Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - April 4, 2026

Episode Date: April 4, 2026

Listen to this week's No Spin News Talking Point Memos and guest interviews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. We'll begin with Kings. That is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. Okay, so an estimated 3,300 separate protests around the USA on Saturday. We don't have the data because it only comes from the No Kings Coalition, and they're going to put out whatever they want. So just take this with skepticism. Fox is reporting that about 500 groups with an estimated $3 billion in combined annual revenues behind the coordinated No King's protests.

I think that's about right. Some of the groups are indivisible. That's based in St. Paul, Minnesota, which was the nexus of the No King's protest. Society Foundation, George Soros, People's Forum, that's Singham, the Chinese guy we've been telling you about, the Party for Socialism and Liberation in D.C., Freedom Road, Socialist Organization, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Code Pink. So they're all far, far left groups. This isn't an organic mainstream protest that we saw in Vietnam, for example. These are activists, progressive activists, and they're very, very well-funded.

Millions, tens of millions of dollars pouring in there to get people organized, to get them out on the streets. But it's not unusual. And this is the missing piece. So 75 million Americans voted against Donald Trump in his second term. 75 million. That's a lot of folks. and they weren't voting most of them for Kamala Harris, who never demonstrated any kind of acumen

at all or problem-solved ability. They were voting against Donald Trump. They don't like him. So to get a few million people out on the street when 75 million didn't want them in the first place, that's not a big deal. But again, it was well-coordinated. and the pictures were there, so television picks it up. Now, there was actual glee on the part of the left-wing media. Roll the tape. Organizers say at least 8 million people showed up, and then on the right side of your screen, you have CPAC.

Womp, Womp. Notice a difference? Which crowd do you think Trump wishes he were a part of? Okay, lady, I mean, again, why anybody? would watch this kind of propaganda. I have no idea. Not many do, but I just stunned anybody does. So my question is, all right, you got no kings. And I don't object to that. I think dissent is good. You don't like Donald Trump, okay. You want to show your displeasure, fine. That's what the United States is built upon.

protest. As long as you do it peacefully, and most of them were peaceful except for the hardcore communists in L.A., Portland, New York City. And these are anarchists. These want to blow up the whole system. But most people were reasonable out there, and I have no beef with them. But my question is, what are you protesting for? So we know you hate Trump, but what's your problem solving ability. Here is the key. Let's just run down a few. So what would the no-kings protesters do about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon? Simple question. What would they do? I assume nothing, but that's just an assumption. I haven't heard one solution from any of those protesters about Iran, trying to get a nuclear weapon. Okay. Number two, what would they do about immigration

enforcement? So how many times, and we'll tell you later on this broadcast, another horrible, horrible crime committed by a foreign national who's in this country illegally, well, what would the no protest, the no king's protesters do about these people, when they don't want any enforcement from ICE at all? no access what would you do how would you stop those kinds of crimes

for being committed by people who shouldn't be in the country nothing comes forth what you do about the war in Ukraine you got a plan how would you handle Putin I don't know do you know if you know Bill at Bill O'Reilly dot com bill at bill o'Reilly dot com

two more food prices what would the no King's protesters do about bringing down price of food? What? And finally, health insurance premiums. Now there, there is a solution. Socialized medicine. Government runs everything. Government dictates who you can see as a doctor, what you get as far as treatment, and how much the treatment costs. That's what these protesters want. So one out of five they have a solution to. But generally speaking, all this is venting, venting, venting. We don't like Trump. We don't like Trump. We don't know how to solve the complicated problems. We're not really interested in doing that.

We just don't want him. No Kings. And that's the memo. In Iran, the Red Crescent, which is their propaganda arm, says 2,000 people have been killed, but nobody knows. Lebanon says about 1,300 people have been killed, but nobody knows, on and on and on. Israel, which is fairly accurate in its reporting, says 19 civilians. Israelis have been killed since the action began, February 28th. So obviously you don't want anybody getting hurt or killed, but it's very, very low. So this really isn't a war. This is an action, a military action.

More ships carrying oil are getting out of the Strait of Hormuz. It's a good thing. I suspect that if the Iranians don't come to the table this week, that U.S. troops are going to have to do something in the Straits of Hormuz. but I don't know. It's a guess. Joining us now is a guy who may know. Mike Baker was a CIA covert guy for about 16 years.

And he now hosts the President's Daily Brief, which is a podcast, well worth your time. And he knows the turf over there. Am I missing anything here, Mr. Baker? Should I be emphasizing some fact in the theater that I'm not, that I'm missing? No, I mean, I think you've hit the key points. One is using the word murky when we're talking about the potential for negotiations or discussions. I mean, this is a textbook example of mixed messaging, both from the U.S., from Iran, and also from potential mediators. The Pakistanis have been very aggressive in trying to position.

themselves as the mediators for this. And they're all saying different things. President Trump, in the course of one true social post, said that, you know, we're having talks, productive, deal close, and then in the same post. But if you don't, you know, we're coming after you. We're going to obliterate you. And so the Iranians are saying there's no talks going on.

And, you know, the mediators are saying, well, we're very hopeful about potential peace negotiations. So it's no wonder that the population is incredibly confused. As far as the operational side of this, I think you hit the high points here, which is that, look, they are not talking about a long-term occupation. We went into Iraq in 2003 with over 150,000 troops to engage in that conflict. We knew we were talking about a long-term operation. We've got two marine expeditionary units. We've got some elements of the 82nd Airborne out deployed now in theater for the Iran conflict.

So the likely scenario, if there's not some miracle of negotiations, is that those elements will likely be used, as you pointed out, for these quick specific targeted missions, possibly seizing and destroying infrastructure on a hamperienced. of the islands that the Iranians used to help control the strait. I don't think we're talking about any sort of long-term occupation of Card Island. That would be a real problem. And politically, I think the White House certainly is smart enough to understand that nobody

is in the mood for a long-term occupation here. What it looks to me like is the Iranians, whoever they may be in charge, I don't even know if there is anybody in charge, one aware of the state. economically and believe that the U.S. press, which is true, is against the action. And then that will drive public opinion about President Trump down and maybe ignite inflation here. And then worldwide, we already saw Europe not supporting the action at all. And then Iran's hoping that China and Russia will come in on their side. So it's a waiting game for them.

