← Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey
Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey
Ep 1178 | Christianity Today Tried to Disprove the Gospels … and Failed | Guest: Bill O'Reilly
00:44:03
Loading summary
Transcript38 lines
- [00:00]
Ali Stuckey
When my son Ridley was constantly in and out of hospitals with chronic illness, we'd put on shows hoping that they would lift his spirits. But I could not believe how bad kids entertainment had become. And it wasn't just the garbage morals that clash with what we believe. What shocked me was watching his behavior deteriorate in real time. And I've since learned that that's not an accident. Shows are engineered to flood kids with dopamine and overstimulate their brains, like leaving them addicted, discontent with life off screen, and constantly craving more. And while that keeps shareholders happy, it's devastating for young, developing minds. So when our family relocated for Ridley's health, we started Sherwood with one guiding create entertainment that's actually good for kids. At Sherwood, we're not trying to hijack your kids attention. We're trying to give it back. Learn more@sherwoodkids.com and use code Ridley for a free Sherwood speaker and 10% off.
- [01:01]
Bill O'Reilly
Christianity Today questions the details of Jesus's crucifixion. Also, We've got Bill O'Reilly here to talk about the truth of the JFK files. Also, he's going to give his grade for how the Trump administration is really doing. We've got all of this and more on today's episode of Relatable. And before we get into it, I want to remind you, go to ShareTheAeros.com our Christian Women's Conference on October 11th in Dallas, Texas. Go to Share the Arrows.com to get your tickets today. Today's episode is brought to you by our friends at Good ranchers. Go to good ranchers.com code ally. That's good ranchers.com code ally. Hey guys. Welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday. Hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far. We've got Bill O'Reilly on the show at the end of this episode. But first I want to make sure that we talk about this Christianity Today article that I have been wanting to respond to for a while. It is crazy. It's crazy. You know, I have started thinking that Christianity Today should be called Discount Christianity. I know some people joke that it should be called Christianity Yesterday. I like that. I also like Discount Christianity because it's, it's doing, it's doing some work. You've got a, you've got a double meaning there. It's Discount Christianity in that it routinely cheapens Christianity and I think in many ways actually cheapens the Christian witness because of its compromises. But it also, it seems, is trying to discount Christianity. It is trying to make it seem less true. And that is certainly the case when it comes to this article that the outlet decided to publish over Easter weekend. So it was titled Was Jesus Crucified with Nails? And this scholar apparently is casting doubt on the idea that Jesus was actually nailed to the cross. Maybe he was just tied to the cross with ropes and we will get into why this actually matters. This isn't just like a tertiary squabble that this is a really big deal when it comes to the reliability of scripture. So here's what the article said. Was Jesus crucified with nails? Daniel Salomon, the author, says this telling the story of Christ's death. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John simply say that Roman soldiers crucified him. They don't say how. Each of the gospels include specific detail about the soldiers, method of dividing Jesus's clothes, a lottery, but none describe the way the soldiers put him on the cross. Jeffrey P. Arroyo Garcia, an evangelical Bible scholar who teaches at Gordon College, thinks maybe there weren't any nails and argue this point in his in this interview with Christianity Today, Garcia said that the word used there just means to hang on the cross. So staru just means to hang on the cross, but it doesn't give the method of how they hang. The article relies on the absence of detailed documentation of Roman crucifixions to try to make its point. The article references other ancient texts that that do reference nails from crosses, but point out that these documents are not clear whether the nails are actually driven into the hands. The article says nails were not required to kill someone in a crucifixion. Death came through suffocation. Garcia, the person being interviewed, says crucifixion is really about barbarity. It's barbarity, humiliation and the psychological trauma that is inflicted upon the people who have to witness this. The article also cites the Gospel of John, John 20:25, where Thomas mentions the marks of the nails in Jesus's hands. That's the first verse that I thought of when I was reading this article and looking at this headline in John 20:27 where Jesus invites Thomas to see his hands and side. However, Garcia, the person being interviewed, argues that John's gospel was written so late, it was written so long after Jesus's crucifixion, that it may reflect crucifixion practices from that later period, such as in Ephesus, but not actually what happened to Jesus. And he says we really don't know. We don't really have a lot of evidence. And the evidence we do