Glenn interviews O'Reilly - does Bill plan to stop by the GBTV studio?

Glenn interviewed Bill O'Reilly about his new book, Killing Lincoln, and towards the end of the interview Bill dropped a bombshell - he would be stopping b the GBTV studios sometime next week. While details were sketchy, it looks while get more information on this special guest in the weeks to come.

"I'm telling you, if you want to learn about Abraham Lincoln, this is a tremendous, tremendous book," Glenn said of Bill's new book.

"It is not just a dry history book. It is truly fantastic. Truly, truly fantastic. Bill, great job," Glenn said.

"Yeah, there's all kinds of stuff about Lincoln and Booth that I didn't know and I'm a former history teacher. So we researched this thing right down to what Abraham Lincoln did when he got up in the morning," O'Reilly explained.

Bill said that the book was aimed at teenagers and young adults.

The two friends and former co-workers did get into an argument over who was the "gold standard" for Presidents, with Bill claiming Lincoln and Glenn claiming George Washington.

As the interview was coming to a close, Bill said, "So we're going to be on GBTV next week."

"I might squeeze you in," Glenn joked.

***

Read the raw transcript below:

>>Glenn: Yeah, that's right. Bill O'Reilly is on now. Yeah. And I have a few words for Bill O'Reilly. In the no spin zone here now. [ THEME MUSIC ]

There's the one thing that Bill O'Reilly knows and that is history. He doesn't know the progressive era very well. You know, most people who went to Harvard don't. They kind of bury that part of it. But he knows history real, real well. He was a history professor or teacher for a while. It didn't work out for him.

He to go do something else. I don't know what he went on to do Bill O'Reilly has written a new book called killing the Lincoln, the shocking assassination that changed America forever. I have two ways of going here. I could tell you that I read not all of it. I haven't finished it yet, but most of it and it is really, really well written and it's a history book that you will like because it's actually in story form and it's not like and in 1861, then the young Abe-- no, it's written in a way that is not just dates, names and places, but in story form and it's really engaging, or, I could say hello, Bill. I read your book. Well, I read part of it. I read the part that said killing Lincoln and the next page.

CALLER: thought it was repetitive, it said killing Lincoln by Bill O'Reilly, and I hope that you can explain because then there's something about for-- whatever. The next page says killing Lincoln again, and you lost me because I'm like, I got it. You're killing Lincoln. Tonight I'm going to read a note to readers, which sounds fascinating and something you like to call pro-log.

>> A guy like you, it takes about three days to get through the four vanity pages of the book. Get the audio, Beck, and then I'll be yelling at you while you listen.

>> You actually read the thing?

>> What do you mean you read it?

>>Glenn: I mean you read it outloud?

>> I did. 278 pages of it.

>>Glenn: Woof, that had to be tough work. Who paid you for it?

>> Don't you read your books?

>>Glenn: Actually. I like reading my books. I don't have time anymore. I have a job. In this economy, I have four jobs. I'm not like you.

>> You need to give your listeners the audio version. You don't have time.

>>Glenn: I'd like to. I'm not a rich fat cat like you who keeps asking the president for higher taxes because that's what you rich people are doing.

>> If you're not a rich fat cat, then rich fat cats don't exist.

>>Glenn: Let me tell I did read the book. It is really exceptionally well written and really fascinating. You are really good at the history of Lincoln. Like I said, progressives not so much, but this is really good. You start just a few days before Lincoln is assassinated. In just a couple of pages, I learn stuff about John Wilkes Booth that I didn't know.

>> Yeah, there's all kinds of stuff about Lincoln and Booth that I didn't know and I'm a former history teacher. So we researched this thing right down to what Abraham Lincoln to what he got up in the morning. I wanted to write a very personal-- I'm writing this for America's kids. I want the kids to read it. By kids I mean 12 to 28 because they don't know anything about our history. They don't know what a good leader is, and I believe that Abraham Lincoln was the best president, the gold standard of leadership for this country and that today, we desperately need somebody to bring us back, and we have to be looking for people, not who are as good as Lincoln, but who approached that.

>>Glenn: At least striving to be.

>> Put their country above themselves which is the key to what Abraham Lincoln did.

>>Glenn: I'm going to let you pass on the Abraham Lincoln is the gold standard. It was clearly George Washington and George Washington could take Abraham Lincoln in any fight that you could possibly--

>> I'm not going to mock you for your view there because there are two sides, but the reason I say that Lincoln is the gold standard, I would put Washington second, okay.

>>Glenn: Whoa.

>> What Lincoln had to deal with was absolute breakdown of the union.

>>Glenn: You're so right. George Washington just had to go fight a war with no shoes. Cake walk.

>> He wasn't president then. When Washington got to be president, the country was calm and he was coronateed. Some wanted him to be king. He didn't have to deal with what link hadn't to deal with from the jump, which is an abysmal situation brought to him from the infamous James Buchanan.

>>Glenn: Worry wise known, for anyone listening, James Buchanan translates in modern English, George W. Bush. Lincoln inherited those problems from George W. Bush.

>> I would never put George W. Bush in the category of Buchanan who was worst.

>>Glenn: It's new history. All problems were caused by the actual George W. Bush.

>> Look, Lincoln had three daunting tasks in front of him. As you mentioned, we only take the last two months of his life. The last few days, we really zero in on him because everything was happening, civil war was ending, the bloodiest battle ever seen was fought in Virginia. There was a big conspiracy not tonally to kill Lincoln but that the governments of the south would rise again. There's Abe in the middle of it. Everyone hating him. He was the most hated man in the America. The south hated him and many in the north hated him. The guy was under siege from every side, but he prevailed. One thing he wanted to do was number one, win the civil war and keep people together. Number two, get rid of slavery. That was huge. Number three, after the war was over, because he knew he was going to win. At the end two months, he knew he was going to win. Grant was chasing Lee. Lincoln wasn't in Washington. He was on the gun boats watching these battles, but anyway, those were the three that after the war was over that Lincoln would not punish the south but bring it in. All three of those things took a toll on the man. He was a robust, Schwarzenegger type when he got into the office, over six foot, strapping man. When he left, he's bent over and aged 30 years and that was the period of four years.

>>Glenn: Let me ask you this. I didn't know that James Buchanan, I mean, just the idea that the vice president during the second inaugural speech, the vice president-- you like that one, Pat.

>>Pat: I did. Sadly, I did.

>>Glenn: The vice president come out and gives a drunken--

>> he was loaded. Andrew Johnson was loaded when he gave his, the vice president, when he gave his speech.

>>Glenn: He came down on the south and ripped them apart.

>> Right. Right. He was from Tennessee, Johnson. He wanted Lincoln to go in and scourge and he wanted them to kill and hang, all the confederate leaders and generals. Lincoln said I'm not doing that. We'll never get this union back together if I do that. That's another reason people hated Lincoln because they wanted revenge.

>>Glenn: That is amazing. I read that part and I thought this is-- this is the choice that we have in front of us again. Here is this drunken sock getting up, the vice president, and he says rip 'em apart.

>> Right.

>>Glenn: Take them apart and Lincoln comes up and his second inaugural address is the exact opposite with mall has toward none, he says, we're going to put it all back together, and we're all brothers in this. Totally different choice. When he's walking up to give his address, explain what happens. Another piece of lost history that I find fascinating. Explain what happens when Lincoln is walking up.

>> Well, he didn't want to give the address when the people were demanding it. They were chanting and they were screaming and he finally had to give it and booth was in the audience, John Wilkes booth. Is this what you're referring to?

>>Glenn: Yeah. Let me ask the guys if they knew this.

>> Booth was a racist, a narcissist. Only 26 years old, but very famous actor, he and hated Lincoln and he wanted to kill Lincoln and he--

>>Glenn: An actor.

>> He wanted to kill them all and he felt he could kill them all with his guise, he felt the south would rise again.

>>Glenn: An actor.