The longer this lasts, the better it is for Iran, correct? Yes. And I think the one part of this that was clear at the beginning of this conflict was that it would come down to the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian regime has used that before as a weapon. They've always threatened it as a weapon. And so it was clear that they had no other leverage, really, to speak of, in terms of influencing the international community.

So, of course, it was always going to come down to them, creating the chaos and attempting to blockade and effect the strait and doing what is now currently happening, right? You know, paying a lot more at the pump as far as the voters in the U.S. and the EU are concerned. So, yeah, that was a given. The Russians and Chinese, you know what? They are helping. I think there's almost no possibility that they're not providing targeting data.

in terms of satellite imagery, assistance on the intelligence side, in terms of movement of U.S. personnel and assets. The Iranians have had a quick series of strikes, the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi, and targeted and destroyed some aircraft, injured a dozen U.S. service members. And that ability was enabled, you know, almost, I would put my salary 100.

it by either Chinese or Russian or both assistance in terms of that targeting to make their strikes more lethal. But they don't have many weapons left, I understand, in Iran. I mean, we've downgraded them to the sense that their ordinance is very low. Is that true? Well, yes, we degraded their military capabilities significantly. Their stockpiles of missiles, their launchers. And look, that was, you know, from the Israeli perspective, the missile program,

was more of a threat in the short and midterm than the nuclear program. So from a metric, from an operational metric, if you look and say, are we winning this thing, can we declare victory? Well, yes, from an operational perspective, we can't, because we have had significant success in degrading their abilities and also their manufacturing facilities for these munitions. So from that metric, yes, from the metric of it, if you went into this and said, well, we want a better government in Iran for the better of the Iranian people and peace and stability in the region, which frankly all the regional actors, Saudis and others would like to see, then that's a little bit mixed. That's not quite

the victory. Yeah, we haven't seen that. Do you believe that the Iranians are close to enriching enough uranium to build a bomb? Do you believe that? Yeah, I believe, look, once you're at 60% and by all accounts, by a lot of different measures, they were stockpiling 60% enriched uranium. There is no civilian or peaceful need for anything really above 5%. So if that's true, and Lindsay Graham on my podcast absolutely walked us through that, why wouldn't Europe then be on our side saying we just can't afford to have a theocracy that hates infidels be able to build a low-level bomb that could blow up Paris? Why wouldn't the European countries support us?

Well, I think in part for the same reason, the Gulf states wanted just stability and no issues, and they want to just keep kicking the can down the road. Yeah, I know there are issues right there. Look, every administration in the U.S. has kicked this can down the road, right? Just thinking, okay, we'll put it on somebody else's plate. And so I think there's, there was a strong tendency in the EU and in the Gulf states to say, you know, we get it. We don't like the Iranian regime. We don't want it. We understand there's a threat here.

you know, let somebody else deal with it. Yeah, but somebody else in four weeks. I mean, we were talking about a very short period of time where these, the uranium could be, could be melded into a bomb. See, I don't get it in the sense that, and I'm going to deal with the Pope in a few minutes. All right, so, yeah, nobody likes this, and this is wrong. Nobody wants people to die,

but when you have a potential where 10,000 more people would die, aren't you, you know, morally compelled to deal with that rather than look the other way as millions of Americans are doing, millions, and almost all of the NATO countries are doing. They just don't want to get involved. Right, they don't want to get involved. They want somebody else to deal with it. And in this case, the U.S.

They don't want us to deal with it. Where are somebody else? They don't want us to deal with it. Yeah, there's good reporting that said, you know, MBS and the Saudis have been pushing the White House to continue the fight, right? Let's get rid of this regime. Very few, though, and that's an economic-based thing. Last question for you. So, looking ahead, President Trump's got to worry about midterm elections, or he loses an enormous amount of power of that.

Democrats take control of Congress. And how big a factor is that going to be? And again, the Iranians know that, in his trying to at least come to some conclusion here. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. The Iranians look, particularly the political side of that, right? You've got the politicians. You've got the the the theocracy. You've got the Mullahs. And you've got the military, the IRGC primarily. Frankly, the IRGC has cemented their position as the top dog within Iran at this point. But those elements are sophisticated enough to have read the tea leaves here.

They understand that politics drive everything in Washington. So you're absolutely right, which is why when that gas price rises and you're spending over $100 to fill up your truck, or people start hearing this boots on the ground concept, which immediately leads people to think, oh, we're talking long-term occupation. There's a potential for the Republicans

to have their butts handed to them in the midterm election. The White House knows that. And so I think that's why we're seeing these mixed messages about, well, we've got these negotiations going on. We're having some productive talks. But if they don't work, we're going to have, you know, we're going to obliterate the infrastructure. I think that's why you're seeing the White House work hard

to try to get this message out that they are having discussions because they're trying to keep that narrative. I have a mind that this is not going to be a long-term conflict. I don't know if the Iranians are going to do it. I wish I did. Mr. Baker, thanks very much. We appreciate it. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. On January 19th, 2025, okay, a little more a year ago, Katie Abraham, Glenview, Illinois, was killed by a drunk driver,

Julio Cuchel Ball, Guatemalan, here illegally, okay? 20 years old, she's killed. And the guy shouldn't have been here, running around, and all of that. Her father, last week, testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, and Joe Abraham joins us now from Illinois. Mr. Abraham, obviously, everybody watching this broadcast. and most people in this country feel very deeply, very sympathetically, about what happened to your 20-year-old daughter. What did you tell the subcommittee? What was the headline that you brought in?

So if you just nailed to a headline, this is a preventable tragedy, another preventable victim that if we had some type of national policies would have been avoided. That's really what it comes down to is we don't have to be radical and extreme in everything we do, right? So take an example. They're saying, oh, this is extreme and radical, what ICE is doing? But what happened during the Biden and New Yorkist years? Was that not extreme and radical? It seems to me that you can't have it both ways.

When you delivered the message, the sanctuary cities that protect these aliens, as we just mentioned in New York, lead to more horror and violence and devastation families like yours. Were you watching the reaction of the people on a subcommittee? Do you feel they were sympathetic to you, these politicians? I would say for the most part they were not. So the Republican side seemed to be, you know, I'm sort of on board, right? On the Democratic side, I'm just going to focus on my senator. Senator Dick Durbin was sitting there.

And Bill, and this has really been about 14 months. I haven't heard a word from Governor Pritzker, Senator Durbin, Senator Duckworth, nothing. So, yeah, our top state leaders. Financial stress is hitting an all-time high. Millions of Americans are stretched thin with no extra money. no room to breathe. And this isn't just lower income households. Middle-class families are also running out of options. If debt has been weighing on you, you are not alone. And waiting usually makes things worse. Interest grows. Minimum payments trap you. Nothing changes. You don't need

another loan or to consider bankruptcy. You need a strategy. That's why I like done with debt. They build a smart, personalized plan around you and understand what it takes to work toward the biggest reductions possible. Whether you owe $10,000 or much more, their goal is simple. Lower what you owe so you keep more of your paycheck. Start with a free consultation at done with debt.com. Done with debt.com. Hey, this is Mike Slater. I have a podcast called Politics by Faith, I would love for you to listen. We take the news of the day and we run it through the Bible. What does the Bible have to say about this?

Because there's nothing new under the sun. You read the headlines, everything's all crazy. World's coming to an end. It's all in the Bible. And after every episode, hopefully you leave with a proper perspective and a biblical piece. Please join us wherever you listen to podcasts. And we also have a YouTube page as well. YouTube.com slash at Politics by Faith.

Ignored this whole thing. So as I was telling Katie's story, Senator Durbin was disinterested very clearly. Give me an example of that. No, he made a statement about the guy was arrested for shoplifting in the past and they let him out so he could run around and kill your daughter. But how did you pick up that Durbin himself was not interested? Well, Durbin was talking about Sheridan Gorman, about the guy being picked up for a shoplifting. That was her killer. My killer was Julio Cucoboal, who was a Guatemala national using a Mexican national alias in Illinois.

And by the way, not a moral judgment, but he had HIV and he had HIV within our communities. Was he as reckless with his HIV as he was behind the wheel? He had multiple partners, I suspect he was just as reckless. But why I say Senator Durbin was not interested in Katie's story, my story, is not once did he make eye contact with. me. Not once did he address me. Not once did he acknowledge Katie's life or death. He was, again, very disinterested as I was laid. Did he ask you any questions? Did he ask you any quote? No. Not one. Look at me. Not one word to me. Didn't even look at me. No. No. And you ascribe that to what? He's playing to his far left base? You know, you tell me, Bill,

What type of humanity does that show? For example, there were Democratic senators that took the time to acknowledge Katie's life. I don't agree with them in policy. We actually spoke with some of them after the hearing. Now with Senator Durbin, he left. But some of the other Democratic senators we spoke to, we don't have to agree on everything.

I don't agree with their policies. But they showed some humanity and they showed some compassion and it's okay that we disagree on things. We were able to talk through some of that. Did they say anything that they were going to do anything about it? Were they encouraging in that regard? I got the sense that we just disagreed.

I don't think the Democratic side will do anything. At the end of the day, I think they will continue to ignore and try to erase sort of these inconvenient stories. Certainly here in Illinois, they've tried to do. that along with a complicit media. That is, you know, they're sort of tethered to J.B. Pritzker for the access and for his money. They certainly are not interested in our stories. Did the media, the local media in Illinois, did they cover Katie's story?

Yeah, I think when it initially happened, you had some coverage there. I'm not saying they didn't cover it. They covered it more of a personal story. They did not talk about the radical policies. there are no guardrails, how our compassionate leaders they talk about failed not only Katie, but they failed Julio Cucca Bull. He in court said he's illiterate English, Spanish, doesn't know anything. Can't read or write it.

He speaks some Kai Chi language out of the mountainous regions of Guatemala. Did they help him with employment, language, his HIV health screening? Illinois did nothing. They left him in the state aimlessly to wander, do what he wants, use this state as a playground and an ATM machine, they did nothing to help them. They are not compassionate, caring people. They're just not. And I don't care how many times you can go out there and say it. To me, your actions are speaking louder than your words. You have showed zero compassion toward Katie, and you didn't help this guy either. And both one's in the grave and one's in

prison, hopefully for decades. Final question. Did you, are you losing faith in your country? because there is a political party that by and large supports no action against undocumented people who may be dangerous? Are you losing faith in America? Well, I'll promise you this unless something changes. I mean, I've lost faith in Illinois, for sure. So I'm in this position where I've got to decide, do I stay in Illinois my lifelong home, or do I have to find a more rational, reasonable place to live?

I think it's unfortunate and disheartening that I have to try to make that decision, but this state should not be run as a one-party state. It's really, you know, they have that term. It's not broken. They fixed it. And I've always known Illinois, lived here all my life, Cook County,

the most corrupt state and county, I think, in the country. But they've always had some guardrails like the old school guys had guards. If kids were dying, they were going to do something. But, you know, this new regime now, they don't care whose kids are dying as long as, and let me, again, as a lifelong Illinois and Cook County residents, I suspect warm bodies have some ballots tied to them. They also need congressional apportionment. This is all political power.

Haiti died on the altar of the state leader's political power, period. It doesn't explain, it wouldn't explain how J.B. Pritzker runs to Minnesota. to honor two people that put themselves in a very precarious position versus Katie, who he's never said her name, was just an innocent victim in his streets of Urban Illinois in the flagship college town of Illinois. Mr. Abraham, you're doing right by your daughter. You can take that as solace. I know you can't. It'll never override the pain that you and your family have gone through, but you're a good dad.

and you're doing what you should do. And it's disheartening. That's the only word you can use. And I think Prist is the worst governor in a country upset it many times. He doesn't care about anybody here, Bill. He does not care about the citizens of the state. He's an awful human being.

