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.

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.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.