Bill O’Reilly is clearly continuing his shameless and cowardly surrender to Sharia Law. Daily on his program, The O’Reilly Factor on FoxNews.com, he engages in the standard and phony obfuscations about the jihadi threat the West faces, consistently refusing to honestly name and label the Islamic foundations of the terrorist enterprise. Back in April 2010, he blatantly sided with our society’s dhimmis, blaming South Park for doing the Mohammed shows. Rather than praising Parker’s and Stone’s courage, standing up for their right to make any script they wished, and denouncing the despots who threatened their lives (and the tenets of the Islamic religion that sanction such threats), O’Reilly publicly promoted submitting to Sharia Law, thereby surrendering to the forces who killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh.
Now, this past Tuesday, on his July 13 program, O’Reilly hit a new low, making a grotesque statement about the millions of suffering persecuted Muslim women around the world. In a bizarre debate with Laura Ingraham about France’s move to ban the burqa, O’Reilly flippantly jokes about a tragic and deadly reality in which any serious, sensitive person would find nothing laughable. With great self-satisfaction, O’Reilly teases Ingraham about “rooting for the French” while mind-bogglingly siding against the French ban. He makes a disparaging reference to “the Western eye” to imply that forced veiling is only oppressive through our Western lens — as though there is no universal standard of human rights. Priding himself on being for “tolerance” and, therefore, for being in favor of allowing Muslim women to veil, he affirms that “most” Muslim women want to veil themselves.
A vile statement like this reveals such ignorance and heartlessness in the face of mass human suffering that one does not even know where to begin in response. But here, nevertheless, the attempt shall be made:
First and foremost, stating that “most” people favor something in an environment where verbalized dissent or oppositional action is viciously punished is meaningless. In other words, to say that “most” Cubans support Castro or that “most” North Koreans support Kim Jong Il, when anti-regime thoughts and acts will, in these circumstances, get a Cuban or North Korean imprisoned, tortured or killed, is disingenuous and erroneous to the extreme.
Thus, the slightest suggestion that Muslim women “want” to veil themselves pushes millions of suffering victims into invisibility. Under Islamic gender apartheid, expressions and actions by women in support of the ingredients of the tyranny that enslave them are utterly hollow if, within the societal structure, any contrary expression or behavior will be punished by social stigma, imprisonment, maiming, mutilation, torture, gang rape and execution. So, in Islamic cultures, women do not have a choice concerning whether they can veil or not veil. If they decide to throw their covering off, they will face horrendous punishment, which includes, like in the case of 20-year-old Fatima Bibi, acid being thrown in the face and, as in the case of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez, murder.
This tragic suffering of Muslim women under these barbaric and sadistic circumstances of Islamic misogyny is tragically manifested in these heart-breaking photos of Muslim women, collected by feminist hero Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who have been disfigured by acid attacks for having trespassed the vicious codes of Islamic Law. I encourage Bill O’Reilly to take the time out to look at these pictures of real women whose faces have been disfigured by Muslim men. I encourage him to ask himself: Why did these women suffer these savage attacks? What theology inspires this murderous rage? Most importantly: Does it make sense, and can one possess even a shred of a real human heart, to make joking statements in support of Muslim women veiling when one knows that not veiling presents terrifying consequences to the women?
If a person truly cares for human justice, doesn’t it make more sense to stand up for Muslim women’s right not to veil and not to face ferocious violence and mutilation if they choose not veil? If a person has true integrity, wouldn’t they be interested in the Islamic teachings, rooted in the Qur’an (i.e. Sura 24:31) and in the hadiths, that mandate veiling and sanction this kind of fascism against women? Wouldn’t a person who is truly devoted to human rights prioritize exposing these teachings and confront them in an effort to eradicate the fertile soil in which the oppression of Muslim women grows?
The key issue, therefore, is that Muslim women are not free to make their own choices and making the wrong choices will culminate in severe punishment. How does Bill O’Reilly not know this? And if he knows it, how can he so cavalierly and flippantly talk about how “most” Muslim women supposedly want to veil? What if Jews, for instance, were once again forced, in any given society, to suddenly start wearing mandatory articles of clothing to identify and distinguish themselves from other people? Would O’Reilly be nonchalantly setting up creepy debates with Laura Ingraham on this issue as well, taking the side of how “most” Jews in that particular situation somehow supposedly wanted to wear the articles of clothing? Does he really not recognize the complete accuracy of this analogy? And does he not gauge the wound he would be delivering to the Jewish people about whom he was speaking? Does he not recognize the same wound he is delivering, with his smug mercilessness, to the millions of Muslim women suffering behind the Islamic Iron Curtain?
