Bill O'Reilly calls President Obama "weak", Putin "Stalin-lite" during interview with Glenn

September 24, 2014

Writer

The King of Cable News, Bill O'Reilly, joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss his new book Killing Patton: The Strange Death of World War II's Most Audacious General, as well as the President's stance on the Islamic State. Unsurprisingly, O'Reilly did not mince words when it came to the President's record, calling him "weak" and saying that in the dangerous world we currently live in, weakness could be truly disastrous to America.

It's a fascinating interview, watch the full video below or scroll down for the transcripts.

GLENN: Good friend of the program and really famous guy, Bill O'Reilly is joining us now. He had a new book called Killing Patton. I don't know what his obsession with death is, but we were talking about his book last hour. And Bill, I don't know what your obsession with -- can I spoil the ending? Patton dies.

BILL: Did you read the book?

GLENN: I got to Page 143.

BILL: Good. For you, that's phenomenal. You must really like it.

GLENN: Do you normally get to Page 143, if you don't like it?

BILL: Yeah, Page 22 or 23.

GLENN: So Bill, lay out the premise here.

BILL: Look, last six months of World War II brutal beyond belief. Americans really don't know what happened in World War II. I didn't until I started researching the book. It's been romanticized for us, because it was the last great American world victory, but what was happening was really down and dirty. The problem was the Russians were allied with the United States, but the Russians were doing terrible things. And General Patton knew it. He wanted to fight the Russians after they defeated Hitler.

Eisenhower, FDR, Truman, none of them were on board with that. They kept trying to tell the American people that Stalin and Russians were good guys, our allies. That sets up the tension. Patton is adamantly opposed to the Russians. He rightfully predicted they would not leave the countries that they occupied, and he was setting up his third army to, after Hitler fell, go after the Russians and push them back, all right.

There's your tension.

So he lost the political game. He was about to come back to the United States to do a speaking tour, Patton was, saying what I just told you, that the Russians were bad guys. The day before he's supposed to come back to the United States, he gets into a hellacious automobile accident that is beyond belief, and I'll let you read the book to see, we lay out the facts.

GLENN: Because back then, if I'm not mistaken, cars just didn't get into accidents.

BILL: It was insane. He was in the hospital, partially paralyzed from the accident. He was joking with the nursing, drinking cognac conversing with his wife. He goes to sleep. The next morning the doctors come in to check on him. He's dead. Nobody knows why he's dead. No autopsy. He's right away put in a coffin and buried in Luxembourg. All the investigator documents disappear. All the witnesses to the accident on the other side, not the guys that were in

his car, but the other side that crashed into him, disappeared.

So it is a thriller about World War II, the end of the war, then a murder mystery about what happened.

GLENN: So Bill, if you would have reached out to me, I mean this sincerely, I have a document, a letter from Patton -- I will show it to you tonight on TV -- from Patton, to the guy he put in the rear command. He writes it at the Pentagon and he said these guys are going to screw this up. This is -- they are not going to do it and I am going in. And I'm not coming back. He knew he was on a suicide mission. He knew that the Pentagon was not with him, and he predicted his own death.

BILL: Yes, he did. Is that an original letter --

GLENN: Original letter.

BILL: That's amazing. I'm looking forward to seeing that. He did predict his death to his own daughters. The last time he saw them, he said I don't believe I'm going to survive, because he knew that there were two assassination attempts on him already. You expect that in war, but they were very, very nefarious.

Another thing was, there was a guy heading up the OSS, which today is the CIA, named Wild Bill Donovan. He hated Patton. He was adamantly against Patton, because he was Stalin's pal. All this is laid out in a thriller form. This is not a boring history book.

GLENN: Who are you alleging did it?

BILL: Stalin.

PAT: Stalin ordered a hit on him?

BILL: Yes. His Secret Service, who were assassinating people all over Europe.

PAT: Are you alleging Bill, in conjunction with the U.S.?

BILL: No, but I'm saying the OSS helped Stalin and his secret police and it wouldn't have been hard to get agents around Patton.

PAT: One of the other fascinating things in the book -- I never heard of this -- the British actually shot down Patton's personal plane.

BILL: RAF fighter attacked Patton. He survived because of the skill of his pilot, but it was a marked plane. Nobody knows who was piloting the plane, because there were a bunch of people, even Russian pilots that had access to those spit-fires, but there's a lot of stuff many this book that people are just going to keep you up at night.

GLENN: Bill, I so appreciate especially this particular book, because once we got into bed with the communists, we changed fundamentally as a nation. When the Progressives saw fascism and communism and they at first thought this was the way to go, and I think they still do, some people think communism is the way to go. That's what the global warming thing is about. We lost our way. And really bad nefarious things happened, because we were starting to look tell collective.

BILL: The communist influence, after World War II in the United States --

GLENN: Wait. Before World War II, during World War I, that's where the birth of the Progressive movement came from. One of my favorite dark quotes from any President was FDR saying I've got a lot of friends that are communists. Doesn't mean you are un-American.

BILL: True. That just heightened when we allied with the Soviet Union to fight Hitler. And all of that was in play. There was a tremendous amount of ideological stuff in play. Patton wasn't an ideological guy, but he was thinking of running for president, that's another reason people didn't like Patton. But he was a warrior and he saw the Russians as villains and he was right. I mean, there's no doubt that George Patton's vision of Stalin and the Russians was 100% correct, and if we had followed his vision, this world would be a totally different place now.

GLENN: Let me switch to current events. How are you, first of all?

BILL: Good. Overly busy, but good.

GLENN: Overly busy?

BILL: Yes. I work --

GLENN: You have a whole hour. Uh to work every day. The working man right now. Listening to you, like --

BILL: I should be a man of leisure, but I am compelled, as you are to bring the truth of the American people.

GLENN: Let's switch gears here and bring the truth to the American people. ISIS, we have anyone about this for a long time.

BILL: One year.

GLENN: This is the caliphate that some were warning.

BILL: You?

GLENN: And these guys are here. They are coming back over. Do you have a sense -- first of all, have you ever seen any time, even in World War II, you know, FDR says we aren't going to get involved, and then he switches gears, about '39, and says okay, I was wrong, puts new people around him. This president is not putting new people around him, not cleaning out Clapper or anyone else that said this is nothing to worry. Do you have any faith that we know what we are doing or on the right side?

BILL: I'm looking at Obama speaking now at the United Nations and his top priority is global warming, not fighting terrorism. He's a weak President. Any fair minded American would agree that he is weak. Weakness in a dangerous world is a threat to the country because the bad guys are emboldened by weakness. The best example is Putin. He's Stalin-lite.

So the president is a weak leader. His priorities lie in social justice, and in liberal causes like global warming. He has no stomach for the fight. I mean, can you imagine George Patton's opinion of Barak Obama? Could you just imagine? I mean Patton looked down on Eisenhower and FDR to some extent, but I don't believe we have a concerted plan to fight word-wide terrorism. A big mercenary army, under the supervision of Congress and trained by the United States, and financed by the coalition that the Obama administration is supposedly putting together but no, we don't have a uniform strategy. The president had to bomb ISIS because of the beheadings. He had to. He didn't want to, because like the "New York Times", which printed today on its editorial page, ISIS is not a threat, in the opinion of the "New York Times", to the United States. What are you going to do?

GLENN: You think that's sane at all, to say they are not a threat in the United States?

BILL: I can't see any way that you couldn't project in the future that a group like ISIS that's now controlling thousands of square miles would dispatch people to try to kill infidels in a number of countries. Why can't the "New York Times" project that out? It happened before on 9/11 and it was an organization that didn't have nearly the power of ISIS, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. They hatched the plot. If they could do it, why couldn't ISIS do it and ISIS is up front saying we want to do it and we're going to do it, but still the "New York Times" doesn't see them as a threat. Doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: We are talking to Bill O'Reilly, author of the new book "Killing Patton", and he also does some TV show; but as you were researching the Nazis and looking at this, I can't help, because I'm a student of second Word War myself, I can't help but think we are repeating all of the mistakes, the same things are going on, the same denials are going on, making the same friendships, instead of making them with communists, we are making them with Islamic extremists. And ISIS is in my opinion, worse than the Nazis, because the Nazis at least had to hide everything.