He absolutely is. All right, Mr. Rayburn, if there's anything we can do for you and your family, you'll let us know, okay? You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. As everybody knows, our nation is divine. not the first time. Revolutionary War, about half of the colonists were Tories. They didn't want to separate from King George.

And then we have, of course, had the Civil War, where more than a million Americans were killed fighting each other and then Vietnam, and there have been lesser divisions in this country. And we are in that age now because primarily President Trump. President Trump. There are other factors like the progressive movement, the rise of socialism, but it's President Trump that has, through, I don't know, circumstances, caused a big political

division in America. We will get through this and hopefully stronger. But it's harder to come together now because of all the massive fraud that many Americans are not even aware of, and that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo. Tick-Tock. Never been there. Know what it is, but I have more important things to do than ticking the talk or whatever you do there. But massively popular all over the world. and charlatans are using it. Here's a very good example. March 25th, just a few days ago,

a, I don't know what to call them. Disruptors, maybe that's a good word. Tony and Angel. We have not traced them back, and I really don't want to bring any kind of grief upon them. although I don't respect them, posted a TikTok video about ICE. Go. This plane's not going anywhere to people, right? I'm not going to repeat myself all day. Juan Garcia, where are you? Come to the front, right?

You guys are allowed to take people off the plane now? Yes, absolutely. That is why I have this bad, John. Since when? Yeah, what's your badge say? I'm not here for a discussion. I'm here for Mr. Garcia. Identify yourself. Go on, Mr. Garcia.

Okay, right after that dropped, I got all kinds of texts from my liberal friend, C, C, C, C, C, and I said, let me check this out. It's a phony. They're actors. It's a set that they used. They had to spend some money. on this. It was a complete funny. No disclaimer that we could find. None. Just threw it on up. Millions of people believed it were, it was true, including, and I mean, among my friends who texted me are journalists, sophisticated people. And then it got nasty. Roll it. I got arrested. I'm a U.S.

citizens. And these guys want to look my way. You want to send me across the border. I was born and in the middle of morning in San Antonio, Texas. Zones, and you're just, your dad was Mexican or something? Yeah, my mom was. But that shouldn't matter.

I was born here in the United States. Yeah, dude. Where's your wife? They already took her. And she was born here too? She was born in the same place. Yeah. You're kidding me.

Yeah, American citizen. I'm sorry. I hope you can get a lawsuit or something. I'm just to do the shot of these people. Okay, again, phony. Total fabrication was acting and on a set, and it went all over the world.

This is serious, okay? Now, YouTube, which carried some of it, they have more than 2 million subscribers as Tony and Angel duo, and they call themselves disruptors or whatever. you know, digital creators, digital creators. So this is serious.

And the outfit that rented them, the set, is called network media. It's an industry, this whole industry. Somebody's behind this because it costs money. Somebody paying for this, is propaganda. Okay. Now we have the spectre of AI, artificial intelligence. we do make these people look like pikers. Because with artificial intelligence,

you can take a human being and then insert a different face, words in the person's mouth, they did not say. It's unlimited. The fraud, the potential is unlimited. People are going to watch these videos. They are not going to know what is true and what is not true. This is dangerous.

Okay. Now, there's a poll by Quinnipiac out about AI. And the first question is, how concerned are you? About AI, very somewhat, not at all. Very concerned, 38, somewhat 42. That's 80% of America is concerned about AI. But they won't even know it's AI, a lot of them. Okay?

And 18% are not. Okay, second question. How much of the time do you think you can trust the information generated by AI? All the time, most of the time, some of the time. Almost all, and most of the time, only 21%. Some of the time, hardly ever 76%. But how are you going to delineate that?

How are you going to know what you can trust and what you can't? Unless you have a machine like I do, I have an investigative machine. We can find out. You don't have that. Okay? Last question.

When it comes to day-to-day life, do you think AI do more good than harm? More good, 34, more harm, 55. Don't know 11. But it's coming. Now, with all of that stuff in the air, you combine it with misinformation on the already existing media. Okay? Now, Chris Cuomo

is a friend of mine, but he's an emotional guy, and sometimes he makes mistakes, as he did last night. So this was his program. He was taking calls. Roll of tape. We know that you told

Villa Riley that you weren't a Democrat, but instead of telling us what you don't like what's going on with Trump, what would you do? What is your answer? to solving the Iran problem. Okay, first of all, I'm a journalist, not an elected leader, okay? You don't hear Bill O'Reilly giving you any explanations or solutions.

You don't? Every day I do that. Every blanken day. I have your watch the San Francisco special, which Cuomo didn't. I had absolutely giving you the solution to that problem. That's therapeutic centers where these people are mandatory.

You get to take them off the street and get them well. Provide for them. Because what's happening now in San Francisco is barbaric. And then there were the migrants. So how do you deal with that? Well, last September, as you may remember, we had all kinds of problems in Minneapolis where ICE was running down

people suspected of being in the country illegally and protests were confronting them. I have a solution and I put it forth last September 19th. You can't have people kicking doors in, chasing people around. Can't do that. What you can do is say

to anyone in this country, without documentation. You have three months. I had it originally at six, but I'd bring it down to three. You have three months, 90 days, to register with your local post office. Each post office will have a registration form. You're to fill it out, and then you send it to Homeland Security, on an envelope that's already given to you, and the government pays the stamp. If you do not fill out the form in a form and say, who are you? What country do you come from? Where are you living?

Do you have a job? Do you have dependence, children? That kind of thing. It's a questionnaire. Hey, podcast listeners. Jillian Michaels here. If the world is feeling unstable right now and the noise and the chaos is overwhelming, if you're looking for clarity and truth, good or bad, I invite you to check out my podcast,

keeping it real with Jillian Michaels. Twice a week, I break down the biggest issue. shaping our lives and I sit down with bold guests for fearless, honest conversations. There are no talking points. There's no agenda. Just real discussions that challenge assumptions and demand clarity. Subscribe to keeping it real with Jillian Michaels today anywhere you get your podcasts. If you don't do it within 90 days and you're caught by the authorities, local, state, federal, you deported, without a hearing. No hearing. You're gone. Now, if that happened, the government would have a massive database of people here illegally, and then they can adjudicate those people.

Give them a hearing. Right now, millions of people just wander all over the place. Is that not a solution? Of course it is. Now, Chris Como didn't intentionally mislead I don't believe that he did. He's not that kind of guy. But he doesn't watch this program. Okay, he's talking off the top of his head. He does not watch this presentation. He doesn't know what I do. And most likely he doesn't care. But that's okay. It's all right. But off the top of his head, well, Bill O'Reilly doesn't have any solutions, which is ridiculous. If you know me, if you watch me, you know that almost every day we put forth solutions to vexing problems here.

So let's recap it. You got stunts on TikTok and other social media paid for. Phony garbage. You got AI coming that can electronically or whatever word you want to use alter reality. And you have a corporate media full of misinformation. Boy, that's a threesome that is almost impossible to cut through. If you want to know the truth about your country, about your life, and about solving problems.

And that's the memo. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. A joining us now in Washington, you see, is Renee DeResta. She's Associate Research Professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and is very interested in this information flow. Number one, am I overstating, understating that I make any mistakes in your opinion, professor? No, I think what you're saying is accurate. I would say it's not just mainstream media that is wrong.

I think the entire ecosystem is, you know, full of BS artists at this point, independent as well as mainstream. So I think that's the one area where I would maybe disagree. But the challenge is people need to try to figure out what's real. And they have a huge collection of sources. People are busy. That's the problem. That's where I was going to go. People have to make a living.

People have to go to the store. They got to try to figure out what's real, what isn't real. Nobody's going to do. And they don't have. Nobody's going to do that. They don't have a staff. I have a staff and they're good. Yep.

And I can give them Joe and Angie or whoever these people are and say, would chase these people down. People can't do that, regular folks. No, you're completely right. That is the main problem. The problem is that people trust what they see when it hits their feed because somebody that they chose to follow shared it, whether that's a friend, a media outlet, you know, a news person like you,

an influencer like Tony and Angel, and they think that it's, you know, they think that it's real. People are still in the mindset that what they see is likely to be real. And we've hit a place in our, you know, in our technological and information environment where that's just not true anymore. Okay, you teach younger people. Are they addicted to this kind of stuff? Do they have any skepticism about it at all? Generally speaking? Generally speaking, younger generations do. I have a 12-year-old son who says, you know, nothing I see on the internet is real.

Really? So I think the young, yeah, the younger, the younger, younger generation knows that it's not true. It's actually more, you know, people who are still used to thinking of the media or the online environment as a place where they could get accurate information. It's usually a little bit more people who have been accustomed to that, generations that are a little bit older, people who still think of the Internet as a place where accurate information lives. So younger kids are actually more attuned to it than we are. Because I got, as I mentioned, texts from journalists who thought this was real. And they were gloating.

They were gloating. Oh, look, O'Reilly, you know, look at what ICE is doing. Look at what Homeland Security is doing. Look at it. They're heinous and terrible. And I go, let me check this out. And these are sophisticated people, totally, totally drawn in by this fallacious presentation. Okay, let's advance the story a little bit.

How much of a danger is this to our democracy, professor? The danger is twofold. One, it's that as you're noting, when people do that, right, when you have journalist friends who reach out to you, it's because it hits something that they're likely to believe already. And they see evidence, and that happens across the political spectrum, right? So that might be a completely different issue that lands for people on the right than for people on the left. Right now, a lot of these ICE videos are making the rounds. You might see videos of riots, right?

That would flip, that would land better with audiences on the right that think that this is something that is, you know, more likely to be happening. So you see that happen where different content plays. And it hits you because it hits emotionally. And so you just hit that share button. You send it to your friend. And it's because you actually, maybe don't even really care if it's true. It's just confirming an existing belief, and that's why you share it on. And so that's what's happening.

And that's kind of dangerous to begin with, right? Because we're just in these mindsets where, as you noted at the start of the segment, everybody's very polarized. And so you don't actually care to check sometimes. You just think this is showing my enemies or my political opponents in the worst light. So I'm going to share it. And I'm not going to go check. Yes. But when you have, and this is certainly possible with AI,

when you have the majority of voters not knowing what's real and what isn't real, I think there's trouble ahead. That's the second part. Right. Because sometimes what you'll see is, you know, in the incident that you showed, there's some signs there, right? There's that plane is very unbranded. It's a little bit suspiciously kind of 90s looking. Most planes don't have those cloth covers in quite that way anymore.

They don't have those kind of bulkheads. But what you see now is, you know, you don't even have to have the video. You can have a very plausible leaked audio that sounds like a politician saying something. But really, it's a synthetic voice. If something like that drops 24 hours before a vote, that kind of thing can really shake people up. It can make them wonder, is this real? We've seen that happen in number of European elections. There's nothing to stop that from happening here.

And because it takes sometimes, you know, between three hours to two days to actually go in there and figure out if the content is real, sometimes these are very, very high-quality fakes. There's that window, that time where people don't know what to believe. And if it sounds scandalous, you're going to have this environment. where, again, people are going to be likely to believe it if they don't like the person, not likely to believe it if they don't, and they're not actually going to get at the facts or the truth. And that's one of these big challenges. The other side of it, though... Look, you can destroy somebody pretty easily in two days, particularly if that person's running for office.

