Glenn interviews the cable king, Bill O’Reilly

Bill O’Reilly has a new book out “Killing Kennedy” which was a follow up to his hit success “Killing Lincoln” and prompted Glenn to question Bill’s fascination with ‘killing’ books. The pair also previewed the debate tonight - how should Mitt Romney handle the tough questions? O’Reilly explains on radio today.

Rough transcript of interview below:

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly continues his fascination with presidential assassinations. I don't know what it is. First it was Lincoln. Now it's Kennedy. And I don't know. McKinley is next. I'm not sure what he's working on. Number one best-selling author. The number one book in America. Been on the best-selling list for 53 weeks, I don't know.

STU: 53,000 weeks.

GLENN: His epic book, "Killing Lincoln". Now being followed by "Killing Kennedy", and it is just as good. We have we have Bill O'Reilly on the phone. Hello Bill.

STU: He'll be here in a few minute.

GLENN: What do you mean?

STU: He's apparently decided there's a breakfast emergency. Maybe there's a delicious hash brown he's finishing off.

PAT: He might be finish up the research on killing McKinley.

GLENN: I may not talk about his book now. Here's the truth. I haven't Reddit. I don't like it.

STU: How would you know.

STU: I think he's on now.

GLENN: Bill now that you're late.

CALLER: Wait. Wait. I've been calling you guys.

GLENN: Don't even.

CALLER: Oh.

GLENN: What is the weird thing with your fascination with the deaths of former presidents. Are you working on killing McKinley now.

CALLER: Did you read the book.

GLENN: I have to apologize to you. I haven't.

CALLER: You haven't read it.

GLENN: I know you sent it to me early.

CALLER: Most of this book is when he was alive. The worthiness we knock out all of the myths. All of the garbage, all of the rumor. All of the innuendo.

GLENN: No you don't. You don't knock it out. There was one part of the story I was interested in.

CALLER: Which was?

GLENN: If I would have read the book I would have known. This is the one guy that you couldn't nail down because were you on his track and he committed suicide.

CALLER: Fascinating story. 1976 I'm working at a WFAA in Dallas, Texas. A friend of mine. He calls he's got a call he's a Russian emigre. He was teaching at a college. This guy knows a lot about Oswald. I immediately try to track shield. He runs. He dodges. He knows I'm after him. So I go to his house. A number of times. Finally and this was against the law, I actually broke into his house and nobody knows that. I'm telling the Glenn Beck program.

GLENN: Just hold on a second. Eric Holder let's get him on the phone.

CALLER: I was dressed like a Black Panthers so he's not going to do anything. So.

CALLER: So the back door the backsliding door was open and I opened it, and I stepped into his living room I guess it was. And there was nobody there. I pounded on the door, and so I had a cameraman with me. There's blood on the rug. So I thought this was really strange. Told my assignment editor. Don't ever do that again, and don't tell anybody. We got word that he was visiting his daughter in south palm beach Florida. Where did the blood come from.

CALLER: I don't know.

GLENN: You didn't do anything about that.

CALLER: Because you broke in we don't you want to do anything. I head out to palm beach Florida.

GLENN: I'd like to apologize to the parents of the missing girl in the 1970s who's body was never found. Bill O'Reilly let it happen.

CALLER: My friend is trying to get shield to serve him a subpoena. So we both of us are heading out to the house. I get to the house. And shield blew his brains out second floor of his daughter Alexandra's house.

PAT: While you're there.

CALLER: I'm there. And then the palm beach police drove there. I have not been able to define shield was hanging around Lee Harvey Oswald which was the lowest rung. Now, a sleuthed it. I've done anything. We knew that shield had ties to the C.I.A.. he had ties to the older Bush. That is one of the few things we have not been able to nail down in "Killing Kennedy".

GLENN: So Oswald was a loan shooter.

CALLER: He shot him by himself.

PAT:

GLENN: Was he a Russian agent?

CALLER: There is no evidence of that.

GLENN: Was why did he go over to the Soviet Union.

CALLER: He went over to the Soviet Union because he was a loser and Communist. He thought he was going to have a great life over there. That's where he met his wife in Minsk. The F.B.I. shadowed him. He was a Socialist Communist kook. If he was a Russian agent he wouldn't have had so much trouble getting into Cuba. He went down to Cuba. We traced every bit of him. You learn all of this fascinating.

GLENN: If you're offering to have somebody read it to me I'll take that. I'm trying to create jobs.

CALLER: I'll have somebody come to see you.

GLENN: We're going to the election in a few minute.

CALLER: You're going to love this book. This is right up your alley. Because.

GLENN: Bill.

CALLER: It unmasks the whole government and the C.I.A. what they did the bay of pigs. Kennedy ordering the assassination of DM. This is right where you live.

GLENN: I love Lincoln. I love, and I hate myself for saying it. But I loved your book about Lincoln.

CALLER: All right.

GLENN: I'll read another one.

CALLER: Good. You're the man for it.

GLENN: Let me ask you the one other question. You say there was a turning point in Kennedy's life, and it was the death of his son.

CALLER: Almost like your story. It's almost like the Glenn Beck story. Here's Kennedy.

GLENN: He started the network.

CALLER: Whatever Kennedy wants to do, whatever babe he wants to go after, whatever.

GLENN: If it moves he's interested.

CALLER: So Kennedy is one of the most popular men in the world. He's doing whatever he wants to do. It doesn't matter if it hurts his wife his children whatever, he does it.

GLENN: Tell me when it gets to the story like me.

CALLER: Remember your days your in Connecticut.

CALLER: Something happens to JFK. What happens is his baby dies Patrick. And we spend a lot of time in the book on that.

GLENN: Did you think about naming the book killing Patrick.

CALLER: No. Because with this there are a lot the other things. Thank you for the suggestion. So the poor baby.

GLENN: You know --

CALLER: Dies, and JFK is profoundly, and I mean profoundly affected. He changes. He changes -- he doesn't become a saint overnight like you did. But his whole outlook changes and his presidency changes.

GLENN: So did he become a Republican.

CALLER: Almost. He wanted to cut taxes. He wanted to limit government. But you'll see in the book how what happens there.

GLENN: So Bill, we're going to talk about the election in a second. The name of the book is "Killing Kennedy", and killing McKinley is coming up, and shooting but missing Truman. I'm sure will be the follow up.

PAT: Stabbing Caesar is down the roads.

GLENN: We'll get to the election.

CALLER: . You done making fun of me.

GLENN: You're a machine.

CALLER: "Killing Kennedy" is number one. "Killing Lincoln" is still number 4.

BREAK

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly, you play Mitt Romney here for a second.

CALLER: All right.

GLENN: Mr. Romney you were recorded as saying 47% of the people are basically lazy and you don't care about them. How do you explain that?

CALLER: What I was saying to a group of my supporters was that there is a certain mindset among people who support my opponent President Obama of entitlement. They want free stuff. Now, 47% probably too high. I was just speaking off-the-cuff. But there is no question that many Americans right now want a nanny state, and there is the poster boy for -- you can't say the poster guy for the nanny state President Obama. And these people would never vote for me because I am someone who believes in competition, who believes in capitalism and self-reliance. Those are the things that I stand on, and that's what has made America great, and that's why President Obama's administration has weakened the economy, and take away from that.

GLENN: What you just said appeals to me. We used to be self-reliance. But 47%, and that is probably too high. 47% are on the government Dole in some way or another. And they're not paying taxes, and that number is growing every single day, and I'd say I'll bet that there is at least 10% maybe as high as 20% who're just like I don't want to pay taxes. I don't want to do any work. I'm totally cool with this system.

CALLER: I think one out of five think they are owed something. I want to do my Internet stuff. I want to flounce around. I'm not going to study in school. I'm not going to work hard. I'm not going to learn a trade, and so give me my house. Give me my food, and give me, give me, give me, and that's growing. That's a growing part of our population.

GLENN: You have been doing television since 1884. And.

CALLER: Since Rutherford B. Hayes.

GLENN: You've seen these elections over and over again. The spin of the polls is remarkable. I happen to believe that the model is wrong. All of the polls in the last three or four years have been six points wrong minimum. Six points.

