Bill O’Reilly’s obsession with death continues in 'Killing Jesus'

The King of Cable News joined Glenn on radio today to talk about the film adaptation of his book ‘Killing Jesus’. Glenn and Bill don’t spare punches with one another, and it’s another classic interview from these two cable news giants.

Below is a rush transcript of this interview

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly I believe has more money than God himself now, sold 12 million copies in all formats for the "Killing" series. His obsession with death continues. It's disturbing. But, that's just the way he rolls. And he's on the program now.

O'REILLY: I'm here because I want to be enlightened. Who is that woman who does the voice-over? She sounds like she's from Butan or someplace.

GLENN: She's from Australia. I know that's quite exotic for a man like you.

O'REILLY: It is, very exotic. So I am here to be enlightened, so what do you know, Beck?

GLENN: What is the obsession with death and why do you put it on TV?

O'REILLY: These people we write about link in Patton, Jesus, all influence the planet in a -- planet in a remarkable dramatic way, Jesus being the top of the chart, the most famous human being who has ever lived. So we want to know what happened to them and why it happened.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

O'REILLY: Elementary and then people are enjoying the series.

GLENN: Hold on. Are you saying that if Jesus were here today, he would be able to run something that says, Jesus Christ, number one for 15 years in a row.

O'REILLY: I think --

GLENN: Out of everywhere shall break?

O'REILLY: He would be number one longer than that, Beck.

PAT: Not much longer.

O'REILLY: Finish the savior. Wouldn't it be interesting, though, if the messiah came today with the mess that this world is in. It was in a mess back then as we show in the movie "Killing Jesus." It was a mess. But boy, this world is in such chaos from top to bottom. Wouldn't it be interesting if he came today?

GLENN: What is the format of this? Is it like a documentary style --

O'REILLY: Feature film. And one of the finest TV movies you'll ever see up there with "Lonesome Dove." Shot in Morocco.

PAT: Is it really?

O'REILLY: It is. $12 million budget. Performances --

PAT: Wow.

O'REILLY: Kelsey Grammer plays Herod. A Muslim, Haaz Sleiman plays Jesus. Rufus Sule, a British actor, plays Kaifus. Just knocks it out of the park. I know you're going to get your popcorn. You're going on the set --

GLENN: May I just tell you this.

O'REILLY: Sure.

GLENN: You know who Mark Burnett is?

O'REILLY: Sure.

GLENN: I'm currently watching the "A.D." series. Mark is sending me the "A.D." series so I can watch it in advance and talk about it if I like it.

O'REILLY: Right.

GLENN: That's the way it usually happens where you get to see in it advance --

(overlapping speakers).

O'REILLY: I thought we sent you a press kit.

GLENN: No, huh-uh.

O'REILLY: Well, look, it's better that you didn't see it so now you have something to look forward to on Sunday.

GLENN: This is what happens. This is what happens.

(overlapping speakers).

O'REILLY: Your Texas neighborhood telling people who you are.

GLENN: This is what happens when people with bad movies come out. They tonight send out -- they don't send out a prerelease.

O'REILLY: That's true. The my other movie, the Bride of Chucky, I didn't send out --

GLENN: Are you going to send it to me?

O'REILLY: Sure, we'll overnight it tonight and you can have your hired help put it in the machine and you can watch it tomorrow. But I'm telling you on Palm Sunday, this is an event. You're going to be very imprested. I'm surprised they didn't send it to you and I will definitely send it to you overnight.

GLENN: Will you fire anybody over it?

O'REILLY: No, Jesus wouldn't.

GLENN: You're not Jesus.

O'REILLY: Can I tell you an interesting story? Do you have enough --

GLENN: If I believed you had an interesting story to share, I would say yes to that.

O'REILLY: Good, I'm assuming that's affirmative. A year ago this time they came to me and they said we have a young actor who just auditioned for Jesus, Haaz Sleiman. Do you know him. I said no. He had done a few things, but not many. They said he's the audition for Jesus but there's a problem. And the problem is that he's a Muslim. Born in Lebanon, raised a Muslim, came to the United States at age 21. Should we hire him. And I said yes. And they said, well, you know, there might somebody blowback. And I said, would Jesus hire him? And it was silent. And so we hired him. It's a good story. It's the kid --

GLENN: So nobody could answer that question. So you still don't know if Jesus would have hired him?

O'REILLY: Well, do you think Jesus would have been prejudicial towards somebody --

GLENN: I don't know. I did not -- I don't know. I'm not Jesus. But I --

O'REILLY: You should know his philosphies, his teachings, he would not have been prejudicial.

GLENN: If that's the world you want to live in.

PAT: He did have a chosen people. I don't know that that's true, Bill. He did pick some over others.

GLENN: He picked 12.

O'REILLY: It was all-inclusive. It was like Club Med. He was all-inclusive.

GLENN: That was Paul who said let's go the Gentiles.

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: Let's just do this as a Jewish thing. Paul was the expansive one.

O'REILLY: You're watching Burnett's movie, because that's a religious movie. This is a secular movie. This is not a movie -- you don't have to be religious to watch "Killing Jesus". This is based on history and why Jesus was executed. And he wasn't executed for being a religious guy or teaching any kind of spirituality.

GLENN: Okay, can I ask you a question?

O'REILLY: Sure.

