Bill O’Reilly Explains Exactly Why President Trump Wants Greenland

I have always been a huge Bill O’Reilly fan.

In fact, much of what we do here at WLTReport.com I modeled after The O’Reilly Factor.

Have you noticed?

From the beginning, my slogan has been to provide the real truth with no censorship that the “Mainstream Media” won’t cover.

Sound familiar?

It’s exactly what Bill O’Reilly did with his “No Spin News”.

We also follow his format of 95% of our reporting is hard news, mixed in with about 5% of the host’s opinion.

It worked well for Bill O’Reilly for decades and it works well for us too.

In fact, I show this not to brag but only because I was humbled when I checked recently to find WLTReport.com had more visitors to our site in December than BillOReilly.com did:

To even be able to play in the same arena as someone like Bill O’Reilly is extremely humbling and I hope what we do here honors the legacy he trailblazed.

Anyway, I say all of that to say I still love checking in with Bill to get his take on things and I probably need to cover him more often.

We’ll start with this….

I thought this was an excellent summary explaining exactly why President Trump wants Greenland:

Exactly why #PresidentTrump wants Greenland.  Please read the Message of the Day on https://t.co/rryWmyXe7C. https://t.co/al19iyUxkY

— Bill O'Reilly (@BillOReilly) January 8, 2025

From BillOreilly.com:

It’s safe to say Greenland hasn’t received this much attention since Erik the Red spotted it and said: “hey, what’s that”?

But now the modern-day Marauder, Donald Trump, has his eye on the tundra because lying below the permafrost is lots of oil and natural gas. In addition, other valuable minerals may be present, presenting a financial windfall to those who can harvest it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Greenland is not a country. It’s a territory administered by the Kingdom of Denmark since 1721. If it were a country, it would be the fifth largest on the planet. But only 56,000 folks live there because there’s nothing to do but make fun of polar bears.

Denmark is run by King Frederik X, a descendant of Gorm the Old (not making this up) who presided in the tenth century. Fred looks like a man who could be reasoned with so I believe President Trump can make a deal here. The Danes get a big piece of the energy harvest by giving the USA a 99-year lease to do the heavy lifting.

Of course to protect the investment, the American military would need to build a couple of bases.

That would torque Putin off, but blank him if he can’t take a geological joke. Outflanking the Russians is a huge plus for America.

So that’s what the Greenland thing is all about. Copenhagen should definitely make the deal. Old Gorm would.

Spot on Bill!

By the way, did you know Bill is still doing his No Spin News?

Here’s a recent segment from January 3rd:

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Bill O’Reilly:
There’s one of the best lawyers in town. His name is Arthur Aidala. I mispronounced it last time. I… Aidala. Aidala. Aidala, like dollar bill, of which you charge many. Okay, I got it.

All right, let’s run them down. Trump case—would you have filed this case? Would you have signed on to that case?

Arthur Aidala:
Uh, it’s… uh, here’s the truth. You want to talk about money? Most of those cases you take on as a lawyer are on a contingency fee. So, you say, “I’m only going to get paid if I win.” I would not take that case on a contingency fee because I don’t… I think you’re correct. I don’t think they’re going to win.

Now, during the discovery process, they may be able to get that transcript as part of evidence, as part of the discovery process. And unless CBS is successful in putting some sort of gag order on that evidence—some sort of, it’s called a protective order—Trump could then release it and achieve the goal that he may want to achieve.

They may actually dismiss the case after that. “Okay, we got what we want. We’re done.” But as a lawyer, you better make sure you’re getting paid up front because, as you said, Mr. O’Reilly, the First Amendment gives a lot of protections to the press, as it should.

So, I don’t think ultimately he would be successful, even though they went to a venue where they knew the case was going to a judge that would be sympathetic to President Trump based on his political leanings and the fact that…

Bill O’Reilly:
But you said they might be able to get the transcript?

Arthur Aidala:
They’d have to be able to get it because that’s the crux of the case. The judge couldn’t deny Trump’s lawyers the opportunity to see what the case hinges on. That would be impossible, right?

Unless they won a motion—a summary judgment motion to dismiss. Oh, that’s a whole different thing. If they got the case thrown out—and they filed last week to get the case thrown out—do you think it’s going to get thrown out?

Bill O’Reilly:
It’s a close call. I mean, most CL cases are not a close call, but it is a close call because the First Amendment really safeguards the media from being bullied or…

Arthur Aidala:
I don’t think it’s going to get thrown out. I don’t think the conservative judge in Texas is going to throw it out.

Bill O’Reilly:
No.

Arthur Aidala:
And if he doesn’t throw it out, CBS can’t appeal that ruling, and it has to go forward then, right?

Bill O’Reilly:
Right.

Arthur Aidala:
Yes. They’re also asking for it to be moved to New York, the venue where CBS is located, and they may not get that either.

Bill O’Reilly:
So if it does stay, why would a conservative judge be sympathetic to CBS?

Arthur Aidala:
They’re not. It’s like the Florida judge in the Mar-a-Lago case, who was sympathetic and thought it was an overreach by the Biden Administration to go after Trump like that.

Bill O’Reilly:
Okay, let’s get to the shooting of the United Healthcare CEO. So far, I think the authorities have handled it very well—from the Pennsylvanians who got the guy, and then the New York cops who went out and got him here.

The evidence is overwhelming. If you were the defense attorney, you’d be up against it, correct?

Arthur Aidala:
Yes, I would definitely be up against it. And, you know, this is where you have to get creative.

…

Arthur Aidala:
I just want to go back to the police work because I did speak to Chief of Patrol John Chell yesterday. He wanted to make sure that citizens got the credit they deserve. This was a lot of old-fashioned police work—getting his picture out there—but then the citizens were the ones who really helped.

The cops were on the verge of getting his DNA. They were on the verge of getting his fingerprints from the cell phone. His DNA was from a bottle that dropped in Starbucks. They saw it and were able to get that bottle.

He was, you know, on his way to being in some big trouble, Bill.

Bill O’Reilly:
In terms of a defense like this—where he has a written confession on him—a lot of the job of the defense attorney, any defense attorney, is to make sure everyone plays by the rules.

Arthur Aidala:
Yes, all of his rights are observed and maintained and stood up for. Then, you write a book on his life and find he had a bad operation that affected him. You hope maybe the prosecutor says, “All right, as opposed to 25 to life, which is what you’re going to get after trial, we’ll give you 23 to life and save us the money, time, effort, and energy.”

Bill O’Reilly:
Two years.

Arthur Aidala:
I don’t think this guy’s ever going to get out. I don’t think he’s ever going to get out because it was so blatant and such a horror. A message has to be sent.

But I understand you’re trying to mitigate the sentence to some degree. Hopefully, the guy can rehabilitate himself.

Bill O’Reilly:
Would you go for insanity on this guy?

Arthur Aidala:
I might. He’s pretty out there. If I’m the defense attorney, I’m saying he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Bill O’Reilly:
That doesn’t work very much, though, right?

Arthur Aidala:
It does not. It very rarely works.

Bill O’Reilly:
And the other thing people brought up—is there an excuse called extreme emotional disturbance that takes murder down to manslaughter?

Arthur Aidala:
Not going to work here. He was on videotape. He’s just too cool about what he’s doing and all that. It’s very, very planned and premeditated.

Bill O’Reilly:
All right.

Bill O’Reilly:
All right, so Arthur Aidala. Then we go into the last case that we’re talking about here. I predicted this—it wasn’t a hard prediction.

I still have faith, even though it’s New York City and the folks there have reasonable doubt all over the place. But the key question is the district attorney in Manhattan, Alvin Bragg, and George Soros’ progressive… aggressive influence.

Okay, he knew there was reasonable doubt all over the place because the police had interviewed the people riding in the subway car. Bragg had all that information in front of him. He knew his odds of getting a conviction were low, and he did it anyway. Am I wrong?

Arthur Aidala:
No, you’re not wrong. But, you know, you showed that clip of the angry supporters of the deceased here, and that’s the constituency that obviously Alvin Bragg was trying to appeal to.

Bill O’Reilly:
That’s political. That’s not justice.

Arthur Aidala:
Well, Bill, unfortunately, the days of Frank Hogan, the Manhattan District Attorney, and Bob Morgenthau—where politics was not supposed to play a role—are gone. Way out the window.

Bill O’Reilly:
All right. Any chance—any chance Hochul removes Bragg now, fires Bragg?

Arthur Aidala:
No. Are you kidding me? She’s afraid of her own shadow. She’s not going to take down the first African-American district attorney in Manhattan.

Bill O’Reilly:
Her approval rating?

Arthur Aidala:
35 percent. And after the congestion parking mess, it’s going to be 25. She does not have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

Bill O’Reilly:
What’s insane to me, Bill, is people out there are trying to compare the crime that this Luigi kid did to what Daniel Penny did. And I mean, that really gets me upset.

Arthur Aidala:
It’s ridiculous.

Bill O’Reilly:
That’s just loons. I mean, I don’t even bother.

Arthur Aidala:
All right, counselor, it’s always good to talk with you. You can listen to Arthur on his own radio show, The Arthur Aidala Power Hour, on AM970, The Answer in New York.

Have a nice Christmas, and thanks for helping us out. Really appreciate it, Arthur.

Arthur Aidala:
Thank you, Bill. Thanks for all you do for our country. Appreciate you.

Bill O’Reilly:
And joining us now from Washington, DC, is the aforementioned Attorney General of South Carolina, Alan Wilson.

Pleased to have you. The fairness thing in Tennessee, South Carolina, and other states—parents say, “Hey, we don’t care. In fact, we want our child to transition, and it doesn’t matter—from male to female, female to male. And you, the state, have no right to stop that.”

And you say?

Alan Wilson:
Well, first off, the states have an inherent general police power to do all kinds of things. We regulate the practice of medicine as a profession—that is done at the state level, not the federal level.

States have… it’s been upheld by the Supreme Court—states can pass reasonable restrictions on when a minor can ride in the front seat of a car, when a minor can buy tobacco, when a minor can consume alcohol, when a minor can even consent to having sex.

This state—Tennessee, South Carolina, and 23 other states—have passed laws placing restrictions on something far worse than those things I just mentioned. An irreversible procedure that can never be turned back—taking hormones, engaging in chemical castration, or genital mutilation—is something that cannot be undone.

The states have determined that is something we want to place a reasonable restriction on. Again, this is not a parental rights issue. Parents have the right to raise their children however they deem fit.

Alan Wilson:
But again, you can’t withhold an education from your child. You can’t beat your child. You can’t put your infant in the front seat of a car in our state. You certainly can’t give your minor child alcohol.

So, these are reasonable restrictions.

Bill O’Reilly:
So the way you’re framing this, though—if a parent or parents want their child to be able to transition—they’re abusing that child. That’s really what…

Alan Wilson:
Well, what I’m saying is that the state has a compelling interest to protect the health and welfare of its children. And again, a parent taking their child out of school and never educating them or giving them alcohol when they’re 10 years old could harm the health and welfare of their children.

I’m not necessarily accusing parents of… well, I personally think having your 10 or 12-year-old engage in gender transition surgery is child abuse. But if you believe that is the case, you know, then you can obviously raise your child however you want. You just can’t have irreversible surgeries performed on them.

Bill O’Reilly:
That’s all we’re saying.

Alan Wilson:
And you’re getting a third party involved. You’re getting the state to sanction it. If the state hasn’t… if the state says it’s… as the majority of states allow this, so they’re basically saying, “We don’t care. If the parents are down with it, we’ll go along.”

Bill O’Reilly:
What separates Tennessee, South Carolina, and the other 23 states from the permissive states? Because it’s a big gulf, I think, wouldn’t you agree?

Alan Wilson:
I haven’t read every single gender transition law for minors in every state, but generally they’re all the same. There are very negligible differences.

Obviously, some states allow you to perform it as early as you want. There are parents in some states—blue states—transitioning their children as early as two or three years old. I mean, to me, that is real child abuse. It’s horrible.

But the states—remember, the states have inherent power. The authority, a general police power to regulate themselves—that’s not a dispute. You’re going to win the case. The Supreme Court’s going to rule 6-3 that the state of Tennessee and every other state has the right to regulate this.

Bill O’Reilly:
But I’m trying to get into the gulf between New York state, where I am now, and your state, South Carolina. So you feel compelled to protect the minors there from a decision that you rightly described as life-altering, can’t be reversed. Yet the people here in New York, they don’t care.

Can you explain that dichotomy?

Alan Wilson:
Listen, I cannot get in the head of somebody who would support gender or genital mutilation and chemical castration on a minor child. I just can’t. I can’t do that.