CALLER: Well. In a month we'll know whether you're correct or not.

GLENN: Hold on hold on.

CALLER: All right.

GLENN: Mr. O'Reilly this is the no twirling around zone. What I want to know from you is take the polls as they are. They're all within the margin of error. They're 47-45. 45-45. Whatever. So it's a dead-heat. A. Have you ever seen an election this close for this long where it is just locked pretty much locked-in a dead-heat, and B, why isn't the media saying this is the closest election that they've seen. It's never this close. Why are they saying it is Obama.

CALLER: That's not anything new. So the national media and the urban newspapers are rooting for the President. So I think that's established beyond a reasonable doubt. And dimmest Americans know that. The problem is that you have if you are not a fan of the President's is that Mitt Romney has not taken the fight to him. And that's what everybody is hoping to see tonight in the debates. They're hoping to see Mitt Romney on fire coming out say look I don't want to be disrespectful but the President is ruining the country not just in the short-term but in the long-term, and the culture of entitlement that he embraces the attitude of where's mine. I don't care about the country. I want my stuff and I want it now, and I want other people to give it to me, is taking root. And we have to confront the fact that our President is exploiting people who don't want or can't provide for themselves. If Mitt Romney would do that tonight and bring it right to his doorstep, and back it up with facts. Look at the expenditures, look at the spending, look at the waste. Look what's coming down the road.

GLENN: He wins if he does it. This weekend George Washington O'Reilly and Stewart the debate. "Killing Kennedy" the book is on sale now.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

The REAL questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Democrats don't want the American people to know who they are voting for. It has been well over a month since Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Kamala was hastily installed in his place. During that time, Kamala has not given a single interview.

The Democrats' intention is clear: they have spent the last month gaslighting the American left into believing that Kamala is their new "super-candidate." Now that they've taken the bait, they can allow Kamala to take a softball interview to combat accusations from the Right.

Kamala's first interview will be hosted by Dana Bash on CNN and is scheduled for 9:00 p.m. ET tonight. Kamala will be joined by her running mate, Tim Walz, for an unusual interview. Between the tag-team approach and the more-than-sympathetic interviewer, it's almost certain that this will not be a particularly substantial interview full of easy, soft-ball, questions.

The American people deserve to know who is on the ballot, and that means that they should be able to see how their candidates stand up against tough questions. Here are five questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight:

Will she build a border wall?

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

After years of bashing Trump for his proposed border wall, Kamala has suddenly changed her mind. During the DNC, Kamala pledged to support a bill that included money for a border wall and other border security measures. This change seems like a knee-jerk response to recent criticisms made about her abysmal performance as the "border czar." The question is: how genuine is it?

What is her stance on the Israel-Hamas war?

BASHAR TALEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has been mushy on the issue of the Israel-Hamas war so far. She said that she would support Israel while simultaneously expressing sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza. With mounting pro-Hamas support within the American left, just how far is Kamala willing to go?

How does she explain defending Biden against allegations that he was too old for office now that those allegations have proven true?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

For the last four years, Kamala and the entire mainstream media have vehemently defended President Biden's mental fitness, despite countless incidents that indicated otherwise. After Biden's senile performance at the June presidential debate, the truth couldn't be hidden any longer, and Kamala was quickly swapped into his place. Now that the cat's out of the bag, how does Kamala justify her lies to protect the incompetent president?

How does she plan on fixing the economy, and why hasn't she already done it?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has claimed that she could lower consumer prices starting on the first day of her administration, accompanied by other promises to fix the economy. So why the wait? If she knows how to fix the economy that is causing so many Americans to suffer, can't she do something right now as the Vice President? Why has the economy only gotten worse within her three-year tenure in the White House?

Why does she keep flipping on her policies? Where does it stop?

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

As mentioned above, Kamala has already changed her stance on a border wall, but it doesn't end there. During her 2019 presidential campaign, Kamala vowed to end fracking, a controversial method of drilling for oil, in the name of climate change. But now it seems her position has softened, with no mention of a fracking ban. Why does she keep changing her stance on these major policies? What other policies has she changed without any indication? Why has she so far failed to produce a clear campaign platform?