Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - Highlights from O'Reilly's No Spin News - January 15, 2026

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

Highlights from BillOReilly.com’s No Spin News. Watch the No Spin News weeknights - become a BillOReilly.com Premium Member to watch.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before we get to our usual Rockham-Soccom news analysis, I want to go over again President Trump's worldview. It has changed in his second administration from his first. It's important for everybody to know how the president is processing the amazing amount of information that he gets every day. First of all, Mr. Trump believes the executive branch now has to be the most power of, and the most impactful part of the United States government. And that is because Congress is so partisan, so divided, it acts so slowly that literally nothing would get done if the president didn't sign executive orders and take the lead into trying to do what he wants to do.

So just deferring to Congress, nothing's going to happen. They can't even pass a spending bill. So that, Mr. Trump has kind of diminished Congress. And I think he's pretty much correct there. You're going to throw it into Congress. You're not going to get anything. It's going to take forever. Secondly, the world in Mr. Trump's eyes is divided very simply.

You're either pro-America or you're anti-America. If you're pro-America, we'll try to help you. If you're anti-America, we're going to hurt you. That's what it is. Now, there are some places that he doesn't care about. All right, it's just a minor thing and doesn't pay attention to. But it's a very simplistic view of the world. Now, he's also a man who tries to convince,

and he will make deals with people that he doesn't particularly like. and he does that in his mind to improve America. America first. That's what that all about. And third, President Trump firmly believes that he knows best. What are you going to do? I mean, the man's brilliant. You have to admit it.

Nobody else has come close to him as far as elevating from a business portfolio into the most powerful man in the world, two-term president? Come on. You got to give him the credit for accomplishment. So he thinks he knows best. Even when I speak with him, I don't try to outdo him or top him. I do try to convince him by giving him, you know, a perspective that is easily understood. I don't weigh him down with a million details,

but I know and everybody else knows that if Donald Trump decides something very hard to persuade him otherwise. So I'm happy to give you his worldview. If you have any questions about it, bill at bill o'Reilly.com. Here's a talking points memo, a new approach to control illegal immigration.

So yesterday I just scorched 10 states who are in rebellion against the federal government. So if you are a premium or concierge member on bill o'Reilly.com, if you watch our show and get a transcript anytime you want. All right. And that is a very big convenience if you are a seeker of knowledge. So we went over that this is a rebellion, and my column is up on bill o'Reilly.com

that tells you which the states they are and what they're doing. And it's ironic because it happened 157 years ago, I believe it was, Andrew Jackson. Same thing with South Carolina, and Jackson took care of South Carolina. You can't be in rebellion against the federal government. Well, anyway, I am now going to put forth to you a, I think, a pretty good solution, not a 100% solution, but something that would work. So we have a 1952 immigration law. 1952 has not been upgraded because both parties don't want to upgrade it.

They both use it for political advantage. There's no drive to have a new immigration bill or laws, set of new laws, none. So 1952 and President Truman vetoed that bill. but his veto was overridden by Congress. The reason of Truman vetoed it was he didn't believe the bill had enough non-white opportunities for people to come to the United States. It was almost all-white people that were allowed in here. That's why Truman vetoed it.

Anyway, as everybody knows, Joe Biden let everybody in. No restraints. And according to the migration policy, Institute, pretty good. They're pretty good. 14 million foreign nationals crashed in here under Biden. 14 million. Now, there's a lower number put forth by Pew Research, 11 million. But it's still a colossal amount of people. Out of those 14, 11, whatever number you want to take, 10 to 15% are criminals, people who will

hurt you. And that is a colossal number, too, that you add the foreign criminals to the domestic criminals and we have a wave and we've seen it. All right. Now, Biden didn't care. The Democratic Party doesn't care. In fact, the radical end of the Democratic Party continues to want an open border. That's what you're seeing in Minnesota. These people screaming about ice and impeding ice, they don't want any restrictions. And they don't want to hunt down to criminals. That's who they are. It's hard to believe, but that's who they are. And you got to accept it. Okay?

So you can't surrender to it. And if I was on a Hannity radio program today, you might want to listen to that. I said, if I were the president, I'd have the FBI interviewing mayors and governors who will not enforce immigration law. By interviewing me, you go in, the feds go in, you sit them down and you say, why are, are you not doing X? Why are you not doing Y when you know that federal law trumps your state law? The federal law, you know that in the Constitution. That's what I've been doing now. Because if you're going to rebel against the United States and you're leading the rebellion, you're in trouble. So that has to be built. But that's not the solution. Here's the solution.

So by executive order, again, Congress had never voted. You never get it into the Senate. Okay, by executive order, President Trump signs a proclamation that says, if you are in this country without proper documentation, you need to go to your post office where there will be a Homeland Security form that you have to fill out. And a form will be your name, where you live, are you employed, how many children are have where did you come from on and on and on you fill it out you put it back into the prepaid envelope and you send it to Washington to Homeland Security which then enters your

questionnaire into a database now you have 90 days to do it that's fair three months to do it if you don't do it then you are subject to immediate detention and deportation it. You're going. And I don't think there's a court in a law that would block that because that's national security. So then you separate the people and the thugs, the criminals, are never going to answer the questionnaire, ever. So you put them in a category and then you have the so-called law-abiding migrants and another category, and then you adjudicate them. So it goes into immigration courts. You'd have to hire a lot more. judges to do it, but they look at it and they say, you know, there are some people who have claimed

asylum. There are some people that are married to American citizens. On and on, what's your story? And then you get, the federal government sends you a conclusion. You have to appear at this point or you're okay for a year, whatever it may be. Okay? And you have to carry that card wherever you go. So if ICE stops you, you produce the card, I'm cooperating, Ben Ice lets you go. unless you commit a crime, unless they're hunting you for a crime, of course. So that way you get an orderly basis of deportation. You get to know who's here. And again, the bad guys aren't going to cooperate.

It make it a lot easier to get them out. You don't have that card. You can't produce it. It's like a license. Where's your ID? You got to produce it. It's part of your ID. So what's the downside to that?

The liberals will say privacy. Privacy? What are you talking about? You're not supposed to be here. It's a privilege to be here. You have to go through a process to be here. Privacy? I don't believe the courts, you know, and the state courts in the rebellion of places, of course. But federal courts are going to go, this makes sense. And this allows the federal government to step away and use a less heavy hand, which is good for the nation. All right, I can't do better than that. And I've been thinking about this for a long time. And again, bill at bill o'Reilly.com, bill at bill o'Reilly.com. I'd like to know whether you support or oppose that. And that's a memo. All right, ice.

There's not really anything new here other than there's a report today that the ICE agents who shot Ms. Good last week has internal bleeding. Now, it's sketchy. More will come out on it, but it's been released. Now, it can only happen if the vehicle that Ms. Good was in hit him. But I'm not trying this on television. It's not right to do that. But you need to know what's surfacing here.

So everybody took size. I saw the video. I saw the bull. If it ever gets into a courtroom and it won't. Then you'd go frame by frame as I analyze, and then you'd hear from the ICE agent and then witnesses, whatever. Okay. But I don't think any of that's going to happen. But if the man does have internal bleeding, that's pretty big.

So that's the latest on that. That is a website called Mediaite. It deals with a lot of press stuff. and it's a good website. It used to tilt really far left, and they brought it back to left center. As a guy who created it, along with a few others, Dan Abrams,

Kobe Hall. It writes a column, and the column is pretty good. Enough is enough. It's basically criticizing Donald Trump's overreach as president of the United States. I'll read you a portion here, and then we'll bring in Mr. Hall. quote, what distinguishes the current moment is not the impulse to push boundaries, but the scale speed and brazenness with which these accumulated precedents are being exploited.

Obama used drones and faced criticism, but operated within executive branch legal frameworks. Trump extracts foreign leaders and announces it is a fate of complete. At home, the same logic is playing out through federal law enforcement. ICE agents are defended reflexively. Before facts are known, before investigations are complete. Oversight is dismissed as obstruction. Questions are treated as a tax. Powers insulated first, examined later, unquote.

Kobe Hall joins us now from Brooklyn. So the mindset of the President of the United States is that his opposition is so entrenched that they don't care about what's good for the country. And so he has to cut through that. So he can't go to Congress and say, I want to remove Medoro, and then Congress votes on it five months later because no Democrat will ever vote for anything that Trump wants. This is the president's mindset. Do you understand that?

