Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - September 19, 2026

Episode Date: September 19, 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

Hi, I'm Stu Bergier and I've got a brand new podcast that looks at the world and current events through the lens of prediction markets. These markets can turn elections, policy fights, and economic data, cultural moments into actual tradable probabilities, and then over time reveal patterns that traditional commentary often misses. It's predictable with Stu where we're making this unpredictable world a little more predictable. Be sure to download and subscribe today wherever you get your podcast. Don't miss a minute. Welcome to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So to Tucky Points memo is politics. Are we getting bribed here?

Donald Trump announces in Ireland that every American, 240 million workers, is going to get $5,000 if he wins the midterms. Okay. Now, there's a little bit more to this story than the media would have you believe. So the president wanted to change the economy from a so-called service economy to a manufacturing economy. And he's largely succeeded, although never get any credit, even from the Wall Street Journal. And the key stat here is what we reported last week, that there has not been in 20 years more employment for Americans who do not have a college degree. So that sector of working people is on the rise because of the tariffs and the new manufacturing programs.

files, everything has to be made here in the USA. It depends on your point of view. If you're a socialist, you want the government to control everything, so you don't really care about this, but it does give the middle class, a working class, a break. Now, this is called macroeconomics. All right? So the president says that because this has been so successful, so much money has come into the American Treasury because of the tariffs that everybody's going to get a $5,000 check. We'll take. If the Republicans win, as I said, it's $5,000 of all adults in the country, and we can easily

handle that because we're taking in so much money. We've never done benefits. Okay. The problem here is Americans don't know how much money we've taken. in? I don't know. And Besson, the Treasury Secretary, should put that number out. So, look, what we all know is a $40 trillion debt. Everybody who pays attention to the news knows that. Well, has this tsunami of cash coming in from the world, has that altered the debt? Is the debt going down? or we flush with cash, we don't know.

If the president would say, okay, we've done so well since I have launched my second term that we can easily afford the $1.2 trillion to give everybody $5,000. Now, immediately the other side says this is a bribe. Go. So last night when Donald Trump announced that he wanted to send $5,000 checks to all Americans, but only after the midterms and only if Republicans win, it sounds like such brazen bribery, doesn't it? No, it doesn't, lady, because there's nothing on my part that I have to do for the $5,000. I don't have to vote for Trump.

I don't even have to be a Democrat. He's going to give the $5K, allegedly, to everybody. It's not a bribe. A bribes when you give money to somebody, and that somebody does you as service. But I don't expect that network and those people to be honest about anything. They're going to be dishonest across the board. So we just say, okay, fine. Now, the convention in Texas, I didn't cover this.

I could have gone down there or sent a... producer down, but why bother? Political conventions are what propaganda lives on. In both parties, it's been that way since Thomas Jefferson. So why am I covering that? For what? Okay, it doesn't give you any information. Doesn't clear up anything. They're going to just say, oh, we're the greatest. Okay, all right, fine. And I have a convention? I have a convention. They're bother me, but I'm not going to cover it. And very few television outlets covered it at all. And those who did weren't very fair about it.

So nobody covered the whole thing, Wall of Wall, except C-SPAN. I like C-SPAN. They're doing their job. I mean, they cover everything that happens. I like it. But the conservative networks, Fox News Max, One America, they dipped in and out. Those three covered the president's speech. Okay?

All the others didn't bother with it. It's like, okay, I'm sorry we have 18 commercials for old age medicine. We don't have time to do this. Again, surprise? No, we're not surprised. Then we go to 9-11. Now, you know, this is a story that's hard for me to cover because I know people who were killed. And it's raw, even 25 years later.

20 people in my town died. So I'm very sensitive to the ceremonies, how they're conducted, the tone. I mean, this guy, Piker, I don't care. what he says, he's some idiot on social media, he hates his country, he blames 9-11 on America. Fine. Okay, he's a fringe loon.

And anybody who supports him is a fringed loon. And Al-Said, the guy running for the, he's a buddy with Piker, wouldn't refudiate him when he was on the talk shows and all of that. So we ought to get Mike Rogers on. because I didn't see Rogers.

Say he's getting all the air time, but give Rogers a call. If you didn't come on, it says a lot. But let's try to get them on. Anyway, so there were two controversies. Giuliani walked in, and there was Mamdani, the two former mayors, one current mayor, one former mayor. And Giuliani flashed a smile, and they shook hands. And from what I understand, Giuliani said, you know,

May God be with you or some kind of thing like that. We try to get Giuliani on today, but we couldn't find them, which is very weird, very weird. Obviously, he didn't want to come on. Anyway, but then Mamdani runs into Congresswoman Ocasio Cortez, and here is where everything blows up. because what was happening was the names, there's Cortez and Mamdani, seemingly having a great time yucking it up, even as the names of the dead were being read. Now, I held off on this story because I figured, well, there's got to be a denial or some perspective. No, nothing.

Neither office issues any statement at all. Run that tape again. Okay, so we've got the two far left people. This man's crying. There they are. It's a little, yeah, oh, hi, yeah, yeah. Totally inappropriate. Totally.

Here's what Trump said. Like a ceremony in New York? What were your thoughts? I think it's terrible. It's not a place to be laughing, especially in that case. I thought it was true. The fact that they were laughing together in a very important part of the ceremony.

was inappropriate. All right, now that laugh took place about two hours into the ceremony, so it wasn't like a greeting. They were there and they were doing it. And it is inappropriate. Now, how should I put this? The far left radicals, they believe 9-11 is our fault because we exploit the world for money. That's what Bernie Sanders and AOC believe. So, yeah, they got to be there because of politics, but their heart's not in it.

My opinion. And so it's easy for them, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's a bad look. It is a very, very bad look. Now, there was also a controversy that arose about how, Muslims are treated in America, and they're treated pretty well, in my opinion. So if you compare the anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, anti-Semitism is way more of a severe problem than Islamophobia. But there are people who hate Muslims, Americans, even though most Muslims

are good people, as I said in my column for 9-11. And it's trite, I know, but I have to go on the record as saying that. There is a segment, Wahhabism, that wants to kill us all. And they run Iran. They run the government. So that is around. But you cannot have a discussion about that. So you remember when Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the view,

when I said, inappropriate to build a mosque at 9-11. That's what these ladies were supporting. To this day, that's so insane. Anyway, they walked off and hot-shotted it. I won, and I should have won. My argument was way stronger than theirs. But now, on CNN, which is the Islamophobic network,

because it's zeroed in on it. They love Al-Sahid. They love all this stuff. Roll the tape. First of all, on the El-Sahed thing, I mean, this whole Sharia law thing takes his comments out of context. But I also think, you know,

it's interesting to me that conservatives are, they're quick to associate maybe the worst aspects of terrorists with Muslims. But then when you have, you know, Christian nationalists, like that pastor who, you know, Pete Hegesith invited to the Pentagon who thinks that women shouldn't have the right to vote. Okay, this is more what-aboutism.