BILL: Well, Nazis also had a structure whereby the Third Reich had ambassadors and this is before the war started in different countries and actually had elections -- they were rigged, all that. These ISIS people are just barbarians, and they made a terrible mistake in the beheadings of the two Americans and the Britain. If they had not done that, Beck, Obama would not be engaged right now.

So ISIS could have flown under the radar and expanded their power and influence and money, and they would not have been confronted by President Obama, but they made that big mistake, and now the United States is going to punish them. They will. We will. But that doesn't mean the jihadists are going to be defeated. They will pop up someplace else. You have to have a concerted plan to defeat this.

GLENN: If you were President of the United States today -- and I'm not -- I know that you would not salute the marines with a coffee cup in your hand -- if you were the President of the United States today what would you -- what would we be doing today?

BILL: Good question, and I will give you a precise answer. You could go on to O'Reilly.com for all the details --

GLENN: Don't do that.

BILL: The first thing you have to do is declare war on terrorism. Congress has to declare who are on the Jihadists. So the United States declares war on Islamic terrorism. That's the bill. Congress passes it, I sign it, as president. So now we have the power to go anywhere in the world to get these guys. But why should the United States taxpayers foot the bill for this, when it's a worldwide problem?

So we get our 50 nations -- that's what Obama says we have in our coalition -- and they pay for a 25,000-man force, mercenary force, that is under control of Congress, trained by NATO and American

officers on American soil. This is a rapid deployment force that goes everywhere in the world to confront these people when we need people on the ground to fight them. It doesn't diminish the United States armed forces. We still have our military intact. This doesn't have anything to do with them. These are private citizens that apply for the job, well-paid, and we choose the best all over the world, and we craft this force. This is going to happen, by the way. And that

force goes and fights on the ground against ISIS, al-Qaeda, whomever, Boko Haram, whatever it is. Now, this instills --

This instills fear into the jihadists, because they know there's nowhere to hide it's a declaration of war and they have elite fighters coming after them, who are going to kill them. So that's what I would develop on the military front. If you had a guy like Patton, who you could put in charge overall command, you do it. But we don't have anybody like Patton now. And that is a big deficit for the United States.

GLENN: Do you know why we don't?

BILL: Because of politics.

GLENN: They killed him.

BILL: Any real aggressive officers, they don't get promoted.

GLENN: I will tell you, that I love our military and I love our -- I just love our military and I respect they will, but I will tell you that I am gravely disappointed in some of the leadership in our military, because they have been, you know strung up --

BILL: Politicized.

GLENN: Yeah. Somebody needs to put their stars down on the table and say Mr. President, no thank you, and I'm turning it around, walking out of your office, going to the press.

BILL: Well you see it now with Gates and Panetta, two former Secretary of Defense, both have books ripping up Obama. Well, why didn't you do it when these mistakes were made.

GLENN: Thank you. It's one thing to read "Killing Patton". That's your theory, and this is your work and your job. It's not like why didn't you say something, Bill, on "The O'Reilly Factor".

You are in office, seeing these things, you don't wait for the book. You go out and you say it.

BILL: Right. I am resigning because this. This is happening. We are in danger. So I mean that's what we don't have. That's what Patton did. Patton told the press, he was very straightforward saying these guys, these Russians, they are dangerous. They are not our friends. And that got him killed.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly, the man along with Roger Ailes, who built FOX News channel, talking to the guy who almost single-handedly destroyed FOX News channel. That wasn't my intent. I walk out going wow, crap that didn't work --

BILL: Well you destroyed CNN, so you got at least one of them.

GLENN: Thank you so much.

BILL: See you on TV tonight.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep