the top. And if you're not and you support sanctuary cities, then you have to explain that. All right? Whenever I ask somebody who is very pro migrant if they are for open borders, they dodge. They dodge. They're not going to say, oh, yeah, I am. No, they give you somewhat kind of like humane, this, that, whatever is Pope Leo for open borders, I don't know who won't answer a question about it. Seems to be so. The bitterness inside the house reminds me of the Civil War because it is hot in there. And that is the memo.
- [45:51]
A
You're listening to the no Spin news Weekend edition.
- [45:55]
B
In New York State, the Dominican sisters run a home north of New York City for people with incurable cancer. Okay? They run the home and 42 beds. And they have been ordered three times by the state of New York to use preferred pronouns. That means if somebody doesn't want to be called a man, they're not called a man or a woman or whatever they're called whatever they want. They can't have men, women, bathrooms in the facility. Okay? And there's a number of other things. This law was signed by Governor Hochul. All right? Now the nuns are saying, hey, this violates our freedom of religion because we are Catholics and Catholics do not believe that there are more than 2 genders. That's part of the doctrine of Catholicism. So we're not going to call Ted Shirley. We're not. And to force us violates our religious freedom. Now the state of New York says, well, if you don't do it, we're going to fine you thousands of dollars and maybe put you out of business. Remember, this is a hospice for people with incurable cancer. This is insane. And I'll back it up by saying, hey, there are other religions that have been given exemptions. But first, let me read you the law, okay? Quote, it shall be unlawful for a long term care facility or facility staff to discriminate against any residents on the basis of such residents, actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or human virus, HIV status. Okay? So rooms are assigned by gender, but it's whatever gender the person wants it to be. All right, now the nuns are suing the state of New York in federal court, likely will win the lawsuit based upon other things that have happened. So the Native American church, run by Indians, they can use an illegal drug in their rituals called peyote. Okay? Because they say we've been using peyote forever. And it's a hallucinogen. And the government says, well, peyote is illegal, but you can use it. The Amish don't have to send their kids to school. They don't have to register the kids for school because they're Amish and they want to teach the kids at home. So those are just two exemptions. Joining us out from New York City is Jerry Trujillo. He is a associate professor of law at City University. Where am I going wrong here? Because I think you're on the other side of this, that the state has a right to force the nuns to do these things.
- [49:25]
F
First of all, Mr. Reilly, thank you for having me on.
- [49:27]
B
Sure.
- [49:28]
F
What I would say as far as what you got wrong. So this law isn't about forcing the nuns to do anything. What this law is fundamentally about is ensuring that people that are lgbtq, that people that have hiv, are not discriminated against when they're getting palliative care, when they're at the end of life, certainly. What do I think the law ought to be and what the likelihood of the sisters winning their lawsuit is? There's a little bit of a difference what I would say, as far as the likelihood of them winning their lawsuit. So the state can have generally applicable laws that just happen to have different burdens for different religious groups. So you spoke about people that are indigenous and smoking peyote before. Well, there's actually this whole law came about because of a case from 1990, Employment Division v. Smith, where the Supreme Court Scalia decision said that no indigenous folks actually can't necessarily smoke peyote if there is a generally applicable state law that just happens to burden them here. The argument that New York would make is that this is not a law that targets the sisters. This is a law that just ensures broadly that people. Sorry, go ahead.
- [50:52]
B
All right, but let me stop you there. Do you think the sisters are discriminating against anybody?
- [51:02]
F
To my knowledge, I don't know that the state that the sisters have been accused of discriminating against anyone.
- [51:08]
C
No.
- [51:08]
B
But their argument is we're not going to do this. We're not going to have unisex bathrooms. We're not going to call Larry Shirley because it goes against the tenets of Catholicism. That's the argument. But I wanted to know if you, as an esteemed law professor, think that the nuns are discriminating against anybody in their hospice.
- [51:35]
F
Again, whether they are discriminating against anyone right now, I don't think there's actually been any accusations that they are There
- [51:41]
B
have not been one. There has not been one.
- [51:45]
F
Right. What I will say is, and I say this as someone whose gay father went through palliative care just one year ago last summer. I would have been really offended if I hadn't been able to go down to Baton Rouge to Louisiana to see my dad when he was in palliative care because of whatever religious facility that he was in. If they.
- [52:05]
B
Why couldn't you see your father? There's not a. This has nothing to do with access. You can walk in and see anybody you want in there if the person gives a permission. It's the nuns conduct that the state is threatening the nuns, not you, not visitors. It's the nuns. The state's saying the nuns are discriminating against the people they're trying to help.
- [52:32]
F
But, Bill, what I'm saying is that the law that you are advocating for, the reading of the law that you are advocating for, would not just say that, hey, this person does, who is dying, doesn't have, you know, the ability to get access to, you know, have, have their pronouns respected. But it would also. The logical extension of that is that if this group doesn't believe in interracial marriage, that they would not necessarily have to let.