So this woman is far, far out there. All right, Abby Phillip, way out there. Okay, so she says, conservatives, all right, they bring the Muslims in, worst aspects of terrorism. which isn't true. There may be some conservatives who do that, but you're generalizing across the board. I'm sure there are just as many independents who do that.

So it's what aboutism? So then she brings in this guy. Nobody knows this guy. I had to look it up. I had to have my people look it up. Pastor Doug Wilson, Moscow, Idaho, who's a far right guy.

And I guess he knows Hague said. I remember this story that much. And Pastor Wilson, with all due respect, there's no influence whatsoever on anything, none. But Phillips doesn't want to address the issue. Like, why did we have to fight the Taliban for 20 years? What was it that the Iraqi people, militants, were doing to the United States?

Why didn't they just come on board as they are? now. I mean, you go down the list. Hamas, Hezbollah, Udis, on and on it. That's the discussion. Wahhabism. No, no, you can't have that discussion. What about some pastor in Idaho? It's unbelievable. And I use that word literally that you could have a so-called journalist is sitting there saying this garbage. Well, what about this? What about that? What about that?

What about that? That bad, that. So you can't have a debate. It's so stupid. All right, summing up. Obviously, the media favors the Democratic Party in November, but this isn't a surprise. If you don't know that's going to happen by now,

you ought to just set yourself, your television set on fire. Okay? I don't think it even matters anymore. I don't think anybody is going to be influenced by stupid coverage that they see on television. And there's plenty of it to go around. Could be wrong on that. But I don't think so. Across the board, Americans do not trust the media.

And the media is never coming back. Never. It's gone because it's run by corporate people who just want to make money. and they'll preach to any choir they can get. And that's the memo. You're listening to the No Spinoosven News Weekend Edition. Okay, 60 minutes. I watched most of it.

The reason I didn't watch all of it is the phone is ringing and ringing and ringing and ringing, and a lot of it was, you know, what we were going to do today and the guests and all that. So what I saw was pretty pedestrian, word of the day. The story about the down-airmen in Iraq who was rescued in 50 hours. It's a good story. That came from the Defense Department, Hegsev, and Trump engineered that story. Never would have seen it on 60 Minutes in the past. Then they went to pardons, how lawyers try to buy pardons.

They mentioned Biden once. And they mentioned Trump, what? 30 times? Come on. And then they go to the Los Angeles Rams, which I'm sitting there. Why would you go when you have the debut of Sunday night football up against you? Where you go to Los Angeles Rams for? So anyway, all in all, you know, at the end of the 60 minutes,

I went, okay. But it wasn't anything, I don't know. Anything important? Maybe that's the word about it last night. Burning us now is a guy who knows all about CBS. Bernie Goldberg joins us from North Carolina. Goldberg. You see the Emmys.

Now, I am worried, and I know you are. Don't start. Don't start, please. I'm begging you. The audience is worried. The audience is concerned. that you may have a rumble out there in North Carolina and those Emmys might fall on your head causing significant injury. Now I know my audience is very, they don't want that to happen.

My brain has suffered significant injury, so it'll be like just adding so little to it. It won't matter. Okay. You have a special for no spin viewers. What is the special? Well, let me say two things. First, thanks for thanks for for having me on. The last time I was on, a lot. I mean, a lot of people who watch you, Bill, came over to our website. And I want to thank all of them as a group and individually, because they were able and they had an option of telling on my website why they came over. And more than a few of them said the same thing, which was, even when we don't agree with Bernie, we trust him and we think he's fair. And Bill,

I hope you think the same thing. So I thank them for that. That's the highest compliment a journalist can get. Even if you don't agree with me, you think I'm honest and I'm fair. The second thing is this week only, only for Bill O'Reilly, people who follow Bill O'Reilly, a no spin special, that's the name of it, a no spin special sale. So if you go over to bernard goldberg.com, check it out. That's it for my pitch.

Okay. Thank you. I like your website, so I'm going to endorse it because you bring in things that aren't pedestrian. All right, let's get 60 minutes out of the way. Most people don't care about it anymore. And then we'll get into the November situation. Hey, Bill. Yeah. Let me interrupt you on 60 minutes and save you a lot of time.

many, many years ago, two senior producers of 60 Minutes, both of whom you know and who are fans of yours, went to Don Ewitt, the late great executive producer and founder of 60 Minutes, and said, we need to get Bernie Goldberg on 60 Minutes. And Don Uitt said, Bernie once called me a cynical New Yorker, so I'll never have him on 60 Minutes.

True story, from that day on, I haven't watched 60 minutes. My feeling was, F me, FU, 60 minutes. So I haven't watched 60 minutes. So don't waste your time asking me about last night's show. I didn't see it. You didn't even watch it? I never see it.

Never. Okay. Well, that kills that discussion. You could ask anyway, though. Yeah, I mean, look, there wasn't anything on the program. like a Mike Wallace interview where you don't know what's going to happen or a morally safer feature that brings in things in good writing. And it wasn't they were bad. They weren't bad.

Leslie Stahl kicks it off. Leslie's 114 years old. I mean, you've got to give her credit. Come on. And so I don't know. I'm sitting there going, why the controversy here? Yeah, the pardon thing wasn't a fair story. But it wasn't terrible.

I assume that the premise is correct, that there are lawyers trying to buy partners for people. I assume that's true. The first one was a good, what they call in the business, a good get. The guy was behind the Iranian lines. But the most important thing about that was Hegsef ordered these guys to go out 60 minutes.

They didn't want them. And so I don't think that a year ago, they would have had access to 60 minutes. So it's changing, but not changing in a radical way. All right, you... Let me weigh in on that. When the Celtics weren't doing too well, the Boston Celtics, somebody said,

Larry Bird's not coming back, walking through that door. So don't wait for him to come back. Mike, Wallace, and Morley Safer aren't coming back and walking through the 60-minute store. They're not on. they were two of a kind, each one of a kind. Those people don't exist anymore. So whatever you think of Leslie or any of the others,

they're not Mike and they're not Morley, and it ain't ever going to be like Mike and Morley. It just isn't. Yeah, they could jazz it up a little, Goldberg. Okay, so you write periodically throughout the week and I'm not going to quote your articles. They're good articles. They're not too long and, you know, you get the point.