>> Right. Booth is there listening to Lincoln and close to him, close to him, and at one point in the speech, booth lounges toward Lincoln and a Marshall, Washington Marshall stops booth and looks at him and recognizes him, and doesn't arrest him because he said, oh, an actor like that, woe never try to hurt the president.

>>Glenn: It would have been bad for the police had they arrested somebody as famous as booth.

>> Booth said, oh, I just stumbled.

He was so angry, he couldn't contain himself. One of the poems in the book and this is great, John Wilke booth was engaged to Lucy Hail, the daughter of a senator who was very anti-slavery. While she was contemplating marrying booth, she was going out on the side Robert Todd Lincoln, Abraham's son, an officer. We believe booth found out about that and that enraged him further. These are the kinds of details that we uncover in the book.

>>Glenn: I'm telling you, if you want to learn about Abraham Lincoln, this is a tremendous, tremendous book. Because of 245, he tells you stuff in it that you've never heard before. It makes the story fascinating. It is not just a dry history book. It is truly fantastic. Truly, truly fantastic. Bill, great job.

>>I appreciate that very much. So we're going to be on GBTV next week.

>>Glenn: I'm thinking about it. I'm not sure.

>> If you can deem.

>>Glenn: I might squeeze you in. I don't know. I only have a two-hour broadcast now and it's me.

>> No guests.

>>Glenn: I don't have any guests, but I might make room for you. However, however I've read recently how much you hate everybody on the staff over at Fox, and I want you to know that bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck on GBTV sounds good, but Sean Hannity's thinking about it.

>> In the same article you're referring to is that I fear you.

>>Glenn: I know that. That's what gave that article such credibility.

[ Laughter ]

>>Pat: That's when they had me. I thought this is all true.

>>Glenn: I thought this is all a lie and then I read he fears Glen Beck and I thought that's true. That came right from Bill.

[ Laughter ]

>>Pat: Came right from Bill.

>> I'm glad you read part of the book and enjoyed it.

>>Glenn: I'm going to read the contents tonight. If I can get through the pro-log, I'll read the contents. It's fascinating by the way you've written it. Chapter one, it's fascinating. Bill O'Reilly, thank you very much. We'll talk again soon, my friend. The name of the book is killing Lincoln, the shocking assassination that changed America forever. A great, great book.

>>Stu: The case is essentially that partially this assassination happened because of a love triangle jealous type thing.

>>Pat: With Abraham Lincoln's son.

>>Glenn: Can we get Bill back on?

>>Stu: I don't know. You hung up on him. I can try.

'The Handmaid's Tale' got it right, just with the wrong religion

Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

Just in case The Handmaid's Tale's heavy-handed message wasn't already heavy-handed enough, a recent episode made it clear there's always room for further hysteria. Particularly, in relation to depictions of a “patriarchal society" run by Christian doctrine and determined by men — oh those dastardly men.

RELATED: Christian privilege is the new white privilege

The show appropriates Margaret Atwood of the same name, depicting a totalitarian society led by Christian doctrine in which women's bodies are controlled, and they have no rights. The story sounds familiar, but not in the same way Atwood and the show's creators have so smugly assumed.

Just as tone-deaf as 4th wave feminism itself, and tone-deaf in all the exact same places. Most notably, the show's heavy-handed indignation toward Christianity. Toward the patriarchy. Toward conservatives and traditional values. And just like 4th wave feminism, the show completely overlooks the irony at play. Because there is a part of the world where women and children are being raped and mutilated. In fact, in this very real place, the women or girls are often imprisoned, even executed, for being raped, and they are mutilated in unspeakable ways.

Theirs is a cruel, bloody, colorless life.

There is a place, a very real place, where women are forced to cover their entire bodies with giant tarp-like blankets, which is all the more brutal given the endless heat of this place. There is a place where women literally have one-third of the rights of men, a place where women are legally, socially and culturally worth less than men.

They cannot drive cars. They cannot be outside alone. They cannot divorce, they cannot even choose who they marry and often, they are forcibly married at a young age.

They are raped. A lot. Theirs is a cruel, bloody, colorless life. This is the life of tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of women. And, I'll tell you, their religion isn't Christianity.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.