You can drop all kinds of stuff that they did this, they did that, look at this video we have, look at them here, look at them there, and they're not there. Now, I don't think the law has caught up with this. U.S. law, we're supposed to be protected against fraud. When it comes all down to it, Professor, and please disagree, if you believe that. It's fraud. This is fraud. So the challenge you have is that what Tony and Angel would say is that this is political satire

and that that's covered under the First Amendment. And that's legally correct. And so the question that we get to is what do you do to help people then know? When you get at false information about a person, you have a little bit more in the way of law that you could apply to those situations, like defamatory content or likeness laws in certain areas, areas where you see candidates that are subject to harassment content where female candidates in particular are put into compromising situations, that kind of thing happens sometimes.

There are certain laws that apply to that. But for political content, this is protected under the First Amendment. And so one of the things that we are trying to do as we think about how to address this problem is, can you give people more context? Can the platforms, particularly social media platforms where this spreads toss up a label, right? Can the models that are used to create it put up a label? I know. That's the problem.

And this is the issue though, where you're hitting that challenge of what, you know, and I'm the first person to tell you that labeling. is not foolproof, that bad actors can strip it out, that it doesn't work in the case of audio. It is, and that is the other thing. It's the deluge. I wish, you know, look, I sound like I'm making an excuse for the tech companies here. I'm really not. Nobody's more frustrated than me. It is that, it is that balance. You were right. The law has not caught up. This is the environment we live in now. The other side of it, though, is that you have real content, real audio. Sometimes politicians do get caught saying dumb things on tape, right? And then they can

just say, no, no, no, that's not me. That's AI. And that's the other side of it, right? So you have this liar's dividend. That's not nearly what. It is happening. That is happening also. We are seeing that happen. You know. The assertion that there is a villain way overwhelms everything else.

I mean, these nitwits who put this out wanted, I don't care what they say it's satire, whatever. They wanted a conclusion. Well, I don't know about money, but they wanted a conclusion that ICE and Homeland's security, we're bad, we're abusers. That's what they wanted and they accomplished it. The political piece, you're right, is true, but the other side of it is that a lot of this is financially motivated. We focused on the political here, but a lot of the ways that this applies that people need to be aware of is spam and scams. It is people reaching out, particularly

to older people saying, hey, you know, it looks like a beautiful woman, reaching out in a message, that person doesn't exist. They're trying to sell you a product. That product doesn't exist. A vacation home or a stay, that house doesn't exist, right? So it's actually financial fraud and scams that are where most of the AI generated content is happening. In the political realm, you're seeing the skits, the satire or the digitalization. But you can get, you can get prosecuted for that. And for the, yes, for the financial stuff, yes, absolutely you can. So I think, you know, last world, thanks. Thanks. Thanks for having me on. No, you were very good. Thanks for taking the time. You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition.

Happy Passover to all our Jewish viewers all around the world. You know, I hope there's anti-Semitism madness subsides. This is crazy stuff. It really is. There's no reason for it. And it depresses me. You know, I was raised a lot of Jewish kids. A lot of them are still my friends 70 years after the fact or whatever.

I just don't get it. But anyway, we want you to have a nice Passover. tomorrow holy Thursday, good Friday, then the Easter weekend. So I hope we can all relax a little bit. President Trump's not going to be able to relax because he's in the middle of a war with Iran, as everybody knows. And that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo. So tonight, 9 p.m. Eastern, President will address the nation.

All three networks will carry it all the cables. Now, having known Donald Trump for 35 years, he doesn't do this. unless he's got something positive to say. I don't know what it is. You know, it goes back and forth and in and out, but he's not taking the time to say, hey, we're losing or is not working out. You're not gonna do that.

He's gonna put a positive spin on what's happening in Iran. Now all we have is a truth social this morning that the, The president believes there will be a ceasefire, but Iran denies that. You got to put this into perspective. So Iran has to save face to its own people because that government there is tottering. And they can't say, hey, we're losing, we're going to surrender to America and Israel.

Can't. So just keep that in perspective. But Mr. Trump has something that he's going to deliver tonight. I will tweet throughout the whole speech at Bill O'Reilly. It's the best thing I can do real time and tell you, you know, what's really happening. Because you've got to understand. All presidents engage in propaganda. Every single man in the office.

Everyone. This is the way they do. it. And there's a reason for it. They want to rally the troops to use a bad pun in this war situation, but, you know, what Mr. Trump says is going to try to help his administration. Some of it will be valid, and others will be a recitation of his greatest hits. We did this, we did that, you've heard it before. But it's well worth listening to. A couple of reasons. Number one, whatever he says, the Trump haters are going to hate. It doesn't matter what he says.

Okay. And number two, you, the American citizen, the honest American citizen, need to know where the government's coming from and what is likely to happen. And that's what I will do. So I'm going to say, this is likely to happen. He's got to get out of this the next week or so, maybe two weeks. but it's just taking too much of an economic toll and there's too much dissent. And on that subject, a new poll, Reuters, Ipsos, Soso poll.

Not particularly accurate. First question. Overall, do you approve or disapprove the U.S. military strike against Iran? Prove 35, disapproved 60. I don't believe that number, even though we are a soft nation. We are not ready to fight a war psychologically. We're not ready. We don't want to make any sacrifices at all.

And that's true. Second question, thinking about where things stand with the conflict in Iran, which statement comes closer to your own views? Work to annual and use involvement in the conflict quickly, even if it means we do not achieve our goals, 66%. I don't believe the number. It thinks it's too high. Work to achieve all the goals, even it means U.S. involvement in the conflict continues

for an extended period, 27%. Nobody wants an extension. period. Okay. Final question, would you favor, oppose sending U.S. ground troops? We all know the answer to that. Favor 18, oppose 76. And it's not going to happen. And, you know, the people on the internet have whipped the stuff up and on cable news. They're liars. They don't know anything. They just trying to get attention to themselves. All right, so the big winner in all this isn't the USA. although down the road, maybe it will be, it's Putin. So Putin's sitting there in Moscow, he's loving this. Number one, a lot of the sanctions have been listed off his oil sales,

so he's making money, which he needs to kill people in Ukraine. And the Russian economy is devastated, as I predicted it would be. And number two, NATO is finished. finished because and this makes no sense to me and I wrote a message of the day about it on bill o'Reilly.com this morning all the NATO countries have to do

was say we're with you that's it because the United States and Israel doing a heavy lifting France isn't going to send troops or end doing it all they have to do is say will help you out. Want to land U.S. planes and refuel? Yeah.