GLENN: And this is a serious question. I'm watching Mark Burnett's thing and it's absolutely fantastic because he sent it to me so I would know that it was absolutely fantastic. But it's really, really good. And -- but there is one thing and this is only because I actually went to school. I studied this time period.

O'REILLY: Yes.

GLENN: And they didn't -- they didn't crucify -- like when you see those pictures with the three crosses up there, they would have been much lower to the ground and there of would have been a whole series of crosses because because it was meant as a warning and it was close to the road --

O'REILLY: You're going to love "Killing Jesus"e because it's exactly the way it's portrayed in my film.

GLENN: Excellent. Very good. I wish I would have been able to say that.

O'REILLY: The cross is a key. It's not the traditional cross you see in the Christian churches. It's a T, because the top bar slides down into the stem, which is -- as you mentioned, and very astutely, Beck, as you mentioned was always in the ground as a warning to insurgents. Are you happy now?

GLENN: I had to talk to you to become happy but you had nothing to do with it.

O'REILLY: So you're going to watch this movie on Sunday night and tell everybody to watch it, right?

GLENN: Yes. I mean, you don't tell me what to do.

O'REILLY: No, I'm asking. That was a question.

GLENN: I might. I might consider. What do I get out of it?

O'REILLY: Spirituality, uplift.

GLENN: You said it wasn't a spiritual film.

O'REILLY: All the positives.

GLENN: All right. I'll do it.

O'REILLY: Good.

GLENN: I may not like it. I may not like it. But I'll watch it.

O'REILLY: Wait a minute, now this is serious. If you don't like that movie, I'll come back on Monday and we'll kick it around. I want to know if you don't like and it why.

GLENN: Okay, I'm praying I hate it.

(laughing).

GLENN: Okay, so, Bill.

O'REILLY: Yes.

GLENN: You're on with David Letterman last night.

O'REILLY: Yes, I am.

GLENN: And I got to ask. What is it about you that loves conflict this much? Because I can't stand the guy.

O'REILLY: Yeah, I know, there's a lot of people don't like Letterman. But I won him over. I've been on the program 16 times. I've been on your program about 30. So you're way ahead. I felt that I have to reach an audience that doesn't necessarily watch the Fox News channel. And that going on Stewart, Letterman, the "Today" show, that accomplishes that. So you know, over the years, I've developed a decent relationship with the man.

PAT: Is it not frustrating, though, Bill, at how ill-informed David Letterman --

O'REILLY: Yeah, but he's a comedian, so my expectation is he gives me my say. That's all. I don't really care what he thinks, all right. With all due respect to Dave. Look, he's got his belief system as O'Reilly pointed out, it's not really backed up by much.

PAT: It's nothing.

O'REILLY: He gives me my say. You heard the ovation I got in there. I won over his crowd.

PAT: And you get to mop the floor with him every single time.

O'REILLY: I don't believe that. I think he's -- I think --

PAT: Oh, you -- come on.

O'REILLY: In a way that is provocative and I don't mind answering those questions. As I said in the meantime, I like him now. I'm going to miss him. He's a lot better than come bert. I can't imagine going on Colbert's program.

PAT: Colbert is going to suck.

O'REILLY: He's way out there. And he lives -- all Letterman wants to do is have a laugh or two and he is a left wing guy, okay, fine. But if you're in this business, peck, you got to deal with all kind. There are right wing loons, too, you know that. So you deal with them as they come and you try to be respectful.

GLENN: Let me ask you one for question. I'm doing this show on Grover Norquist tonight.

O'REILLY: I don't know much about him. I know you think that he's Stalin, right? Isn't he --

(laughing).

STU: That's a good summary I would say of the program.

O'REILLY: I don't know much about Grover. I'm sorry that he's in your crosshairs, but I don't know much about him.

GLENN: Maybe you should know something about him.

O'REILLY: Well, you know --

PAT: Maybe you'll do a week called Killing Norquist sometime.

O'REILLY: sold what. How many copies? Eight?

(laughing).

GLENN: You believe that one for me, then.

O'REILLY: Yeah.

GLENN: All right. Bill, always good to talk to you, sir.

O'REILLY: Thanks for having me on, Beck.

GLENN: You bet. God bless. Sunday night, his movie "Killing Jesus" and I haven't seen it--

PAT: I didn't realize --

GLENN: Bill is -- Bill actually cares about quality.

STU: And a $12 million budget for a made for TV --

GLENN: That's solid.

PAT: I thought it was a documentary style thing. Didn't you?

GLENN: I did.

STU: I can't imagine his violent imagery saying violent crosshairs.

GLENN: That's --

STU: As you said, obsessed with death. You said it. And you said it accurately.

GLENN: I think I said it. America heard it. You know what I'm saying.

STU: They did here.

GLENN: There's no pulling that one back. America heard it and they heard the hate and the vitriol coming from Bill O'Reilly. You know what I love? Do you know anybody else that gives him this much crap?

STU: Now, you give it -- no, you give it to each other.

GLENN: I know, but do you know anybody who he takes that from? I don't know anybody else he takes that from.

STU: No, Bill actually likes you for some odd reason. I don't understand it. No one around here understands it. No one else feels that way.

PAT: Scientists are looking into it right now.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

STU: Everyone else feels it's the opposite way.

(overlapping speakers)

GLENN: I thought we were all friends.

STU: I'm just saying around here, this general area.

GLENN: But you're around here.

STU: But you don't know where I'm waving my arms. I'm on the radio.

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.