Bill O'Reilly fires back at absurd attacks from liberal publication Mother Jones

February 20, 2015

Writer

Mother Jones published a brutal attack on "King of Cable News" Bill O'Reilly, claiming he has misled viewers about his role in covering the Falkland War between Argentina and the United Kingdoms. This one is not going to end well for Mother Jones, an already discredited liberal rag that appears heading for another round of hefty discrediting.

"Mother Jones. Bottom rung. Nobody reads it," Bill told Glenn. "Why I'm even bothering with this is because once and for all, I'm going to put a stake through the heart of these irresponsible websites who pick up crap, throw it out there as fact, even though they know it's a lie."

"This is so absurd. We'll be able to prove it because I have all the memos from CBS telling me what a great job I did, covering the Falkland Islands War from Argentina. And, by the way, I never said one time in my life that I was on the Falkland Islands because no Americans were. And so that's the fact there," he continued.

Bill also called out the author of the article, David Corn.

"The big tip off of the article is when David Corn, who is a rank liar and a political assassin, says that I, quote, excoriated Brian Williams, when everybody on earth knows I went out of my way to be compassionate to the man on Jimmy Kimmel," Bill said.

Read the rush transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: Stop the music. Because this is going to be -- this is a very important thing here. I don't ever recall a time -- do you ever recall a time where I sighted with Mother Jones?

PAT: It has never happened. We checked the records.

GLENN: It has never happened. It's a rag not even worth your time even paying attention to or investigating because everything they say is a Marxist lie.

PAT: That's why we were so surprised at what a great job they did on this particular article.

GLENN: Boy, oh, boy. They have hit the mother lode on this one. The number one story on the Blaze today is Bill O'Reilly answering the charges of Mother Jones. Again, a complete rag and discredited rag, I might add, except perhaps in this case. They're saying that Bill O'Reilly is the next Brian Williams and he lies and makes up stuff about his reporting.

STU: It shows how good their reporting must be to win you over.

GLENN: Exactly right.

PAT: It does.

GLENN: We have the horse's mouth on the phone with us now, Brian -- I'm sorry -- Bill, nice to have you.

BILL: I'm glad I'm on that side of the horse, Beck.

[laughter]

GLENN: How are you doing, O'Reilly?

BILL: I'm good. Great intro. You know, so what do you want to know, Beck?

GLENN: Well, I want to know about this lie that you were somehow or another on the beaches in the Falklands, shooting things up.

BILL: I know. Look, you're absolutely right. Mother Jones. Bottom rung. Nobody reads it. But the internet is the big story. So what we're doing tonight and why I'm even bothering with this is because once and for all, I'm going to put a stake through the heart of these irresponsible websites who pick up crap, throw it out there as fact, even though they know it's a lie. This is so absurd -- and we'll be able to prove it because I have all the memos from CBS telling me what a great job I did, covering the Falkland Islands War from Argentina. And, by the way, I never said one time in my life that I was on the Falkland Islands because no Americans were. And so that's the fact there.

GLENN: So hang on just a second. You're also here claiming that you are an American.

BILL: Yeah, that's true. But the big tip off of the article is when David Corn, who is a rank liar and a political assassin, says that I, quote, excoriated Brian Williams, when everybody on earth knows I went out of my way to be compassionate to the man on Jimmy Kimmel. So this guy, I mean, he must think that the folks are as stupid as he is. However, I'll give the Beck listeners all over the country, we are going to show tonight a memo written by CBS News New York and sent to the South American chief in Buenos Aires telling him what a great job Bill O'Reilly did covering the final battle in the Falklands War, which took place in the Argentine capital. We have the memo. Thirty-three years, beck. And I found it last night deep in the basement.

PAT: That's great. That's great.

GLENN: It makes me say, okay, well, maybe Bill O'Reilly is telling the truth, but it also gives me an image of your home being one of those homes with the pack rats that save everything and you live in -- the hoarders --

BILL: I know you're a God-fearing man.

GLENN: So you are saying -- you are saying --

BILL: I found this memo.

GLENN: You're telling me your home is not filled with stacks of papers and you're living within jars of urine. Right?

BILL: What's the matter with you, Beck? What is the problem with you?

GLENN: Hey, by the way, I have to tell you something, when I come to New York, I have something that a friend of mine just -- just purchased that is either going to make your day or will make you weep. I happen to have a friend who just purchased the medical records and the autopsy report from Patton. It includes everything including his toe tag.

BILL: Wow, that's fabulous. It backs up what we wrote in Killing Patton. I can guarantee that. Right?

GLENN: Well, I will bring it to you. And if you would like to peruse, I'm going to give you some gloves. I don't know what you have. Brownies or whatever you have on your hands.

BILL: You know, Beck, that I fought with Patton in the Battle of the Bulge. You know that. Right?

GLENN: So, Bill, what do you think should happen to Brian Williams?

BILL: I think he's punished enough. I don't think I'd give him the Nightly News, but I'd put him somewhere else. You know.

PAT: Do you think there's any chance after a six-month suspension there's any chance they have him back in the anchor chair? Because we don't think that's even possible.

BILL: No, probably that isn't. But, again, I think they can put him somebody else. And maybe Meet the Press, that kind of thing.

GLENN: Should he be the head of NBC News at this point?

PAT: The managing editor?

BILL: Is this a facetious question, Beck?

GLENN: No. I wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Does MSNBC, do you think they will ever see the irony they're letting this guy go, but they have Al Sharpton and all those other clowns on there that lie for a living?

BILL: You know, it will be very interesting to see what happens to the MSNBC network. They're all, what, we call in the business, scratching now. Which means, they don't have any visible audience at all in many of their hours.

GLENN: They're literally being beaten by Al-Jazeera in some hours. I mean, that's impossible.

BILL: But, you know, it shows you that the American people are -- and this goes back to Mother Jones. Once you prove someone to be a liar, all right, which is what Jones accused me of, but now they'll get it rammed right down their throat. Because I have a paper that backs up exactly what I said is true. Once that happens, it's really hard for anybody to deal with you at all. And I think that's what happened at MSNBC. So it will be interesting to see.

GLENN: What do you think will happen with net neutrality?

BILL: I don't know.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: I'm just letting that hang there. I don't think I've ever heard Bill O'Reilly say that. I don't think I've ever heard you say I don't know.

BILL: I don't know, Beck.

PAT: Is it a topic you're not that interested in, Bill?

BILL: Yeah. Really, I have to try to get these jihadists under control. Can you believe what's happening overseas? I can't believe how bad it's getting.

GLENN: Seeing it was a caliphate and I was the one that was mocked for saying that at Fox, yes, I can believe what's happening over in the Middle East.

BILL: It was the way you said it, Beck.

[laughter]

GLENN: Bill, it's always good to talk to you. Next time I'm in New York, I'll bring you the medical files of Patton.

BILL: I'd be fascinated to see it, thank you.

GLENN: All right, man. Appreciate it.

The Woodrow Wilson Mother's Day loophole

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep