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.

Trump's Zelenskyy deal falls apart: What happened and what's next?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump offered Zelenskyy a deal he couldn’t refuse—but Zelenskyy rejected it outright.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Washington to sign a historic agreement aimed at ending the brutal war ravaging Ukraine. Joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump met with Zelenskyy and the press before the leaders were set to retreat behind closed doors to finalize the deal. Acting as a gracious host, Trump opened the meeting by praising Zelenskyy and the bravery of Ukrainian soldiers. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposed agreement, emphasizing its benefits—such as access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals for the U.S.—and publicly pledged continued American aid in exchange.

Zelenskyy, however, didn’t share Trump’s optimism. Throughout the meeting, he interrupted repeatedly and openly criticized both Trump and Vance in front of reporters. Tensions escalated until Vance, visibly frustrated, fired back. The exchange turned the meeting hostile, and by its conclusion, Trump withdrew his offer. Rather than staying in Washington to resolve the conflict, Zelenskyy promptly left for Europe to seek support from the European Union.

As Glenn pointed out, Trump had carefully crafted this deal to benefit all parties, including Russia. Zelenskyy’s rejection was a major misstep.

Trump's generous offer to Zelenskyy

Glenn took to his whiteboard—swapping out his usual chalkboard—to break down Trump’s remarkable deal for Zelenskyy. He explained how it aligned with several of Trump’s goals: cutting spending, advancing technology and AI, and restoring America’s position as the dominant world power without military action. The deal would have also benefited the EU by preventing another war, revitalizing their economy, and restoring Europe’s global relevance. Ukraine and Russia would have gained as well, with the war—already claiming over 250,000 lives—finally coming to an end.

The media has portrayed last week’s fiasco as an ambush orchestrated by Trump to humiliate Zelenskyy, but that’s far from the truth. Zelenskyy was only in Washington because he had already rejected the deal twice—first refusing Vice President Vance and then Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was Zelenskyy who insisted on traveling to America to sign the deal at the White House. If anyone set an ambush, it was him.

The EU can't help Ukraine

JUSTIN TALLIS / Contributor | Getty Images

After clashing with Trump and Vance, Zelenskyy wasted no time leaving D.C. The Ukrainian president should have stayed, apologized to Trump, and signed the deal. Given Trump’s enthusiasm and a later comment on Truth Social—where he wrote, “Zelenskyy can come back when he is ready for peace”—the deal could likely have been revived.

Meanwhile, in London, over a dozen European leaders, joined by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, convened an emergency meeting dubbed the “coalition of the willing” to ensure peace in Ukraine. This coalition emerged as Europe’s response to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. By the meeting’s end, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a four-point plan to secure Ukrainian independence.

Zelenskyy, however, appears less than confident in the coalition’s plan. Recently, he has shifted his stance toward the U.S., apologizing to Trump and Vance and expressing gratitude for the generous military support America has already provided. Zelenskyy now says he wants to sign Trump’s deal and work under his leadership.

This is shaping up to be another Trump victory.

Glenn: No more money for the war machine, Senator McConnell

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Senator McConnell, your call for more Pentagon spending is as tone-deaf as it is reckless. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined — over $877 billion in 2023 alone, dwarfing China ($292 billion), Russia ($86 billion), and the entire EU’s collective defense budgets. And yet here you are, clamoring for more, as if throwing cash at an outdated war machine will somehow secure our future.

The world is changing, Senator, and your priorities are stuck in a bygone era.

Aircraft carriers — those floating behemoths you and the Pentagon so dearly love — are relics of the past. In the next real conflict, they’ll be as useless as horses were in World War I. Speaking of which, Europe entered that war with roughly 25 million horses; by 1918, fewer than 10 million remained, slaughtered by machine guns and artillery they couldn’t outrun.

That’s the fate awaiting your precious carriers against modern threats — sunk by hypersonic missiles or swarms of AI-driven drones before they can even launch a jet. The 1950s called, Senator — they want their war plans back.

The future isn’t in steel and jet fuel; it’s in artificial intelligence and artificial superintelligence. Every dollar spent on yesterday’s hardware is a dollar wasted in three years when AI upends everything we know about warfare. Worse, with the Pentagon’s track record, every dollar spent today could balloon into two or three dollars of inflation tomorrow, thanks to the House and Senate’s obscene spending spree.

We’re drowning in $34 trillion of national debt — 128% of GDP, a level unseen since World War II. Annual deficits hit $1.7 trillion in 2023, and interest payments alone are projected to top $1 trillion by 2026.

This isn’t sustainable; it’s a fiscal time bomb.

And yet you want to shovel more taxpayer money into a Pentagon that hasn’t passed a single audit in its history? Six attempts since 2018, six failures — trillions unaccounted for, waste so rampant that it defies comprehension. It’s irresponsible — bordering on criminal — to suggest more spending when the DOD can’t even count the cash it’s got.

The real threat isn’t just from abroad, though those dangers are profound. It’s from within. The call is coming from inside the house, Senator — and not just the House, but the Senate too. Your refusal to adapt is jeopardizing our security more than any foreign adversary.

Look at China’s drone shows — thousands of synchronized lights painting the sky. Now imagine those aren’t fireworks but weaponized drones, each one cheap, precise, and networked by AI. A single swarm could cripple our planes, ships, tanks, and troops before we fire a shot. Ukraine’s drone wars have already shown this reality: $500 drones taking out $10 million tanks. That’s the future staring us down, and we’re still polishing Cold War relics.

Freeze every bloated project.

Redirect everything — every dime, every mind — toward winning the AI/ASI race. That’s the only battlefield that matters. We’ve got enough stockpiles to handle any foreseeable war in the next three years and a president fighting to end conflicts, not start them. Your plea for more spending isn’t just misguided — it’s a betrayal of the American people sinking under debt and inflation while you chase ghosts of wars past.

Or is it even that senator? Perhaps I have buried the lede, but I am not sure if the following stats will help people understand why this op-ed might have been written by someone in your office.

Your state, Kentucky is:

  • 45th in GDP Per Capita
  • 44th in Employment
  • 42nd in High School Diplomas

And 11th in Defense-related defense contract spending

Who are you actually concerned about, Senator? The safety of the American people or your war machine buddies?

Thanks, but no thanks.

'MAD AS HELL': Here's what happened with the Epstein Files and what's next

Andrew Harnik / Staff, SAUL LOEB / Contributor, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Jeffery Epstein's despicable low-life clients escape justice yet another day.

If you followed last week's commotion surrounding the release of the Epstein Files closely, you likely came away from the situation feeling frustrated and confused. Many anticipated the full release of Epstein's damning evidence, with names and details that would bring the hammer of justice down on those who indulged their wicked desires on that infamous island. Instead, we were dealt another disappointment, vexed once more by the swamp creatures Trump swore to destroy.

Many have turned their frustration towards the ensemble of new media representatives, including Glenn's friend and BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who was among those chosen to break the story. But don't shoot the messenger, if you take a moment to hear Wheeler's side of the story as Glenn did on radio, it's clear that the party at fault is the same enemy we've been fighting the whole time: the Deep State.

While Trump has won back-to-back victories during his first few weeks in office, he hasn't even been president for two months yet. It should come as no surprise that the swamp is still full of monsters, and they are starting to fight back. The events surrounding the release of the Epstein Filesprove there is still a lot of work left to do.

What happened?

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

To fully understand last week's events, we need to go back to an interview Trump's new attorney general, Pam Bondi, did with Fox on Wednesday, February 26th. On the night of the 26th, Bondi sat down with Fox News host, Jesse Watters, where she first announced that the next day, Thursday the 27th, she would be releasing the long-awaited Epstein Files, and even made hints that the contents would be of interest, saying they would "make you sick."

The next morning, Liz Wheeler and other "new" media hosts were summoned to the White House, though they did not know why at the time. No mainstream reporters were present and Wheeler speculates that the purpose behind that was to deny them this story in retribution for Trump's poor coverage. Then Bondi and Kash Patel, the new director of the FBI, came in with the now-infamous binders, along with a letter Bondi had written to Patel and informed the reporters of the bad news. They told them that the binders contained what they had previously believed to be the full Epstein Files, until Bondi received information from a FBI whistleblower. This allegedly happened after her interview on Fox, and revealed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the FBI had withheld large portions of the Epstein Files from both Bondi and Patel.

After this meeting, the reporters were let out of the White House where they were ambushed by the mainstream media. Believing that they were going to immediately break the news, the new media reporters smiled and waved, gloating their exclusive access to the story while their antiquated counterparts took photos. Then the new media reporters learned that the White House forbade them from breaking the news until 3:30 pm EST, to avoid Trump's conference with the UK Prime Minister from being focused solely on the Epstein Files story. This explains why Liz Wheeler and her fellow media representatives were silent for so long. It was a bait-and-switch that they never intended.

What did we learn?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

While initially this seems like a complete bust, there is new information we learned from this fiasco.

First, there was some new information in the binders, although a large portion of it was information we already knew. There was a copy of Epstein's Rolodex, essentially his contact list, which contained many of the same names we already knew had associated with Epstein in some capacity, though it's certainly not proof of any wrongdoing. The biggest reveal was a long list of known victims of Epstein and his degenerate client, although it was entirely redacted to protect the privacy of those on the list. This list was, allegedly, what Bondi was referring to on the Wednesday Fox interview, although Bondi's exact timeline is unclear and potentially suspicious.

The real takeaway from yesterday came from the letter Bondi sent Patel in response to the FBI leak. Not only did it prove our suspicions right, that this story is much deeper than we are being led to believe, but it reveals blatant betrayal within the government. The letter from Bondi orders Patel to knock some heads, get the real files, and compile a report highlighting who is hiding these files from Trump, Bondi, Patel, and the American people.

There are Deep State swamp creatures that are actively working against President Trump and his administration. Glenn likened this to aninternal Civil Warand encouraged Trump to take an axe to the whole system. We need to pull out this corruption root and stem.

What needs to happen next?

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The next step is learning what Kash Patel found when he started knocking heads. According to Bondi's letter, the full Epstein Files and Patel's report were due on her desk by 8:00 AM February the 28th. The American people need to know what he found and soon. We have waited long enough.

There also needs to be immediate and hard-hitting action taken against SDNY, the corrupt FBI agents, and whoever else seeks to undermine Trump's presidency. Really, this should not come as a surprise, Trump has been in office for less than two months. That is a very short time to completely uproot the Deep State which has been twisting its corruption around every branch of our government for the better part of a century.

This is the first major hiccup of Trump's second term, amid nearly two months of victory after victory, and if anything proves the validity of DOGE's work gutting the government. While we can't let this slide, now is not the time to abandon hope, now is the time to double down and demand answers.

DOGE's top 5 BIGGEST cuts

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump has only been in office for a month, and already, he seems to have accomplished more than most presidents do in their entire careers.

Nothing defines Trump's first month more than the newly established Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Equally controversial as it is popular, the department, headed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, has made it its mission to root out wasteful government spending. DOGE has already combed through a handful of agencies and eliminated billions of dollars of waste, and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down anytime soon.

DOGE is part of Trump's initiative to curb runaway government spending and to start to chip away at the Fed's crushing debt. At the time this article was written, U.S. debt sat at over $36 trillion, with an estimated $1.9 trillion a year federal budget deficit. According to the U.S. debt clock, Musk and the DOGE crew have already saved more than $136 billion, and that number only keeps growing.

To help track DOGE's progress, we've assembled a list of their top five biggest cuts:

1. USAID

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

The United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, has been hit with the some of largest cuts out of any government agency and will potentially even be shut down. This comes after Musk and his team revealed theabsurd things USAID was funding, including a transgender opera in Colombia. The total cut came out to approximately $6.5 billion.

2. Department of Education

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

The Department of Education is another agency that faces extinction, much like USAID. The American school system has been found seriously lacking, with many students struggling to meet expectations despite the torrent of cash spent on education. Trump's new Secretary of Education pick, Linda McMahon, has sworn to turn the agency around and even oversee the closure of the department. DOGE has reportedly cut almost $1 billion in waste within the agency.

3. Institute of Educational Sciences

Steven Gottlieb / Contributor | Getty Images

The IES, or Institute of Educational Sciences, is tasked with tracking the academic progress of America's students and helping improve outcomes. The changes made by DOGE will not affect NAEP, also known as "The Nation's Report Card," and the College Scorecard, which tracks the spending, costs, and outcomes of universities. The agency was all but gutted by Musk's deep cuts, totaling $900 million.

4. Social Security Administration

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For years, we've speculated that the Social Security Administration was a colossal waste of resources, but after Elon Musk posted a screenshot from the SSA database showing that there was a significant number of people over the age of 100 that were still consideredalive by the agency, it seems our suspicions are proved true. It's no small wonder Musk was able to trim over $230 million from the SSA.

5. General Services Administration

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The GSA is the latest agency to be hit by the DOGE crew. The administration, which manages federal property and contracts, has started a massive "reduction in force" push, thinning the numbers of employees by a large margin. As of yet, upwards of $300 million have been cut by the once-bloated agency.