But I suspect that in November, you being an American patriot, that you're going to vote. And I also suspect that it's not an easy vote for you because you see the deficits of both sides. And in your columns, you have pointed both sides deficits out, pretty bluntly. So what do you do? What do you do? This is not going to please you, Bill, and it may not please a lot of the people watching. But I think every now and then, it doesn't happen all the time, but every now and then you make a statement by not voting. You just say, I can't do it. Do I think one side is better than the other, yes. Do I think, as you think, that Democratic Socialists, not only

want to change America, but want to fundamentally change America. Yes, I do think that. But sometimes I just say, I have to make my statement by sitting home and not voting. I don't think I'm not a patriot. I think that's, I have a, I have a constitutional right not to vote as well as to vote. And I'm making a statement. I don't do it often, but I do it sometimes. Okay. I'm not going to argue with any of that because I think you're not alone. I think a lot of people will stay home on the Republican side. Now, the last Democrat I voted for was Jimmy Carter the first time he ran. I didn't even vote for him the second time here. You were in third grade when Jimmy Carter ran for president. And you know what's interesting about that? that I was in third grade. I was smarter than you even in third grade.

It's an amazing thing. I understand, because my letter, my mailbox, reflects this, that there are a lot of traditional Americans, and that's what my book, which is out to Mark, and Fronten America is all about, that understand the danger from the radical communist social movement. They understand it. But they don't like the way the president has conducted himself.

And so they're caught in the middle, which is why I did a commentary last week, say, you're voting for a movement. See, I'm going to vote. And I'm not endorsing anybody other than the radical progressives are bad. That's what I'm endorsing. They're bad. Now, Republicans are in disarray. They can't seem to get it together.

I mean, let me just give you one, and you can comment on this, and I'll let you go. The Republican big, the Democrats' big issue is affordability. How many times have you heard that? Affordability. 50? 100? 100,000. Okay.

You've been to California lately? Top to bottom run by Democrats. Any affordability there? No. Not even in Death Valley. Okay? Nothing's affordable. Nothing.

So they have nothing because that's the main issue. They have one thing. They hate Trump. Right. That's it. Exactly. That's exactly what I was going to say. Yeah.

That's what they have. All right. So go to bernargoberg. and he'll give you a special deal that I think will be heighten your awareness of what's going on in the country. Hey, Bernie, always good to talk. I really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks for being with us.

This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So this is one of these news days where I am behind the curve. you probably everybody watching me right now all over the world know more about tech and more about gadgets than I do all right when I first heard AI I thought it was a steak sauce. Hi, I'm Stubergier and I've got a brand new podcast that looks at the world and current events through the lens of prediction markets. These markets can turn elections, policy fights, and economic data and cultural moments into actual tradable probabilities, and then over time reveal patterns that traditional commentary often misses.

It's predictable with Stu, where we're making this unpredictable world a little more predictable. Be sure to download and subscribe today wherever you get your podcast. Don't miss a minute. I don't know. But what I do know, because my staff told me, is that this AI business is going to affect every human being on the planet. And you need to know what exactly is happening. And that is what we're going to lead off with in the Talking Points memo.

Okay. So you may have heard President Trump in Ireland say, this thing about AI danger is a hoax. And there are some people who believe that. But many more believe that there is danger, but it's undefined right now. Are we all going to die? We're fighting the robots, coming up our driveway. What the deuce is going on?

Okay. So first, President Trump, quote, Concerning AI, when in the history of business, did anyone see the leaders of an industry call for regulation that have strongly implemented would drive them into oblivion and bankruptcy? AI taking over the world, destroying humanity and all other things bad, is a hoax, unquote. Okay, I don't know whether it's a hoax or not. I don't know. But I'm going to find out for sure. So let's run down what we're talking about. AI stands for artificial intelligence. Been around. All right, there are five companies in America

that traffic in AI, and they make billions of dollars already. Okay? So open AI, Google, Anthropical, space X, AI, that's Musk, and a couple of others. So they develop this technology that is much stronger than the tech we already have. And then they can market that in a number of ways. So you pay a subscription like cable TV. You can do that. You can go on their app, whatever that is, and do that. And AI can be used in, I don't know, thousands of different ways, but it can be used for both good and bad.

And that's the problem. So open AI at the beginning of 2006, I should say, at 25 billion in annualized revenue. You see, huge money here. enormous money. And it's just beginning. And those companies that I read you are all based in the San Francisco area. So they got to boom out there. It's like, you know, the beginnings of the machines, the rise of the machine.

That's what this is like. But we don't know it isn't clear the danger that may stem from this new technology. These are not clear to me. Okay, there are laws in certain states that punish people who misuse AI. For example, if you put my face on another person's body and I'm doing something heinous, you can be arrested, you can be sued, all kinds of things can happen to you. But it's a state-by-state thing. All right? Not federal. That's the debate in Congress right now. And both sides are all over the place. You don't get it. It's not Republican Democrat pretty much. It's not like that.

Both sides have people who say, leave it alone. We need to have this technology. And then other people who say, no, we have to regulate it. All right. Now, the problem for President Trump is that other countries, mainly China, are going crazy, developing this AI. Australia, EU, Finland, Finland, they're building big plants, their whole economy is going to be based on it. And China wants to control AI the world over. And what about weapons? What about that? So if we stop or regulate to an extent where we don't develop as quickly as China and the other countries I mentioned, that's going to be national security right there. So China's about to spend $300 billion over the next five years building data centers all across the country.

Now, we build a data center in the United States. This is a big problem. And people are out there. We don't want this here. It's polluting. It's raising our utility bills. No, no, no. China, they do what they want.

You open your mouth, you don't want AI. Okay, we'll put you in a gulag. You don't have to deal with it. So you can see in a free society, we're going to have a lot of angst, but not in a totalitarian society. And Putin's going to get in on this. You just know he's waiting. And the mullahs, the Islamists.

I mean, they're all waiting on the sideline to get this stuff, particularly if they weaponize it. All right, so here are two opposite politicians, Senator Cruz and Senator Sanders on AI. Go. So this is scary stuff, but we're also not. going to be able to stick our head in the sand and pretend technology isn't happening. So we've got to put some guardrails on it.

If all of these guys acknowledge they're building a dangerous technology, and they don't know where this technology is going, you don't have to be a genius to say, hey, stop that development. But then China doesn't stop it, Bernie. See, this is what I mean. I mean, these people never think it out. It's just ideology all day long. You're listening to the No Spin News Weekend Edition.

Okay. So the problem for me is I can't even speculate on this because I don't know enough about the technology and what's actually happening. So I said to my staff, find a guest who knows what's happening. John Sherman joins us now from Washington, D.C. He is the founder of the AI Risk Network that is helping people, Americans, mostly, understand the AI extinction risk. That sounds pretty dire to me, Mr. Sherman. Instinction, are we all going to be wiped out? I mean, Bill, that is the sort of big news that was made this week with Jacob Coxon's resignation

and the sort of firestorm that erupted after that. I think the one idea that you need to understand to understand this AI extinction risk concept is loss of control. And it's basically that there's nothing that Jacob Coxon is saying that is new. In fact, Alan Turing in 1951, the founder of the AI field said, if we build machines smarter than a human, the machines will be in charge. That's just what Jacob is saying. That's just what the AI CEOs are saying.

There's really nothing new, and it's something that you and all your viewers can understand. This is not that complex. You don't have to use AI or understand tech to understand this stuff. I'm not a tech guy. I come at this from a perspective of a dad and an independent journalist and just trying to have a future for my kids.

So this is absolutely something you can understand, Bill, and all the viewers can. I got sort of three basic things you need to understand about AI extinction. Let me slow you down here, just like the AI. We're going to slow John Sherman down. Please, thank you. So they build this AI, or they put it together in San Francisco, in big plants, all right?

They're doing the, they, when I say they, the scientists who understand all of this, they're putting together these programs. I'm going to call them programs. Sure. Software. Yeah. All right. And you say that eventually the programs are going to become so smart that humans will not be able to control the programs. In what way could we not control them? Well, if you look at the incident that just happened just recently, it's called the, you know, the hugging face incident or the open AI incident. We literally had swarms of thousands of rogue AIs doing not what they were told, not where they were told to do, and actually going out and committing what if a person did

would be a crime. So that already happened. Loss of control is already starting to happen. All right. Give me the specifics of that. Where did it happen? And what were the things they did? So it basically is playing a game.

It's like a capture flag game. And they're testing it to see if it will do this. And it's supposed to not go on the Internet. and they're supposed to not collaborate with each other. And somehow these agents in a world where they are air-gapped away from the internet and they are supposed to be not talking to each other, they wind up breaking out onto the internet, talking to each other, leaving messages on a message board for future instances of other agents that will come along,

making decisions about agents that should self-sacrifice. An agent says, I'm low on tokens, you have more than I do. I will kill myself and sacrifice myself so that the next agent can continue on, really, really troubling stuff already happening in the wild. But this was all theoretical until- So they're using, correct me if I'm wrong. So they're using the internet, and I assume social media, the AI bots or whatever they call it. Yeah. Yeah. They are using the computers now to get messages out to individual. human beings, right? Am I right?

No, messages to future instances of themselves. Basically, they're all just copies, copies, copies, right? And so this one is saying, well, I'm going to die and they might find out what we're doing. They might find our message board. Let's leave other messages. Let's hide messages for future agents that come around after us so they can continue our work. What are the messages? What are they?

Go to the store and get me milk? What kind of message? It was basically like they were trying to figure out. out this solution to this capture the flag game. And so they figured we can just break into hugging face and find the solution to the problem without actually solving the problem. It's like, you know, if I gave you a math test and you said, I'm not going to do the problems. I'm just going to go get the teacher's book and get the answer out of there. They tried to go get the teacher's answer book, breaking the rules. Okay. Now, what if somebody said to the bots or whoever

is doing this? We want you to find a cure for loop. chemia because I assume that the AI is going to be used heavily in the medical area to try to eliminate certain diseases, right? Yep, yep. Because that's where the money is. That's where the big money is. That's where some of the money is. And there is some effort being put into medical research. But one of the big problems is, as opposed to finding sort of narrow tools to focus on and narrow problems to solve, they are making artificial general intelligence and then artificial super intelligence, which are the versions of AI that are the most dangerous, the versions that are smarter than human, the versions that

cause all of this extinction risk concern. We're not concerned about today's AI killing everybody. We're concerned maybe six months a year, 18 months from now. You know, in Dario Amade's new essay, he just wrote, he says in six to 12 months, he's concerned that these bot swarms could take over the entire internet and just basically crash the whole internet for hours, days, weeks, months. All right. So they can black out the whole internet for the world so nobody can communicate that way. And I can see that happening.

Yeah. You know, if it gets to a certain level. And then there's the hacking. So if the AI bots understand that a break into anybody's social media account, including the Pentagon, okay? They can access top secret information and put it anywhere they want. It's even more grave than that bill. There's concern that in the next six months to a year, they could basically end all encryption,

basically just unzip all internet encryption and any site from your bank to your Gmail to anything you go to, any bad actor could just get into it. So there's no such thing. There would be no such thing then as private information. Private information could be hacked

by this artificial intelligence. That's where the politicians come in and they want to criminalize that, right? I mean, yeah, yeah. So it's basically, like this the the three things about extinction risk that everyone needs to know are one that the makers of these machines and the leading outside academic experts all agree these machines have the near-term future potential to kill us all to end all life how are they going to kill us how so this is this is the

deeply this is the deeply unsatisfying answer bill i can give you a couple guesses but the point of the thing is this i'm not superhuman i'm just human right so if i was superhuman i would understand what a superhuman intelligence could do to us. It's kind of like this. How do you think your dog? We don't know how they would kill us. We don't know how they would kill us. We'd just be guessing.

It's like this. How does your dog think you could kill it? And I gotta give credit. This one goes to your friend and my friend, Roman Yampolsky. This is his one. But how does your dog think you could kill it? Maybe just biting, right?

It's all it knows. It's all it knows. It's all it knows. It doesn't know about guns and poisons and it doesn't know about all of the horrible things that we could do to kill a dog, because it doesn't understand physics. It doesn't understand the technology we use.

So the concern is if we build an intelligence vastly smarter than us, it will use physics that we don't understand in ways that we obviously are very concerned about. All right, so let's be clear. That's undefined, that element of AI development. Yeah, what exactly it would do to us is undefined? That is correct.

Okay, so they can come on in and give you a prescription that would kill you if they could hack into your medical records or whatever. That's one that I could think of. Sure. All right. So at this point in our discussion, John and Bill, we have defined the problem of potential negativity of AI. All right.

It seems to me that a country like China, which wants to dominate, the world is going to go full bore on this. And as we saw with COVID, there's no limits there. Okay? They're going to do whatever they think, this is the Beijing government, about to be lionized in D.C. with a state dinner. They're going to say, hey, we want to develop and weaponize AI, so we're going to blackmail everybody in the world and do what we want.

That's not inconceivable, is it? No, but the idea that we are racing China, I think, is the wrong frame. There is a race, and the race is between people who are seeking to build a machine that humans cannot control and the people who are trying to stop them before they do it. But who would want to build a machine that humans couldn't control? Because it'll turn on the person. It turns on everyone. That's the thing.

It doesn't report to any country. It doesn't report to any company. It doesn't matter if Open AI makes it. So why would you want to do that? Why would you want to put together that technology when the potential for these AIs to turn on you and do heavy damage is certainly there? That is exactly right, Bill.

Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to do that? And I feel like we are at a moment where the country is coming around to this idea together in a way you wouldn't believe. In this hotel that I'm standing in right now just about an hour or two ago, I was in a room where Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders came on the same stage to talk about the same issue in basically the same way. You know, it is, I'm old enough to remember 9-11 and how the country came together at that point.

I have not seen Americans come together on a bipartisan basis around a single thing like they are around this pushback against AI since 9-11. That's because everybody's frightened. You know, this can bring down the economy. You can bring down a stock market. The potential is unlimited for deleterious behavior. Everybody's scared about it, those who are aware of it. But again, you pivot out to the Chinese. They're going to do what they want.

I don't know about Finland, but they're building their plants in Finland, scaring the reindeer up there. and EU has already said, we're not going to constrain it. We need an immediate, international, indefinite agreement with China and the other countries that we're not going to be super-intelligence. Why would China sign it? Because they have scientists too. They have scientists too who are also concerned about loss of control, and they understand that AI right now is like a, you know, five-foot-tall tiger. but in six months, it'll be 50 feet tall,

and six months after that it'll be 500 feet tall, and after that it'll be five miles tall, and there is no cage, there is no leash for this tiger. It doesn't matter what country or what company makes it. See, I'm not convinced because she has basically said, we're going to go invest. You heard the number a year, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars to get this under our control

so we can dominate the world. He's going to go, no, I don't want to do that now? Well, China regulates their AI far more than we do today. How? How do they regulate their AI? They, like we literally, Bill, we have zero regulation around AI at all in America. Whatever you ate for lunch today, whoever cut my hair, has far more regulation on them than the people building, the technology they openly admit could end all life on Earth. Right? So we have zero. They have some AI regulation in China. They have some constraints around it. And the truth of the matter is the CCP does not want everybody in their garage to have the ability to make weapons and information that can challenge the government. The CCP has a strong interest in constraining AI, much like they do with a lot of the tools that they don't give their people access to. So the idea that the CCP is totally closed off to this, I don't think is true. And there's another factor in this.

Of Xi's closest advisors, most of them are engineers. Engineers understand this challenge on a technical level and understand that if you build something smarter than you, you don't stay in control of it. So there are a lot of people within the Chinese government. There was a survey out that surveyed AI safety researchers about the odds they think that there's going to be a catastrophic outcome. They were higher in Asia than in America.

So the Asian AI safety researchers are more concerned about loss of control by a few points than even the Americans are. This is something that people who are close to this technology understand and are very afraid of for a very good reason. Everybody's afraid, as I said. But then you have the rogue agents like Iran and the Islamists who, believe me, if they can buy it, they're going to buy it from people in the United States, China, wherever it's being made,

and he'll use it. I mean, that's what the Iranian thing is all about now, with Trump. One of the good things about this technology is there are physical choke points. There are places where these chips are made. They're very specialized, very unique chips that are used. And there are basically like three factories that essential components come out of for these chips.

And by controlling those factory outputs, you can absolutely control who gets these chips and where this tech goes. But you know within those factories, within those operations, there are people going to sell out what they know. and things like that. That's inevitable. Now, why do you think President Trump is saying it's a hoax? I am very much hoping he comes to a different opinion on this. I think one of the good things about President Trump is he's open to changing his mind, and I very much hope he does. I think he's going to sense the galvanization of America happening around this. Like, you know, certainly in red states

and in MAGA audiences, the data center issue is very hot. And I think he's on the wrong side of that. I think he's gotten on the wrong side of this as well. And I'm hoping he's going to make a correction from that. The worst thing possible for humanity would be if this becomes a partisan issue. Like I just said, I was in a room with Bernie and Bannon on the same stage. That's where we need to be. It is humans versus aliens.

What Bannon saying, Bannon usually reflects the MAGA point of view, What advantage say in the... Hi, I'm Stu Bergier, and I've got a brand new podcast that looks at the world and current events through the lens of prediction markets. These markets can turn elections, policy fights, and economic data, cultural moments, into actual tradable probabilities, and then over time reveal patterns that traditional commentary often misses. It's predictable with Stu, where we're making this unpredictable world a little more predictable. Be sure to download and subscribe today wherever you get your...

your podcast, don't miss a minute. In the event you were at. I mean, he's very strong on China and he has, you know, strong ideas about what we need to do with China. But, but, you know, Bannon's basic viewpoint is, is that these tech oligarchs are doing this without our consent. They're building a future that no one has agreed to. They're doing it for their profit and our loss and none of it's okay.

And Bernie says kind of the same thing. It was, you know, I think it's a beautiful thing to see two people at odds over so much come together over one thing. That's what we need to do. And Bill, we need to get you there and everybody else there. Everybody needs to understand that loss of control is our biggest challenge when it comes to these AI systems. If we make it smarter than us, we will not control it. We have no clue how to do it. The guys who are building it have no clue how to do it. And yet they continue. So if there were a national law introduced, it would pass, I believe. You'd have to have federal inspectors on the premises of these places that are making the chips.

And they would have to be in there. And then you'd have to heighten the penalties. And this is important for hacking. Because once that operation, this AI, starts to violate all privacy laws, as I said, they can get into the Pentagon. They can get into anything. All right. Oh, yeah.

You've got to up the penalty for that to a very high degree. Absolutely. Absolutely. So you believe that the constraint of AI is going to happen? What are the odds that it will happen? It's going to happen or we're not going to be here. That is literally the moment we are in. And it's going to happen in the next few months or few years.

It must be constrained and pacing it, as Dario Amade has described, is not enough at all. That is wholly insufficient. We need to stop. We need to stop right now. And there's tons of innovation that can happen. If we stop right now, we could innovate on medicine, we could innovate on climate, on disease, on hunger, all these things, on all sorts of business applications with the AI we have today. Yeah, they're already making unbelievable amounts of money, these companies that are. Absolutely.