- [52:58]
B
Well, that's a whole different thing, though. You're denying, you're denying someone. No, no, come on, press. You're denying someone care based on their skin color. That you can't do that. I mean, and that's clearly against the Constitution. But this case is. Look, this is a situation where there's a record, there's a birth certificate, there is a driver's license. There is whatever it may be, okay? And we're going to adhere to that rather than calling a person born a man, a woman, because our religion says we don't believe that. That's the argument.
- [53:48]
F
But Mr. Reilly, you said that that violates the Constitution. It actually doesn't. The Constitution prescribes state actors, the government, from discriminating against people. What actually prevents private institutions from discriminating against people is public accommodations law. This is a public accommodations law. And that's why.
- [54:07]
B
No, no, it isn't. Because it's a private facility. It's not a public facility. It's not run by the state of New York. You have to go in and you have to apply for admission knowing the rules.
- [54:19]
F
Public accommodations doesn't just mean a state. It actually doesn't mean a state run facility at all. It actually means, like an institution that the public would. A reason why I could enter that a State New York could not prevent you and me from going to the movies together. It's not because of the Constitution. It's actually because of public accommodations law. That is what this is, is a public accommodations law. And that's. I bring up the. The example of my father. I would have been very offended if I had not been allowed to go to Baton Rouge to see my dad when he was in palliative care.
- [54:51]
B
I think that would have been impossible. I mean, there's no way anybody could have prevented that without getting a massive lawsuit dropped on their head. This one, the nuns are going to win, I think.
- [55:02]
F
But the thing is, you do realize that under the law that you are advocating for, if the law. If the nuns win this, they would also be able to prevent me from being able to see my father. If they were to argue that, hey, we don't believe that. If they were to argue that, hey, I. Our religion doesn't believe that gay people should be able to have children. And so therefore, I don't know about.
- [55:26]
B
That's a stretch. Those nuns. All those nuns are doing is following the record, not adding to it. They're not saying, because you're gay or whatever, trans, whatever it is, that you're not going to be admitted, that you're not going to get the care that straight people get. They're not saying any of that. They're just saying, you're saying, you can't force me, all right. To use language, because that's what this is. That's against my religion. You can't force me to use language. That's basically against my belief system.
- [56:06]
F
Last word, Mr. Riley. This is an anti discrimination statute here. The discrimination that people are talking about is a use of language. But if the nuns were to be successful, they could. Anybody. And I'm not, of course, the nuns have the right to. To freely exercise their religion, but it would mean that religious. Religion could be an excuse to discriminate against people for other reasons as well.
- [56:31]
B
Even if you don't care about trans
- [56:32]
F
folks, this matters broadly, because this isn't a law just about trans people. It's about a broad group. It's about all LGBTQ people and people with hiv.
- [56:40]
B
I think it's going to lose in federal court. I mean, in New York, you know, New York. But in federal court, I think the nuns are getting an exemption, and so is any other religious facility that they don't have to force. Can't. The state can't force them to say anything. They don't want to say, hey, that was a good debate professor. We really appreciate you taking the time. Thank you.
- [57:04]
F
I appreciate you. Thank you.
- [57:06]
A
This is the no Spin News Weekend
- [57:09]
B
edition Final Thought, July 4, Saturday, obviously not going to work on Saturday. And it's probably not going to be a column on Sunday. I need some time off Monday. I'll be back Thursday and Friday. We're going to put up our latest Do It Live with Glenn Beck. And it is really interesting for those of you who follow your country, care about your country. So Beck and I, we don't always see things the same. But I've known him a long time and I think he gave the best interview I've ever seen him give to me. He had to because I told him I'd go over his house if he didn't. Nobody wants that. So that will post on Thursday at noon for premium members on billorelli.com at 6pm for everybody else. And that's worth watching. So we are here, obviously, today, tomorrow, Tuesday, Wednesday, then we'll be off. But Beck will drop on Thursday. He'll be throughout the whole weekend. And then we'll be back in action on Monday. That is unless, and this is absolutely a possibility, there's military action, I mean, big time against Iran. I don't think that President Trump's going to do that on the 250 anniversary. I think he's going to wait, but I think it's coming. I think it's coming. He can't let these people run roughshod much longer. He knows it. And I just are very sad that civilians are going to die over there. But it's going to happen unless the Lord intervenes or Allah. It says to these, Wallace, knock it off. Cooperate with the agreement. Thank you for watching and listening to the no Spin News. I'm Bill O'Reilly. We'll see you again tomorrow.
- [59:39]
A
Thank you for listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the no spin news, visit billoriley.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's billoriley.com sign up and start watching.