I do. I think that's a generous description, and I'll say, first of all, thanks for having me on. Secondly, I agree with a lot of what you said during your talking points, right? I find that we're pretty much aligned on a lot of this stuff, especially. the concern with sort of Denmark and Greenland, which is remarkably risky on a number of levels, not just politically. My column, Enough is Enough, was really about how under an executive branch that literally acts without impunity, or with impunity, with zero checks and balances, is acting in a way that really sort of reinforces might mix right, which is a philosophical

construct that we long moved past, and it's not really democratic. And the actions of this president reveal a nation that increasingly doesn't look like the America that I grew up, and I still love very, very much. See, I don't have that perception, and I'm just about 25 miles from you in my dwelling. And when you say that Trump operates without any constraints, the court's rule that the president could not send National Guard to L.A. and a few other cities because he didn't reach the bar of impending chaos. So he took him out.

Trump took the National Guard, he withdrew. So he's been constrained. It wasn't constitutional. It, you know, Pasi Comitatis basically says federal government cannot send in troops unless the governor, the state, asked for it because of chaos. And that's what was ruled. He's plotting the democracy or he's flouting the constitution. But he's obeying. He's not running rough shot.

Well, okay, but that's the way it always happens. Kobe, come on. You take an action and then there's a reaction. It's a way the government always runs. Here's what I would say. You could defend the extraction of Maduro. The sort of way that that was defined is we can do whatever we want with Western Hemisphere because it affects our national security and we're going to use that as a pretext to now threaten

to, you know, sort of bomb Iran and to then just sort of invade and take Greenland. And like you said, that really threatens and is very risky to our Native alliance. To be clear, and I want to say this, I have given credit to the Trump administration where I feel like they've deserved it. And in particular, I think the way that the Trump administration has handled Iran vis-a-vis Israel was masterful and deserves a great deal of credit. I also give them an incredible amount of credit for the way that it cleaned up the abject horror that is the border.

The worst thing that Biden never did was just look away. And I think one can be for getting bad guys out, cleaning up the border, but also be opposed to masked ICE agents shooting protesters. And I don't think Renee Good should be dead as a result of trying to drive away. I don't either. But that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that what the ICE agent did carries any criminal intent. Because I have said, and you know this, de-escalate it when you have a life-death situation. And some of my viewers don't like that. They don't want to hear that.

Okay. But every law enforcement agency that I know of has a de-escalation program when life and death is on the line. So I'm behind the law. But Trump is saying, and with absolute validity, I can't bring in Maduro to Congress. I can't bring in nuke bombing in Iran to Congress. because they, the other side, hates me so much. They're never going to support it. They'll drag their feet.

We can't operate secretly in that regard. We can't do military operations with any kind of effectiveness. If you're going to debate him for two months, and he's right. And when Noriega came out, that shattered that. And that'll never even get into the courts. Maduro is never going to get in. Okay, he'll be convicted in Brooklyn. You should go over and see him.

He's right near your house. house, all right, and then he'll go to the penitentiary in Colorado, and that's what's going to happen. And there's not going to be any court hearing about Maduro. I don't even think the ICE agent's going to be prosecuted. Now, do you agree with me that there are 10 states in open rebellion to the United States government because they fail to obey the law? It's okay to protest the law. There's no problem with that. But when you say, and that's what walls, fry, all these people are saying, I'm not going to obey the law that has been passed by Congress, not Trump. I'm not obeying it.

You're in rebellion, are you not? I think rebellion is a narrative that oversteps considerably. I remember, I'm old enough to remember when states rights were a big talking point on the right. And now that's gone away, right? Like, suddenly we don't care about states, right? Well, it depends on the issue. That depends on the issue. If you want, if you want.

You are basically making situational decisions, right? And honestly, previously what you just said, you just walked. You just basically said Trump doesn't want to take Maduro to Congress because he knows he won't get what he wants. I'm sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what the Constitution says. You do if you have national security concerns. behind you. Yes, you do. Well, yeah, but that's very subjective. And to say that there was a national security threat

by Maduro, what, you know, I think is hyperbole at best. I think it's absurd. Tons and narcotics are coming in here. But far less drugs from other places. Please, let me finish. Look, the whole point in the Constitution is checks and balances. You can't simply say I'm going to avoid checks and balances if I know that a congressional check and balance is not going to give me what I want. But you can call me. It perfectly illustrates my point. You can if there's precedent about national security after 9-11, all of that changed. All of it changed. Well, I think, well, so herein lies the gray area of this dialogue, and I appreciate the chance to describe it. I think there's overreach. And I think a lot of people feel that there's overreach. Honestly, in hindsight,

I care less about the Maduro extraction because he's clearly a bad guy. And, you know, this is very personal for me because my nephew is on USS Ford. He's his name. He's a naval intel officer, and he was very much a part of the whole growler part, and I'm extremely proud of him, but I'm also concerned about him. It's a good debate, but I live in a real world, and I know what's going to happen, and Trump is not going to lose any of these things at all because of the national security. When it comes to ICE, when it comes to ICE, only 28% of the people are sort of agreeing with the narrative that the ICE agent was justified in shooting.

Well, now if he has injuries, that's very good. that polling is going to change. But even if it doesn't change, all right, Trump is basically saying this, and I'll give you the last word on it. My job, I was elected to protect the American people. And I'm going to do it. And I am not going to submit to some theoretical process when I believe I have the authority to take out people like Maduro, the Mueller's, people who are threats to this country.

And that's his mindset. And the only way you constrain it is the Supreme Court. That's the only way says no. And the courts of federal court said no to guard in L.A. and other places, Oregon. All right. And Trump pulled them back. Last word. I think you're being very generous.

I don't think a lot of people feel like Mullahs and Iran pose a direct threat to their lives. Billions to terror groups? Billions to terror groups? I'm telling you, I think geopolitically they are a huge threat and they should be extracted. You and I agree largely on the foreign policy there. I'm talking about politically. I don't think a lot of people in Overland Park, Kansas, where I grew up, see that as a perfect threat. I also think that a lot of people want immigrants who are illegals extracted from our nation,

but they don't want to see mass ICE agents invading homes without a search warrant. They don't want to see protests. I'll see that point that ICE has to tighten it up a little bit and has to be more. give more of an explanation. All right, Colby, very good debate, very lively. I want everybody to read your column on media. Thanks to taking time. Okay.

Be good pins, right? Or I'm good, whatever. I think it was be good, right? So these are at the Golden Gloves, which the ratings for the Golden Gloves are catastrophically low. And that was expected, but there are the pins. So I said to my staff, where do these pins come from? You know, I can't like go to CVS and buy them.

So they came from the ACLU, of course they did move on, other far-left organizations. They sent out blasts on their social media to the far-lift people, said, hey, we're going to be at certain Golden Globe events, we'll have the pins, you come over, you can get them. That's how it happened. And that's my point. This stuff isn't organic. This stuff is real well organized. against ICE and President Trump.

Join us now from Washington is lawyer Bob Driscoll. He is a partner in Dickinson and Wright. He is very well experienced in these matters. So we have a frame of reference with Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon. Both defied subpoenas to appear before Congress, and both were sent to prison because of it, correct? Yes. They both blew off their subpoenas completely.

There was a referral to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice prosecuted both of them and gained convictions. In both cases, went up on appeal, and both convictions were upheld. Okay, so that was Merrick Garland and Joe Biden, the president. And they put them in the jail. and Navarro and Panon both said, okay, I'm willing to do the time. Now, that's not going to happen

with Bill and Hillary Clinton, is it? I wouldn't be so sure. I think it could happen. Do you think they're sitting present? A former president of the United States is going to get sentenced to prison because he won't show up and testify? I think there's a chance.

I think the precedent is there. The better approach for him to take would be to show up and object if they can object to specific questions, as harassing, as irrelevant, as simply asking embarrassing questions for the sake of that. But the ability of Congress to issue subpoenas is pretty well established. There are limited circumstances where courts have held that Congress has gone too far. But I think that he's in better shape to protect himself by either showing up and objecting to the questions, having his lawyer object to the questions he thinks go too far, he doesn't want to answer, or by filing suit immediately before

he's supposed to show up and trying to challenge the subpoena in a federal court in Washington. But to just blow off the subpoena puts him at risk of being held in contempt because the committee can hold them in contempt, refer to the whole House to hold them in contempt, and then the House would vote to hold them in contempt and make a referral to the Department of Justice. Yeah, the house is so close, though, he might not get, you know, he might not get, you might not lose. But even if they don't show up this week, and are you thinking they're going to show up tomorrow and Wednesday? My guess would be that they will either show up or they will file suit in D.C. to try to challenge a subpoena and drag it out in litigation. I just think it's too big a risk to not show up at all.

The case law is pretty clear that the courts do not like it if you blow off a subpoena. it completely. If there's a dispute over what you say when you're there, okay. I got it, but there's no tomorrow, we looked at the House oversight schedule, there's nothing on it. The subpoena still stands. So I understand, though, that they would have a second chance. They would get warned by Comer, and if they don't come next time or whatever, then they're going to get it. Will they give them a second chance if they don't show up this week? Typically, the way this would work and the way the chances he would get. Yeah, because the committee would schedule a vote to vote on contempt.

And presumably he could cure his contempt by saying he would show up before they took that vote. After that, the whole House could vote. The other thing that's happened this year that's a new development in this area of law is Jim Jordan made a referral of a witness for his committee straight to the Department of Justice for obstruction. When he didn't like the, he thought the witness was too obstreperous and wouldn't answer the questions. And he made a straight referral to the Department of Justice without going through contempt. that's hearing. So I just think there's a lot of risk for the former president and the former first lady to not show up at all. They've got experienced counsel. I'm sure they're looking at all this. But I mean, I wouldn't bank on him. If there were a Democratic DOJ, okay, great.

They would probably be open to hearing that this is a harassing subpoena and doesn't have to do with the merits. That's going to be very tough. When you're on a play. They're not going to want to hear that. No. I think that they're going to look at, they're going to be sure over the ban in case. And they're going to say, look, if our guy had to go to jail, so do you. That's partisan, though. It'll, as you know, go beyond the, it'll go into the federal court system.

And if you are on Epstein's plane 26 times under the banner of the Clinton Foundation, you got to answer questions about that. So the court's going to go, it's a legitimate, midline of questioning. This isn't something just to embarrass the Clinton's last word. I think not showing up puts him in the worst position because his argument there is there's not one relevant question I could be asked. And that's clearly not true. The better course for him is to show up and answer what is fairly asked and object if he thinks they're trying to make a spectacle of it or asking inappropriate questions just for the sake of exposing personal flaws he may have. Okay.

I think not showing up is not a great idea for him. and I think he's at risk if he doesn't do it. All right. Well, we're obviously on it. Thank you, Counsel. Appreciate your time very much. I'd overseas Iran. So all of the Internet is down. Very hard to get anything out of there.

There are pictures of the demonstrations. They've been going on since December 28th. Government's tottering, no question about that. I did talk to President Trump about this over the weekend. And I don't like to, you know, it's a private conversation. but I can report that my take on it is that U.S. doesn't do military action unless it would be decisive. So if there's a tip that would get rid of the mullas, who are obviously murderers, they killed between 500 and 1,000 people already, according to the rights organizations,

the human rights organizations. So there's a tip that you can use military to bomb something or do something that to get them out of there, I support that. But just random, no. I think it's going to go, but boy, it's slow,

because that police state is tight. It's not as tight as Cuba. Okay, Cuba, but the people there are starving now. And there's no oil going in, so that means they can't. can't cool off their homes, they can't cook their food, they're going to go. Cuba is actually a tighter police state than Iran because of the size. It's easy to regulate the island of Cuba.

It's not easy to regulate a big country like Iran. But both of them may go in the next few weeks, which is just, and that's what the conversation between the president and myself was all about, the new realignment of the world, which is taking place. Greenland. So this one isn't nearly at the level of Venezuela, Cuba, or Iran. This is a matter of military bases and mineral rights. Okay. I think the Secretary Say Rubio is doing an excellent job. And I have a... somebody in there very close. He's not going to support military action, Rubio. He's not. Because two things would happen. The American public would turn against the entire Republican

Party and Trump administration. It's never going to happen that Americans are going to support military action against Greenland, ever. And number two, you can get the same thing you want by negotiation. Do the Danes, they don't have a lot of emotion invested in Greenland, okay? Make a deal. And there are supposed to be meetings this week in Washington between the Danish government, which oversees Greenland and Secretary of Say Rubio. I'm just praying, and I use our word literally, they work it out. Smart life. Let's lighten it up a little bit. So, Pets. Pets. They're good for you. I mean, I've had them. Obviously, you know, Holly DeTera dog passed last year. And my whole family was, you know, she was such a nice dog. And there's a survey by UGov. And it says this, 86% of Americans have owned a dog. Okay? 66% of owned a cat. 92% have owned I. either a dog or a cat at one time or another.

61% have owned both a dog and a cat, which does present problems. So overwhelmingly, Americans are pet people. Overwhelming. Okay? Right now, 48% of Americans have at least one dog. 16, multiple dogs. 36, one cat, 18, multiple cats.

All right, and then you have dog and a cat and multiple dogs and cats or whatever. Now, I will tell you this, and this is my smart life tip. If you're gonna get a pet, you have to think about caring for the pet, not giving the pet food and water and a comfortable place to sleep. No.