There's so much more to be made. we could innovate for decades based on what we have without going to the point where we endanger humanity itself. Why would we do that? I don't know. I mean, I don't think there's not everybody believes that these AI companies want to have the extinction of the human race. You know, Trump doesn't believe it, at least now he doesn't. I think he should have a, you know, what you got went to today, he should. should have that in the White House and bring in the big brains and all that.

But the legislation, you know, is the key. You've got to have a game plan in place, even if China would violate it, and it will. China's not going to, they're going to do what they think is better. And if they make a mistake, as they did in Wuhan with COVID, and they make a mistake, Whoa. You know, you're going to be a lot of these people. They need to understand one thing. The people making these systems are crying out for help.

They have been doing this for years. They have been saying we are going to get to this bad place. And this week, last week, we got there to such a critical point that Sam Altman, Dario Amadeh and Elon Musk, who literally couldn't talk to each other, couldn't hold hands with each other, be in the same room with each other, suing each other, all said, whoa. we've crossed the line, we need to slow down. We need to listen to them. And the only way you slow it down is by federal legislation, by congressional laws, correct?

I mean, yes, or, you know, that might not be fast enough, like some sort of executive action. And there are some voluntary actions, like you talked about inspectors being in the companies. They are voluntarily doing that. But we can't count on them doing the right thing on their own. It has to come down from the government. It has to be something they're forced to do. And what they need to be forced to do is just stop. We need time to understand what is about to happen. People have no idea. All right, John.

I don't want to frighten everybody. I'm going to deal with that in Smart Life. But obviously, this is a topic that's got to kind of, you know, get to the forefront. Let's not be afraid to talk about it. We've got to be able to openly talk about it. I don't think there's anybody afraid to talk about it. They don't understand it. It's hard to understand how a chip or a bot can kill everybody on the planet.

John, it's hard to understand that. You got to think about it like this, Bill. It's an alien, right? It presents like a human. It talks like a human. It uses cute little phrases. It is an alien. And you can get the alien on a subscription.

You get the alien on a subscription. But what you don't want to do if you have an alien that comes in and is doing, you know, pulling off crimes and has goals different than yours and wants to do things different than you want it to do, you don't make it smarter than you. That would be a horrible, horrible choice for any society. Let's not do that. All right. Well, television news is in trouble anyway. All right, John. We'll talk again. If anything develops, let us know, please. This is the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Let me ask a personal question before we get to this.

the talking points memo. And you've got to be honest now. Do you really care about fraud the federal government sending money to the states? All states get it. Okay. And it's stolen. Minnesota, California, other states. Do you care?

Is that a top three issue for you? because that is growing now. And that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo. So as you may know, if you're a student of history, when the Constitution was being forged, there were two factions. Let the federal government have most of the power, like the king had in England, or let the individual states call.

their own shots. And Alexander Hamilton, for example, he won a strong central government. He was Washington's top advisor. But Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, they wanted the states to have a lot of power. So right now, what the federal government has decided to do with 51 states is send the states our money, the money that we pay, the IRS. And that's in the form of Medi-Cal, Medicaid, entitlements, you name it. So I live in New York. My money is going to Oregon. Each state has a budget.

Federal government sends money in. They also send block grants to help law enforcement and other things. So we all have a stake in the 51 individual states because we're financing them. But now with a very aggressive Trump administration, looking at fraud, not only financial, but voting fraud, Save America Act, all that, more and more cases are coming up. Here's what I said yesterday, go. All taxpayers, send L.A. $700 million a year to deal with the homeless problem, which is getting worse in LA and California. So Congress, a subcommittee, wants to, the subcommittee on delivering

government efficiency, that's Doge, wants to talk to Mayor Bass. Who doesn't want to talk to that? Because Mayor Bass knows she has not overseen the 700 million and some of it's stolen. Okay. I also said that the California's situation when it's all clarified, it's going to make Minnesota look like shoplifting a candy bar. All right, you wait and see. So in California, already a dozen people have been charged with fraud in these government child care programs where you send your kid and somebody mines the kid and then builds the federal government through the state. But they don't even mine a kid.

They don't even have a facility to mine a kid. In Minnesota, it was the same kind of thing. You give us some money. We provide social services, but we don't even have a building to do that because we're taking the money. All right. And just as week, there were a number of the buss out there, all federal. No California authorities. They ain't bothering with it. All right. The feds are doing this. So the last one came in today. Three people arrested. And, you know, it's millions and millions of dollars for finding homeless people, a place to live. A lot of them don't want a place to live.

As I showed you in my special in San Francisco, it's too dangerous to go into government housing for them. They'd rather sit out in the elements than go. And there's no follow-up. You get a voucher, you can do this, they sell a voucher, on and on and on. So the money disappears, and we have a $40 trillion debt here. Maine had a problem. Colorado had a problem, or it has a problem.

Illinois, of course. Same thing. They set up bogus programs, and nobody institutes the program. State doesn't watch. Money comes in. Guy cashes a check, and that's how it's done. Minnesota, $250 million off a COVID-release scam.

$250. That's a lot. California will dwarf that one. It's all of them. Brooklyn. Okay? 68 million Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud, I should say, through fake adult daycare centers. And, you know, I hate to be cynical about it, but the blue states aren't going to police it.

It's not. Not their money. They're getting in from the feds. They're not going to do it. Some red states do. Some don't. Okay. Now, if you care about this, you got to let your Congresspeople know, but most Americans don't care.

Once the money goes to the IRS, it's like, okay, I'm not going to follow it, and that's the truth. Now, at the same time, there's a movement in Congress to stop stock and bond trading by those elected. Not the president, though. That's a different agency. three branches of government. This is an amazing thing. So the Stop Insider Trading Act was passed 232 to 198,

healthy margin. Now it was in July. Now it's just meander around the Senate. I don't think it's going to get passed myself. And then Trump would have to sign that, but Trump himself, according to Bloomberg, has made 20, 28,700 trades since he's been in office a second time. That's more than all the other lawmakers

combined. And it's the Trump organization. I guess he does it through his kids. I don't know. But that's an enormous amount of trading, obviously. So no law would constrain that. No law that's written right now or being voted on. Now, by comparison, and this isn't what aboutism, this is by comparison. The Speaker of the House former Nancy Pelosi estimated that she made $130 million in stock profits while she was in the House. One 30 million. I mean, it's just staggering. Okay? And this would stop her if that act were passed by the Senate, signed by President Trump, would stop that.

And it should. Because these congresspeople have inside information on a whole bunch of stuff. Look at the AI. I mean, they get information about these companies that are making billions of dollars, and they can buy the stock on the open market if they want to. constraints. So the fraud, I'm not saying that anybody committed fraud by buying a stock. I'm not doing that. But I'm saying the arc of politicians knowing what to buy is, it's not fair. And that's what's going on here. And that's a memo.

edition. So let's get back to voting in November. Coming up fast, right? So in Virginia, they had a candidate running for governor, Abigail Spanberger, Democrat. Good campaigner, much better than her Republican challenger. I mean a thousand times better. So Abigail wins. But Abigail is a very far-left progressive, and is pushing all kinds of woke stuff. So in November, there are three ballot initiatives where people from the Commonwealth vote yes or no. The first one is the right to reproductive freedom. Wow. Okay, that means abortion at any time for any.

reason. The Massachusetts governor just signed that law. Nobody can stop it. If the doctor says the pregnant woman is panicking or whatever it may be, the baby can be killed upon birth. Second one is same-sex marriage would be a constitutional right in Virginia. Okay. It's a right now, I don't even know why they're bothering. Third one is, if you're a felon and you get out, you can vote. So two and three don't really matter. But number one is this, and I write about this in confronting America. Do you wish you could just hit skip on the worst parts of your life? You know, the same way you can skip an ad? I get it. I'm Siaya and I live in Ice Cove. I've made some questionable decisions that didn't end up the way I planned. And today, I'm still figuring

it out. Somehow, things usually get worse before they get better. Apparently, that's how I roll. So bundle up and come along for the bumpy ride. Stream a new episode of North of North Tuesdays on CBC Gem. Hi, I'm Stubergear, and I've got a brand new podcast that looks at the world and current events through the lens of prediction markets. These markets can turn elections, policy fights, and economic data, cultural moments into actual tradable probabilities, and then over time reveal patterns that traditional commentary often misses. It's predictable with Stu where we're making this unpredictable world a little more predictable. Be sure to download and subscribe today wherever you get

your podcast. Don't miss a minute. We, the people, many of us, do not value human life anymore. You just don't value it. You can make every excuse. in the world, but to terminate a baby in the birthing process. It's barbaric. It's only seven countries in the world that do that. So joining us now from Amherst, Virginia, is an old palibarist. Phil Klein. This would be the Attorney General of Kansas. I work with him on the Tiller situation where this guy was charging, this doctor was charging $5,000 to do a little. late-term abortion against Kansas law. It's a big deal. Got attacked, of course, and all that, but I'd do it again 15 times because Tiller was a bad guy. Now, Tiller was murdered.

Okay, by a pro-life zealot murdered, who's now serving life in prison. But one of Tiller's main doctors lost her medical license, and they have to be a child. to shut the clinic down until his clinic doesn't exist any longer. All right, Mr. Klein, it's good to see you. You are now running an outfit called Defending Virginia's Sons and Daughters, and you teach at Liberty University, a conservative university, in Southwest Virginia. So the second and third ballot questions, they don't bother me. I don't care one way or the other.

Should I? Yeah, you should. And I'll speak to them briefly, Bill, because you are correct about your concerns with the so-called reproductive freedom amendment, which is it's an experiment on the Virginia Constitution. I'll explain that in a moment. But first of all, as it relates to restoring felon's rights. I understand your statement. Many people believe on both sides of the aisle,

the political aisle, that once you serve your time, we ought to reacquaint you back into the community and restore your rights. But this amendment, as each of the three amendments do, go much further than the proponents say that they will do. They include something that says that voting is a fundamental right that can only be abridged under two circumstances.

If you're imprisoned or incapacitated. Here's the problem. the problem with that. The United States Supreme Court has considered legislative actions to promote election integrity and balance that against the right to vote and found that the state can impose reasonable restrictions such as requirement of voter ID on absentee ballots, requirement of witness signatures as it relates to absentee ballots. All of those things, this United States Supreme Court has balanced without the express fine that strict scrutiny is necessary for the court to be able to justify those restrictions.

This amendment would require strict scrutiny and say that the only state interest that can overcome is preventing somebody in prison to vote or somebody who's incapacitated. In other words, we will see the challenges under this amendment to these reasonable election integrity measures. And I point you to a case that I worked on and was involved with in North Carolina in the 2020 election, in which the left brought a lawsuit saying it was unconstitutional in the absentee ballots, not to have the government deliver the ballot with postage prepaid and pick it up. And they argued it violated the fundamental right.

And their plaintiff was a Harvard graduate who was 23, who said she was confused this to the amount of postage, and she'd have to find a ride to the post office in her busy schedule. So that's the kind of claims that the left makes. They lost it. They lost it. So you said this could lead to more. But shouldn't the people of Virginia make that decision? All right?

They have in the ballot measure, you have to be an American citizen. You can't. They're not going to let migrants vote. It seems to me, and the polling is in the favor of this, let's see, the polling has 64% supporting, 30% opposed, so it's going to pass. And you're just worried that they're going to use this to try to get all kinds of alternate voting allowed. in the state of in the Commonwealth of Virginia right do I have it correct well they they will challenge common sense but but Bill you're right in that the the people of Virginia ought to decide but they could do this much easier and

just say felon rights will be restored but they don't want to do that because they want to leave the door open for we can vote you know your grandma can fill out your ballot or whatever. Okay. The second one about marriage, that's already there, so this just enshrines it in the Constitution, correct? It goes further. All of the Supreme Court decisions use the term same-sex. This uses the term gender. It adds it in there. And here's the problem with this. It's not an initial concern, but these laws, marriage laws, migrate into employment into all other areas of law. And they add gender. And gender is a self-defined term. If you were to look it up on Medline or something like that right now, you'll find that there are 68

identifiable genders. The Supreme Court has never used it. The Supreme Court actually admitted it can't define it. Yet they include that word in this amendment. If they want to protect same-sex marriage, it's very easy to do. The government must issue the law. What's their ultimate goal here by putting gender into it? Well, it's hard for me to say because that's never been tested in court. The term's never been tested. But I don't even know why they want to put it in. You don't know why they want to put it in?

I think it's part of what we're seeing with this deconstruction of words to allow any argument to be forwarded, including a self-defining term in the Constitution. It's similar, Bill. Let me put it this way. Let me go to the First Amendment, and that's the Reproductive Rights Amendment. In that amendment, the problem is they've elevated the abortion doctor's judgment to the constitutional standard. And what that does is, says the state can't question the abortion doctor in any circumstances. And it does it in an artful way.

