Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn interviews the cable king, Bill O’Reilly

October 03, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Bill O’Reilly has a new book out “Killing Kennedy” which was a follow up to his hit success “Killing Lincoln” and prompted Glenn to question Bill’s fascination with ‘killing’ books. The pair also previewed the debate tonight - how should Mitt Romney handle the tough questions? O’Reilly explains on radio today.

Rough transcript of interview below:

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly continues his fascination with presidential assassinations. I don't know what it is. First it was Lincoln. Now it's Kennedy. And I don't know. McKinley is next. I'm not sure what he's working on. Number one best-selling author. The number one book in America. Been on the best-selling list for 53 weeks, I don't know.

STU: 53,000 weeks.

GLENN: His epic book, "Killing Lincoln". Now being followed by "Killing Kennedy", and it is just as good. We have we have Bill O'Reilly on the phone. Hello Bill.

STU: He'll be here in a few minute.

GLENN: What do you mean?

STU: He's apparently decided there's a breakfast emergency. Maybe there's a delicious hash brown he's finishing off.

PAT: He might be finish up the research on killing McKinley.

GLENN: I may not talk about his book now. Here's the truth. I haven't Reddit. I don't like it.

STU: How would you know.

STU: I think he's on now.

GLENN: Bill now that you're late.

CALLER: Wait. Wait. I've been calling you guys.

GLENN: Don't even.

CALLER: Oh.

GLENN: What is the weird thing with your fascination with the deaths of former presidents. Are you working on killing McKinley now.

CALLER: Did you read the book.

GLENN: I have to apologize to you. I haven't.

CALLER: You haven't read it.

GLENN: I know you sent it to me early.

CALLER: Most of this book is when he was alive. The worthiness we knock out all of the myths. All of the garbage, all of the rumor. All of the innuendo.

GLENN: No you don't. You don't knock it out. There was one part of the story I was interested in.

CALLER: Which was?

GLENN: If I would have read the book I would have known. This is the one guy that you couldn't nail down because were you on his track and he committed suicide.

CALLER: Fascinating story. 1976 I'm working at a WFAA in Dallas, Texas. A friend of mine. He calls he's got a call he's a Russian emigre. He was teaching at a college. This guy knows a lot about Oswald. I immediately try to track shield. He runs. He dodges. He knows I'm after him. So I go to his house. A number of times. Finally and this was against the law, I actually broke into his house and nobody knows that. I'm telling the Glenn Beck program.

GLENN: Just hold on a second. Eric Holder let's get him on the phone.

CALLER: I was dressed like a Black Panthers so he's not going to do anything. So.

CALLER: So the back door the backsliding door was open and I opened it, and I stepped into his living room I guess it was. And there was nobody there. I pounded on the door, and so I had a cameraman with me. There's blood on the rug. So I thought this was really strange. Told my assignment editor. Don't ever do that again, and don't tell anybody. We got word that he was visiting his daughter in south palm beach Florida. Where did the blood come from.

CALLER: I don't know.

GLENN: You didn't do anything about that.

CALLER: Because you broke in we don't you want to do anything. I head out to palm beach Florida.

GLENN: I'd like to apologize to the parents of the missing girl in the 1970s who's body was never found. Bill O'Reilly let it happen.

CALLER: My friend is trying to get shield to serve him a subpoena. So we both of us are heading out to the house. I get to the house. And shield blew his brains out second floor of his daughter Alexandra's house.

PAT: While you're there.

CALLER: I'm there. And then the palm beach police drove there. I have not been able to define shield was hanging around Lee Harvey Oswald which was the lowest rung. Now, a sleuthed it. I've done anything. We knew that shield had ties to the C.I.A.. he had ties to the older Bush. That is one of the few things we have not been able to nail down in "Killing Kennedy".

GLENN: So Oswald was a loan shooter.

CALLER: He shot him by himself.

PAT:

GLENN: Was he a Russian agent?

CALLER: There is no evidence of that.

GLENN: Was why did he go over to the Soviet Union.

CALLER: He went over to the Soviet Union because he was a loser and Communist. He thought he was going to have a great life over there. That's where he met his wife in Minsk. The F.B.I. shadowed him. He was a Socialist Communist kook. If he was a Russian agent he wouldn't have had so much trouble getting into Cuba. He went down to Cuba. We traced every bit of him. You learn all of this fascinating.

GLENN: If you're offering to have somebody read it to me I'll take that. I'm trying to create jobs.

CALLER: I'll have somebody come to see you.

GLENN: We're going to the election in a few minute.

CALLER: You're going to love this book. This is right up your alley. Because.

GLENN: Bill.

CALLER: It unmasks the whole government and the C.I.A. what they did the bay of pigs. Kennedy ordering the assassination of DM. This is right where you live.

GLENN: I love Lincoln. I love, and I hate myself for saying it. But I loved your book about Lincoln.

CALLER: All right.

GLENN: I'll read another one.

CALLER: Good. You're the man for it.

GLENN: Let me ask you the one other question. You say there was a turning point in Kennedy's life, and it was the death of his son.

CALLER: Almost like your story. It's almost like the Glenn Beck story. Here's Kennedy.

GLENN: He started the network.

CALLER: Whatever Kennedy wants to do, whatever babe he wants to go after, whatever.

GLENN: If it moves he's interested.

CALLER: So Kennedy is one of the most popular men in the world. He's doing whatever he wants to do. It doesn't matter if it hurts his wife his children whatever, he does it.

GLENN: Tell me when it gets to the story like me.

CALLER: Remember your days your in Connecticut.

CALLER: Something happens to JFK. What happens is his baby dies Patrick. And we spend a lot of time in the book on that.

GLENN: Did you think about naming the book killing Patrick.

CALLER: No. Because with this there are a lot the other things. Thank you for the suggestion. So the poor baby.

GLENN: You know --

CALLER: Dies, and JFK is profoundly, and I mean profoundly affected. He changes. He changes -- he doesn't become a saint overnight like you did. But his whole outlook changes and his presidency changes.

GLENN: So did he become a Republican.

CALLER: Almost. He wanted to cut taxes. He wanted to limit government. But you'll see in the book how what happens there.

GLENN: So Bill, we're going to talk about the election in a second. The name of the book is "Killing Kennedy", and killing McKinley is coming up, and shooting but missing Truman. I'm sure will be the follow up.

PAT: Stabbing Caesar is down the roads.

GLENN: We'll get to the election.

CALLER: . You done making fun of me.

GLENN: You're a machine.

CALLER: "Killing Kennedy" is number one. "Killing Lincoln" is still number 4.

BREAK

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly, you play Mitt Romney here for a second.

CALLER: All right.

GLENN: Mr. Romney you were recorded as saying 47% of the people are basically lazy and you don't care about them. How do you explain that?

CALLER: What I was saying to a group of my supporters was that there is a certain mindset among people who support my opponent President Obama of entitlement. They want free stuff. Now, 47% probably too high. I was just speaking off-the-cuff. But there is no question that many Americans right now want a nanny state, and there is the poster boy for -- you can't say the poster guy for the nanny state President Obama. And these people would never vote for me because I am someone who believes in competition, who believes in capitalism and self-reliance. Those are the things that I stand on, and that's what has made America great, and that's why President Obama's administration has weakened the economy, and take away from that.

GLENN: What you just said appeals to me. We used to be self-reliance. But 47%, and that is probably too high. 47% are on the government Dole in some way or another. And they're not paying taxes, and that number is growing every single day, and I'd say I'll bet that there is at least 10% maybe as high as 20% who're just like I don't want to pay taxes. I don't want to do any work. I'm totally cool with this system.

CALLER: I think one out of five think they are owed something. I want to do my Internet stuff. I want to flounce around. I'm not going to study in school. I'm not going to work hard. I'm not going to learn a trade, and so give me my house. Give me my food, and give me, give me, give me, and that's growing. That's a growing part of our population.

GLENN: You have been doing television since 1884. And.

CALLER: Since Rutherford B. Hayes.

GLENN: You've seen these elections over and over again. The spin of the polls is remarkable. I happen to believe that the model is wrong. All of the polls in the last three or four years have been six points wrong minimum. Six points.

CALLER: Well. In a month we'll know whether you're correct or not.

GLENN: Hold on hold on.

CALLER: All right.

GLENN: Mr. O'Reilly this is the no twirling around zone. What I want to know from you is take the polls as they are. They're all within the margin of error. They're 47-45. 45-45. Whatever. So it's a dead-heat. A. Have you ever seen an election this close for this long where it is just locked pretty much locked-in a dead-heat, and B, why isn't the media saying this is the closest election that they've seen. It's never this close. Why are they saying it is Obama.

CALLER: That's not anything new. So the national media and the urban newspapers are rooting for the President. So I think that's established beyond a reasonable doubt. And dimmest Americans know that. The problem is that you have if you are not a fan of the President's is that Mitt Romney has not taken the fight to him. And that's what everybody is hoping to see tonight in the debates. They're hoping to see Mitt Romney on fire coming out say look I don't want to be disrespectful but the President is ruining the country not just in the short-term but in the long-term, and the culture of entitlement that he embraces the attitude of where's mine. I don't care about the country. I want my stuff and I want it now, and I want other people to give it to me, is taking root. And we have to confront the fact that our President is exploiting people who don't want or can't provide for themselves. If Mitt Romney would do that tonight and bring it right to his doorstep, and back it up with facts. Look at the expenditures, look at the spending, look at the waste. Look what's coming down the road.

GLENN: He wins if he does it. This weekend George Washington O'Reilly and Stewart the debate. "Killing Kennedy" the book is on sale now.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.