What happens if you go away? What happens if you die? What happens, whatever? You have to have a structure in place, all right, so that the pet can be cared for. I could not kennel Holly, who was way too sensitive a dog to do that. I couldn't do it. It would be cool. But luckily, I had people who wanted to take care of Holly, and I had lined them up.

So I didn't have a problem in that area because I got to move. I got to go places. That's a key to pet ownership, thinking ahead. You've got to be kind to the pets. I can't even go into these animal shelters. I can't go. It just devastates me. It really does.

Anybody that's cruel to a pet, you see it? Shut that person down immediately. Do never talk to that person. person again. All right, so Iran, it's tottering and we don't have great information because they blocked out all the internet and everything like that. But we do know that there are bodies that the mullahs are killing people and the army, but we don't know exactly what. And this is a lot like what happened last summer when Trump bombed the nuclear facility inside Iran. Anything could happen at any time And when I was speaking to the president about this, I said, just me,

U.S. military, if you can tip it, I would do it in a heartbeat. But we don't need to have any displays of power. We've already done that. But if you can get them out of there by using military power, I would absolutely do it. They are awful. And they are still funding terrorism or why, Iran? I mean, $3 billion of Hezbollah in the last. year. Three billion. Come on. All right. So we're on this. We're watching it very, very closely.

Smart Life. So the way that I raised my kids was simple. I kept everything simple. As I just challenged the doctor, there was no what-a-badism. There was none of that. Okay, it was like, okay, what's the circumstance? What did you do? Why did you do it? All right? Well, I believe in simple parenting, straightforward parenting, and always telling your children the truth. Always, even if the truth hurts.

Now, there's a survey from the Action Network about lying in America, 3,000 American survey. And it found out that 59% of Americans lie at least once per week. Men lie more than women. Georgia is the biggest state for lies. Now, I don't believe any of it. Okay. I don't believe Georgia is the biggest lying state because they don't back it up very well, this survey.

You see people's opinion. All right, I probably say men would lie more than women. Yeah, I probably believe that. But what's a lie? If you're selling somebody they look nice when they're kind of dubious, I don't think that's a lie. A lie is an intentional deception to gain advantage. That's a lie. In the commandments, it's bare false witness to hurt somebody and then you might get an advantage over hurting.

That's what a lie is. I think most people do lie when they get in trouble. and some lie for convenience. But I'll tell you what, it's risky. If I am in the presence of someone who lies, then they're gone. I don't count to that. They're gone out of my life, see you. And I always tell my kids, just do the right thing, then you don't have to lie.

And if you don't know what the right thing is called that. And we'll discuss it. I won't tell you what it is. I'll lead you there. Okay, we'll discuss it. What is the right thing to do? Because you've got to make those decisions. All of us have to make those decisions every day.

What's the right thing to do? A lot of it's hard, complicated. I like the pen paper thing. So you're pros and cons, but if you do the right thing, even if it's going to inconvenience you, okay, then they don't have to lie. So say the boss comes up and goes, hey,

how's your department running? And you know it's not running well. And you go, oh, it's great. That's a lie. And you're telling it for your advantage. You're trying to prop yourself up. But then the boss, three days later, finds out that it's absolute chaos in your department.

Then what do you do? Okay. So I don't believe this survey, but I do believe there's way too much lying going on, not only in the United States from the world. Okay, final thought. I was in Manhattan last night, business dinner, right? And, you know, look, I'm born and raised here.

I know the city as well as anybody. It's out of control now, but, you know, it's not, nobody bothers me in the city. Everybody's very nice. So I go to this restaurant because that's where the business dinner was. the most expensive restaurant I've ever seen my entire life. It was, praise it were unbelievable. Unbelievable.

I'm not paying, so, but I didn't rack it up. Okay, I just had an appetizer. I had some lobster bisque, fabulous. I'm not going to tell you name in a restaurant. It's not fair. And then I had a steak, which I don't want to eat a lot of red meat anymore, but I hadn't had one. I needed some protein, so I had a steak.

Anyway, Monday night, this is packed. And if you go to a restaurant like that in Manhattan, you look at 150 bucks just for you. Just for you. And that's maybe two drinks, maybe a little wine, a glass of wine, maybe something else. Coffee at the end. $150. And I'm going, look at this place on a Monday. So people who got money and they've spent it.

Thank you for watching and listening to the NOSPN News. I'm Bill O'Reilly. We'll see you again tomorrow. Thank you.