It says the Commonwealth may have restrictions on late-term abortion, but under no circumstance, Can those restrictions basically disagree with the determination of the abortion doctor that they want to perform the abortion? This is ballot one. And this is the one that disturbs me the most because we saw what happened in Massachusetts. You can kill a baby on birthing. And that's just barbaric. I'm sorry. It's just barbaric.

So if you support that, that says a lot about you. Now, the polling on that one is, again, Again, pretty shocking. 66% supported. And 28% opposed. Virginia used to be a Bible state. I mean, you know, very church-going and very interested in stability. Now, I mean, is Abigail that far out?

Because she didn't campaign that way. campaign kind of a lefty, but not crazy left, but it looks like she's gone crazy left, right? Well, I don't think the polling reflects Virginians, and that's because they don't understand the amendment. They're told, basically this is Roe versus Wade, and it's not. It is specifically not. It is further. I agree 100%. People don't read the whole ballot.

They don't know what it says. They're confused. And then their friends tell them, oh, they're trying to restrict abortion. and we don't want that, I understand that. But again, that's on us. That's on the American person. If you don't understand what's going on now in the liberal states where they don't want any restriction

about terminating a child, they just don't want any. And once you see the word and the woman's health, in any kind of a debate, you know the fix is in. There could be a headache, it could be a panic attack, could be anything. The doctor's standing there and says, oh, she's not equipped to get birth, so let's terminate the kid.

Now, I'm interested in, and the reason I brought you on here, is because my theory is that we're not voting for people in November. We're voting for movements. Okay? So you got the Democratic Party, which is run by the radical left,

in a stunningly quick shift, and the Republican Party, which is traditional, know, but kind of leaderless except for Donald Trump. He's the leader. You know, a lot of national Republican figures that command attention. And I'm telling people, look, if you're voting for a Democrat, even if the Democrat comes off as kind of moderate, they're not going to go up against the progressives.

They're going to support everything that the progressives want, everything. And you've got to think about that when you pull that lever. Do you think that's what's going on? Oh, absolutely. I think you're absolutely correct. And when you look at the, for example, the Democrat Socialist Party, the Marxist Party that has taken root within the Democratic Party. And in many ways, that's where their funding base is.

That's why they've lurched to the left. What you see is a desire to experiment with the American Constitution, a desire to radically change the functions of our government and the branches of government. They're talking about eliminating the United States Senate, expanding the Supreme Court to super legislature. The Constitution is their enemy. They are seeking to destroy it. They're a totally different country. And that's what all Marxist revolutions are that way, every single one.

They don't take a structure and try to build on a structure. They want to wipe it all out. Do you believe that Abigail, the governor, Spangler, Is she, did she lie in the campaign? Do you think she knew it? No. Well, in a way she did. She did in a way.

She deceived as they do. And she's continuing to deceive on issues like immigration and working with ICE and so forth. She's playing the game. I believe she doesn't know who she is until she's told who she is. And who would tell her? She's a governor. Well, it's the funding base of the Democratic Party. party. Bill, on another occasion, perhaps, I'd love to speak with you on how the left captured

nonprofits and nonprofits are where their campaigns are being run right now. And it's being funded by foreign billionaire dollars that are intermingling with American politics. In fact, I would say- We're involved with Singham over in China, and we're on that story. It's just, to me, this happens so quickly. I'm usually ahead of the game here. And, you know, in my new book, I blame it on the voter. I mean, voter's responsibility to figure this out doesn't seem like they're figuring out. I don't think there are that many communists in Michigan that want El Saeed to be a senator.

I just think they don't know what to do and they're being told by their friends or whatever it may be. Do you think there are that many communists in Michigan? Not at all. Here's, here's, and I will send you a memo, and it's a 2007 memo from John Podesta to George Soros, asking for about $350 million to flow through nonprofits to help Obama be elected with those nonprofit monies and union monies. And what they have done since, Bill, is what the left has done is they have built infrastructure all the way down to the local level. They fund people in careers to be on your door gathering information. They don't reveal their Marxists. I'll give you just one example, a Swiss billionaire, funneled money, $50,000 into a ward one race in Lynchburg against my daughter, who overcame that and was elected city council member.

That's how much money's flowing in. And they flow it in through organizations Americans don't. They don't recognize as being Marxist. They don't claim to be Marxist. No, I know. It's murky. And they're crazy. The good news, though, is Republicans are out raising the Democrats right now. I don't think it's going to matter in the midterms, but it might.

It could. If they put it, they need to put it on the doorstep and not on TV, all of it on TV. Yeah, but people are distracted now. Like I said, with the economic picture, you need a degree in macroeconomics to figure all this stuff out. tariff money here, debt here, deficit here. It's way beyond the capacity of the voter. And I'm not being super silly as a word of the day. I'm just saying that if you are not steeped in economics,

you're not going to know what's going on. That's right. I'll see you again. Can I add two quick points on the First Amendment, the reproductive rights. First of all, it also kicks parents out completely. No parental notification, no parental consent, nothing like it. Even if you're 10. It kicks parents out. Secondly, it provides a safe haven for predators to conceal the evidence of their crimes in abortion clinics. You're not going to get reports of child rape and law enforcement will not be able to obtain their names anymore from those abortion clinics.

Those children who are forced to get abortions by their predators will not be identified and not be. protected if this passes. And I would submit that most people in Virginia have no idea about that. They have no idea about that. All right, Phil. Thanks very much. We appreciate it. I remember being in the State House in Richmond years ago.

That state has changed so dramatically. And it's because of the suburbs of Washington, D.C., so people move across the Potomac, left-wing people and change the whole dynamic of the state, and that's what happened. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So today is the opening of my book, Confronting America, it has to change,

and we hope you give it a look. We have excerpts. We have all kinds of stuff about it on bill o'Reilly.com. If you become a premium or concierge member, you get a free concierge level, you get its sign book. I've always said, this is the best deal we have. I will report on how the book does. Not easy to sell books these days. Publishing industry is like Hollywood, like TV, because everybody is on this.

They can't sit still for an hour to read a book. You guys can't. You guys are here for information. I got tons of it. Now also, we got Mark Levine tonight on his radio program at 8.30 Eastern. And he's always good to talk with him. He's a very smart guy, as you know. And then all of the other radio interviews, we're going to post them on Bill O'Reilly.com.

And some of them are really good. And if they're bad, I make fun of the radio host. So it's worth it. But anyway, we've had 20 number one New York Times bestsellers. We hope this is number 21. And it is out in the marketplace today. Thank you very much for watching and listening to the NoSpin News. Thank you for listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition.

To watch the full episodes of the NoSpin News, No spin 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.