have involves interpretation. I have so many questions. I've got so many questions about why Christianity Today felt that this was the best article to publish over Easter weekend. An article that is clearly meant to question the veracity of Scripture. The truth of John's Gospel, which has been extended, accepted by Christians as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, part of the infallible biblical canon for centuries now. Why on Easter, it was important to cast doubt on the reliability of Scripture and therefore to poke holes in the reliability of Christianity altogether. That's what this does. When you look at John 20:25, the verse says, so the other disciples told him, we have seen the Lord. But he said to them, unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, talking to Thomas, and place my finger into the mark of the nails and place my hand into his side, I will never believe. And then Jesus says to Thomas in John 20:27, put your finger here. See my hands. Put out your hand. Place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe. Colossians 2:14. By canceling the record of death that stood against us with its legal demands, this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. Psalm 22:16. For dogs encompass me. A company of evildoers encircles me. They have pierced my hands and feet. What is significant about Psalm 22 is that when Jesus is on the cross and he says, eloi, eloi lama stubach, deny my father, my Father, why have you forsaken me? The Jewish crowd at that time would have recognized that he was speaking Psalm 22 and that he is the fulfillment of Psalm 22. So in Psalm 22, when we read, they have pierced my hands and feet, that is what Jesus is also expressing on the cross as he repeated the first line of that Psalm. We see Luke 24:39, 40. So not the gospel of John, see my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. Now, it doesn't say pierced. It doesn't say nails. It doesn't say holes in that verse. But why else would Jesus be showing them his hands and his feet? And so again, when Christianity today is questioning this on Easter weekend of all weekends, it's not just an interesting thought experiment. Experiment. They are poking holes in the reliability of Scripture. They are casting doubt on what the Gospel writers say happened to Jesus. And then the natural question is, well, what else did they get wrong? What is what is really true? Is all of this just kind of guesswork by people who were alive around the time that Jesus died? What about the miracles that Jesus performed? What about the words that he said like can we believe with any assurance that these things happened? Like this was the message that Christianity Today decided to convey around Easter weekends? That's a choice. So obviously we had a lot of Christians who are very upset about this, understandably so on X and I'll get to some of their responses in a second. Let me pause and tell you about our first sponsor for the day. First is seven Weeks Coffee. Here's a company that will not compromise that is completely unapologetic about the word of God. That is unapologetic in their fight for life. They believe in the dignity of the unborn. That is why they're called Seven Weeks Coffee. At seven weeks gestation, that baby inside the womb is the size of a coffee bean and has just as much value as anyone else. That little baby is made in the image of God. That is why seven weeks donates 10% of every sale of their coffee to Pro Life Pregnancy Centers. Y'all. They have raised over $800,000 donated straight to these Pro Life pregnancy centers. So if you are buying your amazing tasting high quality organic mold and pesticide free coffee from seven Weeks Coffee you are contributing to serving moms in crisis pregnancies and serving the dads and saving those babies. You are allowing your coffee to serve a higher purpose when you subscribe to their Heartbeat club. So you get that box of coffee to your front door every month. You get a free two pack of their new single serve brew bags. You can take your coffee with you wherever you go. It's really just amazing. Go to seven weeks coffee.com code ali. You get an extra 10% off your order when you do that. Seven weeks coffee.com code ally okay, so community notes for the win. The tweet or the post from Christianity Today says the Bible doesn't say Jesus was nailed to a cross. Okay, that is just not true. Like come on that statement. Even if you are going to say maybe it was ropes or whatever. Christianity Today the Bible doesn't say Jesus was nailed to a cross. One evangelical Bible scholar thinks the crucifixion may have been done with ropes. The community note says the Bible says explicitly that Jesus had wounds in his hands and side following his crucifixion, burial and resurrection. And then quotes John 20:27 which we've already read a couple times and links to the Bible Gateway The Bible gateway verse. So Christianity Today, after some backlash, issued a clarification on the article this they published on April 22. They admitted that there is evidence that Jesus was crucified with nails. So this is part of Christianity Today's clarification. Garcia said that there is proof that Christ was crucified with nails, but he isn't completely convinced. Jesus doesn't explicitly say nails and the Bible does not say Thomas touches Christ's hands or his feet. Garcia said many scholars also think John was written later, perhaps after crucifixion with nails had become more common. The clarification also admits that besides the Gospel of John, there are other references to crucifixion with nails in the Bible, such as Psalm 22. I don't really see how their clarification of what Garcia says helps their case at all. Like, it just really looks like you are. This is what it looks like. It looks like he is trying to find a reason to doubt it. Like you are trying to nitpick here to try to find a reason to not believe the Gospel of John. And that's a really big deal. So the guy who interviewed him, who actually posted the article on Christianity Today, Daniel Silliman, he posted an apology on X and a follow up article that also apologized for the initial publication. He said on X, I clearly messed up and I'm sorry. He said, like so many Christians, I spent a lot of time before Easter thinking about the crucifixion. An article in Biblical Archaeology Review piqued my reporting curiosity. A Bible professor suggested it was possible that crucifixions at the time of Jesus's death used ropes rather than nails. That's obviously an idiosyncratic view and almost certainly wrong, it seemed to me. But I thought it was interesting. My curiosity took me to the descriptions of Christ's death and the details in those accounts. I didn't think about John 20:25 and the implication of the idea that Thomas was mistaken to think the resurrection, the resurrected Jesus would have nail marks in his hands. Thomas clearly would not have said that if the Romans at that time had used ropes. And that's a really big problem. Okay. Like, I don't. This person considers himself a biblical scholar. Like, I wouldn't call myself a biblical scholar. I am blessed to have been raised in a Christian home, went to a Christian school, went to church, loved the Bible. Bible memorization was a big part of my upbringing and I credit that and the Holy Spirit to my recall of Scripture. But as soon as I saw this Headline. That is the first verse that I thought about. I didn't think about Psalm 22 right away. I thought about Thomas, and I thought about how Jesus said to Thomas, like, look at these holes in my hands and my feet. You can put your hands there and see for yourself. And then he goes on to say, blessed are those who haven't seen and yet still believe. And. And so anyone who has, like, any familiarity with the Scriptures, I think, would have thought of one of these contradictory verses. And he met. He admits that he didn't think about that. My article implicitly called into question the inerrancy of Scripture. He admits, in my eagerness to explore the historical context of Christ's death, I missed that, and I'm sorry. Well, I appreciate the ownership there. I appreciate his apology. I mean, Lord knows I have said things that I did not want to say. I said it differently than I wanted to say it. I accidentally implied something that I didn't mean to imply. And so there is abundant grace for when you make that kind of mistake. Now, what I hope, just like I would hope for myself or hope for anyone, that maybe there's something deeper there. Maybe there's something deeper there for him, like, why would he want to cast doubt in that way? And why would that be something that's interesting? Why did those contradictory verses not come to mind? I think those are good questions to ask, just again, like we would all want to ask ourselves. But my bigger question is, why would Christianity Today publish this? Why would they publish this? Because, okay, it's one thing for one person to have an idea and to run with it. It's another thing for a group of editors at an ostensibly Christian organization to see this, to read it multiple times, to edit it, and then say, yes. You know, when would be a good time to publish something that questions the veracity of the Gospels? Easter weekend. So there's social media response here. We've got some people on one side, like Beth Moore. She says you're in hefty company to be counted among those who mess up admirably, much less company among those who own mistakes and apologize. Don't worry about those with whom it won't be enough. You could throw yourself into a sizzling skillet and it wouldn't be enough. Okay. I mean, that's an. That's an interesting. That's an interesting commentary to give to this situation and that commentary alone. Personally, I'm more upset about the fact that some people could have read that and gone on down a path of doubt and deconstruction because they started picking holes in the rest of. Of Scripture. Not that we should not give grace to this person. Um, I thought that was interesting that that's all she said there. Kate Shelnutt is a writer for Christianity Today. She said, with any correction, we want to take responsibility for what we get wrong and make it right. In this case, a mistake around the crucifixion and a piece published during Holy Week, we wanted to extend an apology. And you know what? I think that she's more than just a writer at Christianity Today. I think she's an editor. If someone can fact check that. Megan Basham was not satisfied with the apology, she says so. Well, Mike Cosper, she's responding to. Mike Kosper, who also works at