Bill O’Reilly:
You don’t know? You never talk to anybody? Don’t have an answer?

Alan Wilson:
Yeah.

Bill O’Reilly:
Okay. It’s fascinating, though. It really is, because the gulf is so huge.

Bill O’Reilly:
All right, let’s go to the undocumented Obamacare people now. You know you’re going to be accused of being heartless and putting these people at risk.

They’re here, and now the federal judge says, “Nah, you can’t. Even if they don’t have any money, we’re not giving them healthcare.”

How do you justify that?

Alan Wilson:
Well, first off, it’s the law. It’s federal law.

I mean, I can’t imagine anyone in America expecting to go to any European country or Latin American country and expecting to live on their welfare system. Again, this isn’t about being heartless; this is about following the law.

I thought it was heartless to have the immigration policies that Biden and Harris had for the last four years, where you allowed tens of thousands, millions of people to amass across the Rio Grande into the interior of the United States, releasing them.

We can’t find 300,000 minors right now who came across the southern border. To me, that is heartless.

Bill O’Reilly:
And Bill, I want to remind you of something—take very personally—it was in 2009. A congressman on the floor of Congress yelled out at the president, “You lie!” when he said that no illegal aliens would ever receive taxpayer-funded healthcare.

That was someone I happened to be related to—Joe Wilson, if you remember. And here we are.

Alan Wilson:
We have an administration—then Vice President Biden, now President Biden—doing exactly what the Democrats said they wouldn’t do.

Where does it end? It’s a slippery slope. You can’t fund the entire world’s welfare program.

Bill O’Reilly:
Listen, I understand that. But if I’m sitting next to Pope Francis, he’s going to say, “Mr. Attorney General, these are human beings. They don’t have any money. They’re here—probably shouldn’t be—but they’re sick. What do we do?”

Alan Wilson:
Well, I would tell Pope Francis, you don’t violate the law.

Obviously, there are all kinds of social services, faith-based groups, organizations out there that can help those people in need. But when you reward people for committing a crime and incentivize more of that crime, the system can’t withstand it.

It cannot hold up. We’re just going to incentivize more. Ronald Reagan tried to deal with this 40 years ago—it was supposed to be temporary. Barack Obama did it again.

It’s going to get worse and worse. We simply can’t afford it. Fiscally, it is a huge problem.

Bill O’Reilly:
How much has the open border Biden policy hurt your state? The Palmetto State, right? South Carolina?

Alan Wilson:
Yes, sir.

On January 2nd of this year, the first workday of the year, I had a press conference with state and federal law enforcement agents. We indicted 64 people and seized one and a half kilos of methamphetamine and one kilo of fentanyl.

By the way, one kilo of fentanyl can kill half a million people. All of it came from across the southern border, in conjunction with Mexican drug cartels working with gangs.

It came up through Atlanta into the Upstate of South Carolina.

This is the fourth or fifth major drug conspiracy we’ve prosecuted in the last three years involving Mexican drug cartels piping in that poison into South Carolina. So, it has a major impact.

Bill O’Reilly:
Okay. How much of a problem is the trans kids issue in South Carolina? South Carolina is a red state. It’s a conservative state, a churchgoing state, a traditional values state.

How much of a problem is that trans thing for you?

Alan Wilson:
I mean, we… the population of trans kids is so minuscule.

Bill O’Reilly:
Right, so it’s more of a philosophical thing for South Carolina on the books than a thing that you’re dealing with every day?

Alan Wilson:
I mean, absolutely. But philosophical points matter.

Taking a stand on principle matters because it leads to other things in the future. Obviously, if we don’t win this case in the Supreme Court, what does that mean for men playing in women’s sports and vice versa?

There is a slippery slope, and the principle does matter.

Bill O’Reilly:
Yeah, well, you’re going to win. There’s no way this court is going to take states’ rights away under a dubious premise.

Because I agree with you. I mean, I can’t imagine… because kids are kids, and they change. You know?

And if once they’re over 18, okay. But under 18, leave them alone. Help them out, but…

Alan Wilson:
Right.

Bill O’Reilly:
I want you to have a nice Christmas, Mr. Attorney General. It’s very nice of you to help us out today.

Alan Wilson:
Merry Christmas.