If you need us to do some specific things in Hormuz, we're with you. No. They won't do it. So what good is NATO? And that's exactly what Donald Trump believes. We don't need them. Putin loves this.

Loves it. So down the road, Putin's got his eye on the Baltic. States, okay, Latvia, and then other Eastern European countries, Moldova, weak governments, where he can just walk in and take over. That's what he wants to do. And if there's no alliance between Europe and USA, it's a lot easier to do that. And there's no alliance. Trump's really mad. I mean, as angry as I've seen them in quite some time. Because there is no excuse for France, Spain, Italy, Germany. Not only do they refuse to help us, but they're mocking us by saying, you know, it's an immoral war, it's an illegal war. I'll never go to Spain again as long as I live,

ever. And it's a beautiful country. I've been all over it. I wrote a moment. I wrote a motorcycle all over that country. Beautiful. Never going again. And the reason that Spain is doing is a socialist country now. And they don't like the United States. They don't like capitalism. And they hate Trump. That's the reason. And when you think about it, Europe is in the kill zone. So if the Mollah ever did get the ability to deliver a nuke, Paris is going. Madrid is going. Rome is going. And these pinheads over there, they're not worried about that? Pope's not worried about the Vatican going, boom?

I think I might be a little more circumspect. So Putin's a big winner. Now, China's a huge player in all this, and this gets no publicity, but of course I know I went to Beijing. You know all about that. So May 14th, Donald Trump's supposed to go to Beijing. Big conference with Xi. China gets 80% of its oil from Iran.

8-0. Can't survive without that oil unless Donald Trump makes a deal with China to sell them American oil and Venezuelan oil, which is possible. But Hormuz is a big thing for China. China can't go very long without that oil. So China behind the scenes, I don't know what they're doing specifically. I wish I did.

I might be able to find out. I'm going to D.C. in a couple of weeks. But believe me, China's much more powerful than Putin. And they're just sitting back and I watch it. But that's a big, big factor in all of this. And finally, America First Movement is going to take off now because we're a soft nation. I was talking to Hannity on the radio program, on his radio program today.

And he goes, well, what about D-Day? No D-Day. Not in America, not in contemporary America. No D-Day. We're not willing to make sacrifices in this country. If we got to pay a buck more a gallon at the pump, we're screaming. Now, I know times are tough. I understand the economics of it.

But we're not a nation. any longer that's disciplined and going to go do the right thing. We're not going to do the right thing anymore because we're so divided. And most people don't even care about what the right thing is. Surely denying a theocracy

who is said we want to kill Americans and Jews a nuclear weapon is the right thing. Surely. Right? No. Trump's war. And that's a memo. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition.

Okay, so all this turbulence overseas and the economic turbulence here in the United States and other countries comes right into Holy Week in Passover. And there is a poll from Gallup about religion in America. Very interesting poll. So in 2015,

not so long ago, 66% of Americans said that religion was important part of their daily lives. Now that number has fallen to 49%. That's a pretty big drop. Second question, Pew. In 2007, 78% of Americans identified as Christian. Now that number is 62%. Another big drop. Finally, Pew, religion in America? 29% of all of us say we don't have any religion, and that's on the rise. Fastest growing theology in America is not really a theology, it's nothing. So why is this happening? Why?

And joining us now from Claremont, California, is Dr. Phil Zuckerman, Professor of Sociology at Pitzer College, part of the Claremont College system. If there's one thing you had to point to, doctor, that has made religion on the decline in this country, what would it be? I'd say the Internet, actually, a lot of evidence that as countries, as populations, spend more time online, one of the casualties there is being religiously involved if I had to pick one. Okay, so explain then why. I'm fairly, I wouldn't say I'm a religious fanatic, but I'm engaged in Catholicism, and I have to use the Internet every day for my work. It hasn't really impacted on that.

Yeah. I'd say that it happens in three ways working simultaneously. At least this is what we find when we ask people these questions in studies, qualitative and quantitative. So number one, the internet has created connections for people that are nonbelievers. In the past, if you were living in a very religious part of the country and you were a 16 or 17-year-old and you doubted, you were skeptical, you had questions. That was a very solitary, lonely experience and you really couldn't do much about it. If your whole family was religious and everybody at school and you weren't feeling that way, you just kind of had to suck it up or, you know, swallow it or whatever. Now you just go online and say, hey, am I?

I'm the only one who thinks, you know, this speaking in tongues is not really legit? Or am I the only one who doubts this or that? My prayers haven't been answered. And you find instant community, instant social support and validation of your worldview. So that's just connecting non-believers in a way that's never happened before. So it's easier to be an atheist because you have other atheist pals on social media. You could say that. It's easy to be, I don't know about an atheist, but it's easier to be indifferent, a skeptic, a doubter, a humanist.

because you find that social support, which, you know, having a worldview that no one else shares is hard to sustain when you're lonely, but when you have others there, it's a little bit more plausible and more acceptable. Secondly, unlike in the past, you know, in the past, if I wanted to learn something about religion, I walked to the library. If I wanted to learn about Mary's Assumption or I wanted to learn about what's Yom Kipper or something, I go to library, take out a book, and I can read. Now, if I Google that, I am immediately bombarded with critiques and debunking inadvertently,

even if I don't want to. If I just, and I, one of my favorite studies is about clergy who have lost their faith. And what they found was more often than not, the clergy said, hey, I was, I was looking something up that I hadn't studied in a while. It's been a while since I was in seminary, and I had to plan for a seminar, I mean, for a, sorry, for a sermon. And I started looking something up. But next thing I know, it's three in the morning, and I'm reading all about, you know,

how the gospels are critiquable or maybe they're forged or maybe they're this or that. So we were exposed to X Mormons, ex-Catholics, X, everything, just by searching for religion. And that can chip away at people's shirdy. And then the third factor, of course, is just how the internet interfaces in our lives, the shopping, the simultaneity, the scrolling, the porn. It's just become such a fixture.

It depleted our connections, not just in religion, but to other people in many ways. So it's a sort of community sapper, as it were. It makes us more individualized. It makes us more self-obsessed. It makes us less social. And so it makes things like church a little less, compelling or more alienating that it used to be in the past?

I see it almost the same way as I see the will to fight evil. You know, I wrote a book called Confronting Evil. And America's motivation to deal with real evil has dropped along with the belief in God or the practice of religion. and I think it's because we are an undisciplined, selfish society, generally speaking. Am I wrong? You know, that's something you and I probably don't see eye to eye on. You know, I'm a sociologist by training, and I'm happy to talk about these trends of secularization. But from what you just said, we probably, I would probably disagree.

I mean, I can explain why if you want, but. Well, I mean, where do you disagree with me? Do you think we are a self-sacrificing nation? Um, it, it depends how you, how you classify that and what you mean by that, but, but I guess the reason I would disagree is when I, you know, people, evil means different things to different people, obviously, you know, somebody might think gay marriage is evil. Another person might think it's just and good and denying gay marriage is evil. So it's very subjective. And what I can tell you is those, you know, many there are, I'm happy to talk about all the ways in which a decline in religion negatively affects our society and our culture. But on this one, I, I don't see it that way because I'm not, I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not coming at it from that point of view. I don't really, it doesn't matter to me what theology or religious tenant that you embrace, that doesn't matter. It's the overall belief in a higher power and a right or a wrong.

And that's what we're seeing now. We're seeing that, okay, we know it's wrong for people to try to develop a nuclear weapon who are sworn to kill Jews. We know that's wrong, even if you're the biggest pagan in the world. You know it's wrong, but we're not willing to do anything about it. Interesting.

I appreciate that. By the way, I also really appreciated your sentiments at the outset. Thank you for those words. I guess what I would say, I'll give you an example. Just off the top of my head, I was reading yesterday in Israel about a troop of Israeli soldiers that is going into the West Bank

and brutalizing the, civilian population there burning their homes, burning their cars, terrifying their children. It wasn't surprising to me that that is actually a battalion made up of ultra-orthodox, strongly believing Jews. And the reason I bring that up as an anecdote is I think there's something, I think it's not demonstrable that people who believe in a higher power somehow, you know, care more about good and bad and wrong and right and evil. I think you can have many strongly religious people devoted to God who don't care about

suffering of others and you can have a lot of secular humanist people who don't believe in a god but are very very motivated there's no doubt about it but to put it to put it in a historical perspective the idf which is what you're talking about in in israel i mean they are reacting to a daily threat humah oh yeah that that's what it's not like they're okay it's not like General Custer, who went into an Indian village where all the braids were gone and went out all the women and children. Okay? Well, Bill, I guess what I would say is if you look at both sides of this ugly, ugly situation,

the Palestinians and the Israelis, what you'll find is the more religious in both camps. So the more religious Palestinians- fanatical, sure. There's no doubt about it. least likely to compromise. And the more secular on both camps, the non-religious Jews in Israel and the non-religious Palestinians are the most willing to compromise, see each other's humanity. So even that, it kind of cuts both ways.

And I'm not saying this is a universal fact, but I don't agree. But, doctor, that's not true in the Muslim world. That's not true there. Okay. The more secular these Muslims are, the more intent they are in wiping Jews and Americans off the planet. So it's a very complicated issue. Last question for you. Is it good, in your opinion, as a sociologist, for America to be experiencing a decline of religion and belief in God? Is that a good thing? Yes and no. I can answer, give you both if you like. Now, yeah, but I want your opinion.

Oh, yeah, I think it's ultimately a good thing, you bet. Why? Oh, I just think we do a better job solving problems rationally and empirically rather than relying on mystical or spiritual or prayer. I mean, you and I are communicating right now and it's got, there's nothing supernatural going on. It's all empirical, scientifically driven. You and I, I believe that people solve problems better working together in this world using natural means, using our minds, our intelligence. our empathy and compassion. I don't think we solve much by relying on a deity. Prayers don't seem to be as effective as social policy. So I'd rather have more Americans

engaging in reality in a sort of empirical way, in an ethical way, rather than saying, well, we're just going to solve this by praying. We're going to solve all our nation's problems by relying on God. I don't think that's a good approach. And if you look at the most successful democracies on earth today, they are successful, not because they rely on prayer. but because they rely on sound. Well, they're not theocracies, that's for sure. But religion does set up a system whereby good is rewarded and evil is punished. Secular does not do that.

Doesn't do it. It's worked in my neighborhood, worked at my school, worked in my city. Take a bus ride up to San Francisco where I just did my, my special. Yeah. Okay. If that were the case, we would find the highest violent crime rates in the least believing democracies, but we find just the opposite. So something else is at play. Okay, Professor, very interesting.

We appreciate it. I don't know whether you're a believer or not, but if you are at Easter, thank you for taking the time. You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. So our long form will do it live is a big success all over the world. And our guest, which drops tomorrow, is Steve Croft, the former CBS correspondent, 60 Minutes guy. He was Obama's go-to guy. And that's going to be some interview. We will drop it at noon for premium and concierge members on belowrally.com, 6 p.m. all over the world, eastern.

Okay? You want to watch CROP, honest man. So this is a good one. And we appreciate you guys not only watching the No Spin News, but watching our long form. I didn't think it was going to be this successful, but it is. And we're going to have great guests coming up. And we're trying to keep it one entertaining, one newsy, obviously Croft is Newsy, and bring you up the best we can do as far as telling you the truth of what's really happening.

Anyway, happy Easter, happy Passover. Enjoy the weekend, relax a little bit, okay? And I will tweet during the president's speech tonight. We'll see you again on Monday. Thank you for listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the NoSpin News, visit Bill O'Reilly.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's Bill O'Reilly.com. Sign up and start watching today.