Christianity Today, says, I'm grateful to work with people who have the clarity and integrity to publish something like this, which is not an easy thing to do. Thanks, Daniel Silliman, for your curiosity and your honesty. Okay, so the curiosity thing bothers me too, because it's like, why are we thanking him for the curiosity that led him to publish something that was so erroneous? Or are you talking about the curiosity that led him to apologize? Because I agree with Megan that that's not enough. Megan, says Mike, respectfully, this doesn't go nearly far enough to address how this article made it through the editorial process, especially given that the new information that led to Silliman to reconsider was literally included in the original article. That's exactly what I thought, too. I've never, ever seen a retraction like this where the author himself apologizes and the editors say nothing, as if they weren't involved in the process at all. And yes, Kate Shalnut, by the way, to clarify, she's not just a writer, she is an editor, which is why she made the post that she did. Megan Basham also said. Last comment on the Christianity Today controversy. Dr. Moore. Russell Moore, who is the editor in chief at Christianity Today, should absolutely be the one speaking to how and why this article got published. Well, I'll tell you why. It is because he is the how and the why this article got published, and it accomplished what he wanted it to accomplish. That's my opinion, that he actually is interested in people being doubtful about things like that. Any other editor in chief would address it himself. Whether it is cowardice or something else preventing Moore from doing so. It is deeply unethical of him to simply send the writer out to comment, which I completely agree with. I mean, the editorial team. Where are you and is there an apology? Is there an understanding of the heftiness of the implications of an article like this? Again, yes. How it can get through one person, that person can make a mistake. All right, the editorial team at Christianity Today, Russell Moore, who considers himself a theologian. Now, this doesn't surprise me from Russell Moore, every entity that he has been a part of for the last several years has, has compromised, has gone the way of progressivism, has started to punch right and tickle left. That is what his leadership does. You'll remember the episode that I did a few months ago where he had that I was defending my interpretation of Matthew 25 with all of the fervor of a 20th century German soldier. Okay, that's a Nazi. Because I said when Jesus refers to the least of these my brothers in Matthew 25, he's actually talking about fellow Christians. He's not talking about the world's poor in that particular passage. I didn't come up with that interpretation. That's been held by mainstream interpretations or theologians rather, for decades. And Christianity Today writers in Christianity Today and the Gospel Coalition have reiterated that interpretation many times over the years. And yet, of course, he implied that I'm a Nazi in the pages of Christianity Today. That is apparently kind of what he does. He's very nasty and vindictive in that way. And so the lack of leadership here is maybe the least surprising thing ever. So very sad the direction that Christianity Today has gone in this regard. Kudos for humility, asking for grace for this particular writer. Again, I hope it leads to better exploration theologically for him. But man heart check for Christianity Today. I mean, discount Christianity. All right, before we get into this conversation with Bill O'Reilly, I do have a point, a couple points of preemptive clarity about the conversation. But let me tell you about our second sponsor. First, it's Adele Natural Cosmetics. You guys know how much I love Adele. That's why I'm talking about about them all the time. I use their products every day. Their essential cleanser, their essential moisturizing spray, their moisture based, their moisture based makeup. It's just amazing. And it makes my skin soft and glowy and I think smooths fine lines. And they're an America loving, God loving, pro life company that makes all of their products with natural holistic ingredients. If you make a purchase of $135 or more, they will send you a free blue lagoon face balm. This stuff is super luxurious and moisturizing. Go to Adele Natural Cosmetics.com use code ALI for 25% off your first time purchase. That's Adele Natural Cosmetics.com code ALI. Okay. A couple things you might notice and one of the questions that I ask that I asked Bill O'Reilly that there was a little bit of a miscommunication, misunderstanding, our connection was a little spotty. And so there were times where we weren't able to hear each other, where I ask about tariffs. And he answers the question differently. He talks about actually Trump's good moves when it comes to terrorism and terror across the around the world. And so you could see how that would be, you know, easy to kind of like mishear with this body connection. But the answer that he gives regarding Trump's policies to fight back against terrorism is really good and worth listening to. And then I have one question to Bill O'Reilly about the man from El Salvador that has been deported, that Democrat senators are going down to visit, that people are saying he was unjustly deported to this prison in El Salvador. But I wanted to give some context for that because I kind of landed us right in the middle of that story and asked him a question and we haven't talked about it on the show yet. So I just wanted to back up a little bit and give a little bit of clarity about that. So Kilmar Abrego Garcia, he was not actively in the process of getting asylum at the time of his deportation in March of 2025. Just a few weeks ago in 2019, he applied for asylum, this is according to the ABC and to ABC and the White House, by the way, but was denied because he did not submit the application within one year of arriving in the US as required by US Immigration law. However, during the same proceedings, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal status, which barred his deportation to El Salvador at the time due to a credible fear of persecution by the Barrio 18 gang. The status allowed him to live and work legally in the US Though it is distinct from asylum. The Trump administration then deported him though, and people are saying, hang on, he had a stay of deportation. How did he get deported? The Trump administration is looking at his different immigration cases and how those judges observed that it looks like this guy is a part of MS.13 and he has tattoos that have the symbols of MS.13. And he is has also been in trouble with the law many times for allegedly beating his wife and some other very serious crime. So the Trump administration basically ignored this day, deported him. The Trump admin did admit that his deportation was an error. It seems like they've admit admitted that, but they've argued that it doesn't matter, he doesn't have a legal right to be here and that he is a part of MS.13 and that his deportation is justified. And Bill O'Reilly sees that very differently and does not believe that that was a just deportation. So his answer is super interesting and I'm sure a lot of you will agree with it. But I just wanted to give more context on the story before we got into this conversation with him. And we'll be talking about the JFK files and lots of interesting stuff. So without further ado, here is Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. I'm wondering if first you could give your thoughts about the state of the Catholic Church. I'm not Catholic, but I know you are, and the new pope and the new direction of the Catholic Church. I know, you know, Pope Francis was maybe more on the liberal side, although maybe in the middle. What direction do you think this goes?
- [24:36]
It's impossible to say right now, Ali, about the conclave that's going to start next week after the pope's funeral on Saturday. Like the United States, the worldwide Catholic Church is divided between liberation theologians who are liberal but not crazy left, that would be Pope Francis crew and traditional Catholics who want to get back to this is what the church says and we have to follow it and we don't need to revise the rules and all of that. And there's always been a clash inside the church. I believe that probably a more traditional pope will be elected by the cardinals that meet next week. But I'm just guessing because I don't really have any inside info on it.
- [25:31]
Well, we'll see. And even though I'm not a Catholic, obviously I'm hoping that the Catholic Church would stick in that traditional direction. I think it's good for the Catholic Church and good for the world. If so, I'm curious your take on the JFK findings, JFK files findings. And obviously this is something you've talked about a lot. Killing Kennedy is was a revelatory book for me in addition to Killing Jesus. I've read so many of your books and appreciated them. But what did you think about the files that were declassified? Did we learn new information?
- [26:03]
No, there's nothing in there that startled me. And we did some pretty heavy duty research on killing Kennedy. We were lucky enough to get the original FBI notes. And this is the key. There are two keys to the assassination of President Kennedy. Number one, a number of people have made millions of dollars by Trumping up conspiracy theories about who killed Kennedy and how it all happened. Just remember, there is an industry that does that and they make money. Now, when I went in to write Killing Kennedy, my second book after Killing Lincoln, I wanted to get the primary source material. And we were lucky enough to find an FBI agent who was assigned by J. Edgar Hoover himself and got down there. Shortly after JFK was killed and pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital. And he allowed us to see all of his notes and all of the filings that came from the FBI office in Dallas. Originally, the case was run by the Dallas Police Department because it was a local murder and they didn't know how Jack Ruby got so close to Oswald to kill him because the Dallas PD was just chaos. They were incapable of investigating something this big. The FBI swooped in and took everything over, and the FBI concluded, with evidence that is rock solid, that Oswald was the gunman. Now, did he have help? I believe he did, but not in the actual killing, but in the planning of it. And maybe some financial stuff. I believe he had some help, but he was the lone gunman.
- [27:54]
What is this chatter that I heard? I didn't see this in any of the files that were released, anything I read, but I saw chatter on X from people saying, oh, Israel was involved in some way. Is there any truth to that?
- [28:07]
No, of course not. Look, like the Kennedy conspiracy people. There's a group on social media that desperately want attention. And some of them can monetize that attention by saying outrageous things they can never back up because there's no editor on social media. No one. Nobody tells me what to do. I run a responsible corporation on billoriley.com and we make a tremendous profit because we report honestly. But there's nobody telling me what to do. If I wanted to be a loon, I could be a loon and get a lot more attention. And I can, under the First Amendment, say pretty much whatever I want, unless it's defamatory. Then I'd have to defend myself in court. But most social media operations, they don't know what they're doing and they crave attention. So they say whatever they want to say, and they can never back it up in a million years. So let the buyer beware.
- [29:16]
That's an important note. Tell me more about Oswald going to Cuba and what happened with that.
- [29:24]
So Oswald was a former Marine sniper. Very important, because the. It was not an easy shot from the schoolbook depository to the convertible that JFK was riding in. He was an expert marksman. He comes Back, he defects to Russia, and then after a few years, he gets married and he comes back to the United States with his bride, Marina. All right, but he's still a nut. He was a nut when he defected and he's a nut when he came back. So for some reason he was with Castro. I don't know whether he's a hardcore Communist. Lee Harvey Oswald, not an educated man. I don't even know if he knew what Communism was. He lived under it in Russia, and he didn't like it. He wanted to come back here. So he's out of Mexico City to try to get a visa to go to Cuba. Mexico City is being monitored by the Central Intelligence Agency because that's where people go to get entry to Havana. Couldn't get there through the United States. So the CIA is watching it. So Oswald saunters in to the Mexico City, Cuban consulate, and they reject him because he was a nut. Anybody knowing him knew that. Now, we're not going to give you credentials. Oswald's mad, he comes back to Texas. So that was what that was all about. CIA picked him up down there, saw him, and then he was surveilled to some extent in Dallas.
- [30:55]
So he was on their radar. He wasn't a completely random.
- [30:58]
Oh, absolutely. Not only on a radar. He had a minder. He had a CIA minder in Dallas, a guy named George the More, who taught at Bishop College, a black school, and befriended Lee Harvey Oswald through his wife Marina, because the Moorenschild spoke Russian, and there was no reason for de Morenshiel to be hanging around with Oswald. Moorenshield was an aristocrat, a college professor. Oswald could barely write a sentence. And I think I can prove it, that SHIELD was Oswald's minder. For the CIA kept an eye on him.
- [31:39]
Right.
- [31:39]
When the Congressional committee investigating the assassination approached the Moore and Shield in Florida years later, de Moore and Shield killed himself.
- [31:50]
Wow. Wow. Do you think that this is mostly chalked up correctly to the incompetence of the intelligence community? I mean, as we just said, he definitely was not missing. They knew who he was. They knew that he could be a problem. Is it not some nefarious plot as so many people have thought for so many years? Is it mostly just incompetence or is it something else?
- [32:14]
I don't know if I use the word incompetence, Ali. I mean, they were watching thousands of people. Yeah, because the Cuban Missile Crisis, because the Russians had infiltrated themselves into the island of Cuba. They were watching a lot of people. The CIA. She was cooperating with Castro, who was spying for Castro. And Oswald pops up. They didn't know a lot about him, so they put somebody on him. I don't know if that's incompetent.
- [32:38]
Right. Who do you think is the most misunderstood president that you have studied and written about?
- [32:45]
Now, that's an interesting question. So we have Confronting the Presidents out now. Misunderstood. Maybe Harry Truman. Truman was a really good president and he got booted out of there with a record low approval rating because the press didn't like him after Franklin Roosevelt's four terms. But Harry is a tough guy and he did the right thing, made very, very tough decisions. And so maybe Truman got the short end of it and was misunderstood.
- [33:19]
What's one thing that you wish people knew about the presidents? Could it be any one president or just about our presidents in general?
- [33:28]
Well, it just meant. And some are competent and some are not, some are honest and some are not. You can't generalize about them. You have to take them one by one. All flawed in some degree, because all human beings are flawed. So my job is to study their lives, study their policies, find out if they had a good or bad effect on the country during their term or terms, and then come to that conclusion. Which is why Confronting the President was on the New York Times bestsellers for six months. Yes, because we tell the truth here. I don't favor any president. I thought Barack Obama was a pretty good president. Get conservatives go crazy. All right? I said, look, I analyze this guy as a guy, all right? He made big mistakes. There's no doubt about it. But every single president makes big mistakes. Right? But as far as an efficient guy, a guy with a vision, I don't really agree with his vision. He wants a much bigger government to kind of shepherd people through life. I'm more of a self reliance guy myself. But, you know, my job is to analyze what he did and how he did it. And I thought he was essentially honest when he was in office.
- [34:38]
And what about this president? What do you think about Trump's first term so far versus his last term?
- [34:45]
Well, Trump is much more assertive now, much more confident, and he's on a few different missions. One is retribution for what he suffered, and I don't have any objection to that. If evil people, bad people, corrupt people, went after him, he should deal with those people now that he has the opportunity. So I'm not one of those people go, ooh, it was bad. It's not bad. All right? If you can take bad people off the map, you take them off the map. That's what my upcoming book, Confronting Evil, is all about. Anyway. It's undefined with Trump. He's trying to do a tremendous amount. Obviously. He was very successful in the border, in immigration. He's plotting ahead. It looks like it's going to be effective to get these criminals out. The tariffs could go either way and his legacy depends on that. I think he wants peace. I think he wants a Ukraine cease fire, he wants a Gaza ceasefire, he wants Iran to stop with the nukes. All those are good things. Now, his style is his style. I've known him 35 years. I talk to him on a regular basis. I don't have any problem with his style because I'm bombastic too, so it doesn't offend me. But I understand Americans who go, oh, this guy's so over the top. But I think he's trying to do the right thing for the country and I hope that he succeeds.
- [36:16]
Quick pause to tell you guys about We Heart Nutrition. All right. I absolutely love We Heart Nutrition. The products that I take every day. I take their postnatal vitamin, I take their iron supplement, I take their wholesome balance product. This is their new supplement that is supposed to help women's hormones and I've been taking it for a little over a month. And I really can see a difference. If you are someone who struggles with irritability before your period. So we're talking about PMS symptoms. If you are postpartum and you need some hormone regulation, if you are perimenopause or menopause and you need hormone regulation, then you need to try their wholesome balance product. It is filled with clinically backed ingredients like saffron, ginger, curcumin, key B vitamins, all in research supported doses. The great thing about all of my supplements from We Heart Nutrition is that I know that the ingredients are all in the most bioavailable form. So my body is really absorbing it. I've been able to tell a big difference in my health, my hair, skin and nails. Go to weheartnutrition.com Grab your first bottle of Wholesome Balance. Use my code ALLY for 20 off weheartnutrition.com code ALI if I remember correctly, you had something which some people may find controversial or contentious to say about the guy that was deported to El Salvador. There's a lot of conflict over this right now whether he should have been deported or not. There was a stay on his deportation. I think. If I remember correctly, you said he should not have been deported, which of course, Trump is defending his decision to deport this guy. And now he's in El Salvador in prison and we've got Congress people from the Democrats going down there to try to visit him. What's your take on it?
- [38:09]
So he should not have been deported. And the Homeland Security admits that because they were rounding up gang members and his status was still ill defined. What you have to understand about Garcia is that his case, Ali was in the courts, is in the courts. He applied for asylum. The judge accepted his application. It is being adjudicated now as we speak. So when you are in the system, under our constitution, you have due process, which is what the Supreme Court ruled that you have to bring him back from El Salvador so he can go through what's already begun, the American justice system. Now, I'm just doing this as a practical matter. I don't think this guy is going to turn out to be a good guy. I think he's going to turn out to be a bad guy.
- [39:16]
Right.
- [39:16]
And I base that on the stop that the Tennessee police made where he had a bunch of undocumented people with him in a van. What were they doing there? And the Tennessee people did not arrest him and he went on his merry way. But if you're in a van, you're in Tennessee with other undocumented, there's a reason you're there. So I think this guy's going to turn out to be dirty. However, I think the president's making a mistake by not doing what the Supreme Court would like him to do because he's going to need. Donald Trump's going to need that Supreme Court all throughout his term. And I would not be alienating those people if I were him.
- [39:58]
Yeah. So it's a separate issue that this guy is probably a bad dude. It's even a separate issue maybe that he should be deported. Right. But that this process just didn't go the way that it was supposed to. He's also been, you know, eventually I'm.
- [40:14]
Pretty confident this man will be deported.
- [40:16]
Right.
- [40:17]
Okay. But you got to do it under what the Constitution says, due process. Can't just say not going to do due process on him. If he's Ms. 13, if the justice Department can approve that, then he's gone. Because Trump wrote an executive order saying, if you're a member of Ms. 13, you're a terrorist. Bang. You don't have the process. We can kill you under that Bush Anti terrorism Act.
- [40:45]
After 9, 11, what is your thought? I know you mentioned tariffs when do you think the tariff stuff is going to calm down? I know we all hope that he is successful. He's had. His legacy rides on that. I mean, I guess. Do you think it's going to calm down? And if so, when?
- [41:01]
Well, Trump's done a fabulous job, if you read my book, Killing the Killers, Dismantling worldwide terrorism, the most effective president by far. In doing so, he wiped out isis. He got Soleimani, the chief terrorist of the Iranian operation. I mean, Trump is a tough guy on a terror front. And I remember a conversation I had with him after he lost the election in 20 about, why didn't you designate the drug cartels as terrorists back then? And he had a couple of reasons, but I said, if you get another crack at it, you got to make them terrorists. And he absolutely did that in his executive order so that we can send US Military after those cartel people, and we may, because the smuggling of drugs into the USA is not abated, and it's a huge problem.
- [41:54]
Okay, my final questions for you. I have nothing to do with politics or the news. If I can ask you some career questions, maybe a life question. For anyone listening out there, is there any point in your career, one or two, that you can look back on and you could say, gosh, I wish I would have handled that differently. And if someone were in that position now, here's what I would tell them.
- [42:17]
Sure, millions of things. I've been in the media business for 50 years. In fact, on my TV broadcast in Ospin News, we did a segment on. There's only two other TV journalists with longer tenures on a national level than me, Brit Hume and Leslie Stall. So I've been around forever, 50 years. I made tons of mistakes in my career, but they were mistakes, not malicious. They were just mistakes, because that's what people are fallible. But I would say, anybody. Look, the most important thing in your life is to get paid for what you like to do. If you can figure out a way that people will pay you for doing something that you like to do, you'll have a happy life. And you got to do the personal side, too. But that takes care of the vocational side. That's number one. And number two, you got to work your butt off. I mean, I outworked everybody. And you got to keep yourself in good shape physically and mentally. And you got to be honest. I mean, I can't tell you how many people I know. They just take the money and they do what they're told to do. And I never did that. Not one time in 50 years. So that would be my advice.
- [43:32]
That's really good. Well, thank you so much, Bill O'Reilly. I really appreciate you taking the time to come on. And I know that you said that you've got your new book, confronting Evil, coming out. When does that come out?
- [43:42]
September 9th. And I have to dispel a rumor. Glenn Beck is not in the book. He didn't make the cut.
- [43:49]
Oh, okay. I won't tell him. He'll have to read it for himself before he figures that out.
- [43:54]
I think he was worried about it.
- [43:56]
Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time to come on.