Disagree.
O'Reily sticks to his job as an interviewer; to question, provoke, and stimulate a lively conversation with his guests about their point of view.
His point of view is not the subject of this interview. Do you have another example?
This man has long since lost any credibility with conservatives.
I opine from previous Oreilly comments that he is the most liberal of the conservative commentators-by design. His so called Talking Points is usually loaded with carefully planned comments that do not inform the public of the dangers of Obama's communist type of plan. Oreilly and Obama are from Harvard. It seems they both use an elitist mentallity in deally with the public. Oreilly needs to swich to CNN or lower.
Excellent article outlining with perfect logic just how obscene these people really are – and this is what they have in mind for the world. This is not a religion. It is a criminal organization masquerading as a religion – and it has always done so.
No matter what sanguinary wars and actionsf the other existing religions of the world have promoted or supported, Islam is the only one that actually has holy writ that demands conquest, murder, rape and pillage. That is the description of a criminal organization.
As for O’Reilly….he is a phony. I have watched him backpedal over the years because he can’t take the heat. I have watched his interviews and those times when he was on a panel and being attacked….he didn’t have the intellectual prowess or intellectual answers to respond without angry outbursts. He is a phony, and when I say that to my conservative friends they all agree!
I have to conclude that he has a large staff that does all the research and feed him the answers. In other words.; he needs prompters as badly as Obama needs teleprompters and without them he is lost.
Just my view.
Bill's response to Laura about 'most Muslim women want to veil themselves' is expected from a person ignorant of the facts about Islam. I believe Bill has lost his edge by becoming so much like the liberal media. A person with real moral convictions could not play around so flippantly with such disgusting acts toward another human being.
I once watched Bill's program daily but stopped watching about six months ago. He appeared to show a more liberal leaning and it was showing.
It's good to see both sides of a situation but if one is to favor one or the other on a commentary program, the constitutional, patriotic, side should show through on American TV programs.
Many times I wonder exactly WHERE O'Reilly is COMING FROM!! He seems to be a :"Closet Liberal" with his intent to be "Middle of the Road" comments. In fact, he even stated that he "Believes that Obama was born in America". Say WHAT!!?
Ingraham told him bluntly: "You LOVE the Obamas!!". Seems she is right.
And, oh by the way … Laura never looked so GOOD!!!!
Bill O’Reilly doesn't seem to be moved by anything, other then the money Fox pays him.
I think he is a feline.
I agree that O'Reilly's interest is money but that is second to his ego. He tries hard to throw a bone to the left and right while hiding behind the misnomer, No Spin Zone. He makes sure not to offend the left because he likes them chasing after him which the right will not do. Cocktail parties with liberals are frequent and good for the ego.
He also likes to have on his show other Fox stars like Beck, Ingraham, Kelly, Malkin, etc., to attract audience but once they are there he tries to put them down while hiding behind the "I'm just joking" facade.
Since Fox News is the only game in town for conservatives, anyone in that time slot would likely be the leader on cable news. We just tolerate O'Reilly because there is nowhere else to go.
O'Reilly is a pompoused ass and I can't stand the sound of his voice. He is arrogant and condescending to every guest he brings on, well, except maybe that "Dr" Mark Lamont Hill. I wish to hell that FOX would switch his time schedule so that I could watch Hannity at 8 PM since I am required to get up at 0400 to get to work. O'Reilly is a joke and Jamie is 100% correct in his assesment of this fool.
Excellent analysis. O'Reilly is well past his prime. I think, in his decline, he has become fearful. To not recognize the threat of the muslim theocracy is idiocy. Unfortunately, the ancient mindset of these people is just not compatible with western values or Christianity, and never will be. I will look forward to reading your book.
I stopped watching Bill O'Reilly long time ago. He is an egotistical pompous fool. The show is about him; he constantly interrupts his guests and makes sure to have the last word. Has he ever apologized or retract comments when he has been shown wrong on an issue? He always supported the global warming issue saying he "believed" it was real——then talked about it in his show as a skeptic. What happened to the global warming believer? No explanation given. Bill O'Reilly seems to have an inferiority compex; always portraying himself as "our protector". He uses the word "folks" and "looking out for you" often as if only Bill could guide us in this complex world. Fox News should replace this fool with Laura Ingraham.
The gentleman (O'reilly) is moved by nothing except his bank account. O'reilly is on 3 hours a night and has a few million viewers and is number 1 for the show. Rush, has as many listeners in any 15 minute segment. Send a valid point into O'reilly and he will counter it with some Lib's comment that buttresses O'reilly's point of view. If the facts were known, O'reilly got a hold of a jug of Obama's Kool Ade and vcted for the clown!
Bill O'Reilly lost me a long time ago. What I can't figure out is why Glenn Beck does appearances with him.
Bill O 'reilly wants the benefits and status of main stream media :The interviews, normally absent on Fox ,have been granted to him -and for that enhancement to his status -he has sold out.
I'm curious to know just exactly what happened to change O'Reilly's thinking so drastically. Shortly after 9/11 he was screaming that what we were going through was a religious war. Now he's doing a complete about face and not only making feckless, ignorant and uninformed remarks about the burqa but going on about how great it is that the Obama administration is telling NASA to reach out to the Muslims and thinks it would be good if ALL US agencies would do the same since, in his opinion, it's a good thing to try to help Muslims feel good about themselves. He really is a pinhead.
Thanks Jamie. I am conservitive and glad to see someone else see O 'Reilly for what he is.
Frank
Ever since the Sheikh showed up with all that money, both O'Reilly and FOX NEWS listen very closely to the perspectives of their Islamic investors. The issue of ISLAM is never seriously discussed or revealed by any network anymore. FOX was the last one with the cojones to do so, but FOX sold its cojones to Arab investors.
O' Reilly is a fence straddler of the worst kind. His comments with no knowledge of Islam terror on women is the worse I have seen. I saw the debate on Fox with Laura and O,Reilly is a real hack. Himwilly
try a veil on your snout, O'Reilly! Do it for, say, a month, THEN talk to us about your feeeelin'………………….you inbecile
Much as I dislike the idea of women behind a burqa for many reasons not the least of which is the submission it represents. This is America where, while fading of late, liberty and personal freedom remain paramount. If a woman CHOOSES to wear it, she should be free to do it. In France, they are outlawing it. I won't make a value judgement on French freedom and liberty but here we shouldn't have speech codes and codes that tell us how to dress or practice the religion or customs we choose. If people are assaulted for not practicing this cultural way, then the perpetrators should punished. Assault is assault regardless the reason.
O'reilly is normally quite comfortable telling other how to live. His "cultural wars" often include restricting others based on his rather narrower standards. Freedom means accepting in others what you would not necessarily do or say yourself.
I genuinely like Bill O'Reilly, he is fierce on some issues – his beatdown on Barney Frank is a classic. But like many traditional Democrats, he has a few hot button issues that cause him to gyrate wildly away from his conservative core and into the fringe left. His hatred of corporations is one, evidently fear of being labled an Islamophobe is another.
I love ya Bill, but you can be such a bonehead at times!
I love Bill O'Reilly, but he can be such a bone-head at times.
1.
Here is what I think the mysterious Mr O'Reilly might be thinking.
He is as I understand it a right wing christian. My guess is that he supports the "right" of *any* religion to use *any* tactic to impose its control. By supporting Islamists in whatever they wish to do he feels he is supporting his own religious agenda.
It's all about the wielding of power.
He would I guess love it of he could persuade his religion to adopt some or all of the trapping of the odious Islamic faiths – as long as he was one of the high priests weilding the cudgels. Stick his head in a black bag for a few years in the desert and I would bet he would soon change his tune.
Perhaps the best way for Mr O'Reilly to show his support would be to wear a black bag on his head when on the air for the next year or twenty? No I thought not – black bags are for "other people" in Mr O'Reilly's world.
I am jumping with joy at the prospects of my near neighbours (the French) taking the first small steps in returning power to more of the people and away from Islamic priests whose practices disgust me.
Vive La Republique!
2.
Regarding tolerance.
It is ludicrous to speak of the failure to embrace the burka as intolerance. It is the exact opposite. The intolerant are those who force these evil practises on their population. I support tolerance, and tolerance includes not stoning women to death or forcing them to hide in black bags.
3.
The burka is a symbol of repression. It is a sign of power, an indicator that not far away there are priests with the power to put people in bags at their whim, and perhaps with the power of life and death over you and me. The sooner there are more bans the better.
I live in the UK.
On many issues Bill is obviously a light weight. Like a broken clock he is sometimes right in issues he champions but this one made me sick!____It seems that he waits for his staff briefings which on this issue are on the surface not really in depth and then he pontificates as if he is the expert.____At least some of his guests get it!
I was watching him the other night when he said he saw nothing wrong with NASA's public outreach to islamic countries. He then truly walked the walk of the dhimmi by stating that anything we try to help keep these people from attacking us was to the good.
Is it too much to ask that the leading conservative talk show host, #1 in cable network news (as they tell me FIFTY times an hour during the show!!) would have actually defended our culture of Western Civilization?
Extolling the obvious virtues of our Judeo-Christian values, liberty and self-determination, while underscoring some of the indisputable deficiencies that are easily discernible with even the most cursory examination of ANY muslim controlled country on the planet would have been a nice start!!
O'Really is not a conservative and never has been nor claimed to be one. He is above all a self-aggrandizing, sophomoric, self-absorbed, left-wing wanna be. He knows that in order to get invited to Manhattan siorees he must tow the left wing line.
Plus as Gary-below- points out, Fox is partially owned by a SA. So money talks.
It is too bad tha Oreally would not take a trip to some Muslim nation to see how women are treated. Or that he would not do a show on Rifqa Bary the beautiful young girl who will most assuredly be killed by her father for wanting to be a western girl.
Actually I'd like to see FPM do a story or Rifqa. hint.hint…
I refuse to watch Oreally.
This is what occurs when a suadi prince owns a fourth of the network. There is immediate censorship and the apologists for islamic extremism are brought out to say how silly it is for western civilization to be defended.
Please stop using the word Conservative Bill. You are morphing into something not resembling one at all!
Doesn't some Soddy Barbarian own a percentage of NEWS? NEWS owns FOX doesn't it?
Yeah prince alwaleed bin talal is the second largest shareholder of fox news behind Murdoch. He has bragged about influencing fox's coverage of riots in France, claiming he got them to change the narrative to say YOUTH riots instead of the more accurate MUSLIM YOUTH riots.
Indeed it's not just O' Reilly. I'm sure some of you remember Glen Beck calling Geert Wilders a fascist! A FASCIST!! And as far as I know he has never apologized for calling the GREATEST DEFENDER OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION alive today a FACIST!!
I'd now like to quote rahm emanuel, for the benefit of B'O, GB, and the rest of the dhimmis at fox………"ARE YOU GUYS F'N RETARDED?!!"
"Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in News Corp — the parent company of Fox News — making him the largest shareholder outside the family of News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch."
Bin Talal "achieved notoriety after 9/11 when he came to Ground Zero to publicly present former Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million dollar check for disaster relief at a time when the site was still smoldering. bin Talal took the opportunity to suggest that the US “must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack,” and “re-examine its policies in the Middle East” i.e., its policies concerning the JEWS.
This is who Fox is in bed with. Is it any wonder O'Reilly says the things he says? Is it any wonder O'Reilly takes positions he takes?
Yes, its clear he's been bought. Like they say, if you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you wake up with fleas. O'Reilly seems to be as flea-bitten as they come.
O'Reilly does not realize it is usually not a choice. We in the West are so imbued with a sense of freedom, alcohol,clothing, tobacco, mandatory helmet law, etc., restrictions tend to rankle us.
Here in our state, we have no mandatory helmet law. Motorcycle riders do not have to wear a helmet, though many do.
"…he affirms that “most” Muslim women want to veil themselves."
Well sure they do, because nothing messes up your hair and makeup like a block of concrete smashed into your face during a stoning.
"Fox News is partially owned by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who has a 7 percent stake in Fox's parent company, News Corp. According to concerned conservatives, Alwaleed has reportedly brought this influence to bear in pressuring Fox to change its coverage of the Paris riots, and lord knows what else. …"
More at http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/fox-news-owned-by-...
My wife and I can't even watch him any more. He bends over so far in an attempt to find balance that he might as well head on over to CNN or maybe MSNBC.
I actually quit watching him mostly when he was involved in his scandle. He always preaches that Americans love honesty and urges people to be honest and not hide things. Yet, that is exactly what he did. He buried his own scandle after weeks of shouting he was going to expose the truth of his integrity.
My wife and I quit watching him long ago. He bends over so far to accomodate the opposing or liberal view that it is shameful. He infuriates me when he accepts what should be an obvious wrong.
Just putting that moron Mark Lamont Hill on his show and discussing serious issues with him is evidence of the decline of the O'Reilly Factor.
Bill O'Reilly is as conservative as Olbermann and Matthews.
Bill O'Reilly is an odd duck. He gets it right much of the time and has an appealing Vin Scully-style vocal delivery. On the other hand, he doesn't really do any critical thinking beyond paint-by-numbers talking points. It seems Fox News Channel's newfound financial dependence on Arab paymasters has caused him to toe the party line. Rupert Murdoch needs to grow a pair as well.
Roger Ailes is wholly beholden to financing coming from the Islamic world. He will not allow anyone on his network to be openly critical of anything related to Sharia. Jihadist ideology will be whitewashed as much as possible.
Brilliantly stated, Mr. Glazov – I hope O'Reilly reads this.
What happened to Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to make them change their views on Islam is obviously the purchase of a percentage of FOX by a Saudi prince. We saw it coming.
And this sort of Islamization will continue wherever Muslim fanatics start owning things. O'Reilly and Beck have proved themselves only to be interested in who pays them – they have lost all integrity, as far as I am concerned.
On few iissues I side with fanatic Jewish-fasists here, but on this case, I find myself in agreement. Burqa or veil should not be tolerated anywhere, since it is no less cruel than burying women alive. Besides, society has the right to know the identity of people on the streets, especially when there is threat of terrorism.
However, the West, especially USA-Inc and UK, is hypocritical regarding their care about human rights. These two countries, led by warmongers and international corporations, to promote their bloody interests, have killed millions of humans around the world. Their recent invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, their support of Zionist agression and massacres, their acts of tortures in prisons, their massacres, and atrocities against chilrend and women, their support of oppressive regimes such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt… yes, all these demonstrate the hypocrisy of Christendom.
I think Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham are missing the point just a bit. What Muslim women "want" is secondary, it seems to me. I have personally read – on at least one "Islam in the West" political forum I belonged to – an educated Muslim woman who celebrated the status that women are subject to under Islam. Little doubt there are millions just like her.
The point is, Muslims who chose to live in the west should heed the proverb: "(When) in Rome, do as the Romans do," so long as what the Romans are doing is not unreasonable. Why should folks in the west tolerate symbols of barbarism and oppression? Because of the First Amendment, we must tolerate manifestations of savagery and inhuman servitude?
Arselifters are brought up to think they are the best people. They don't respect anything but their own. That's why they don't integrate in the West and its why most everyone expect leftards loathe them. The EDL in the UK didn't form because they were racists who don't like foreigners, they formed due to the racism of arselifters.
I stopped watching O'Reilly when he scoffed at the idea and anyone who knows it to be true, that Obam Bam is a Socialist. Like they used to say about the passive citizens when Hitler was on the march, O'Reilly is vying for a desk job when Obam Bam becomes president for life.
Wait a minute! What do you expect when a Saudi Prince buys 5% of Murdock's empire? O'Reilly is the point man to soften everything Muslim-Islam.
Bill is getting his instructions from the top.
That said, let's all hammer the crap out of him.
But Bill invites regularly people who are against morons including Ingraham, Miller, GB, Goldberg etc., he slightly opposed them but it is a show. He let them speak. So he is ok, do not attack him, he is OK, he advertize the Ingraham's book. Do not you understand this? This way it workd better thab straight attack.
Mike
Seems like Bill is loosing touch with reality. It's like he more into himself than the truth these days.
I used to worship Bill O'Reilly and watch his show on a daily basis. But, in his own words, I "wised up". I remember being very uncomfortable hearing him bash oil companies for "obscene" profits and "price-gouging". And let's not forget his sucking up to Barak Obama either. And now this? For once the French did something that deserves our support and respect and all he can do is flash his smug smile and berate it? He's shifted so much to the left it's not even funny. He's become a progressive he always feared.
When one hears uninformed rantings of a TV host, we then disbelieve most of what he says. O'Reilly's tactic is to interrupt and overpower anyone who speaks from a different point of view. He needs an education, a course in conversation, and some good manners.
Full face coverings should never be accepted in a free society, because that clothing is indicative of extremist thinking and determination to NOT assimilate into our culture. Multiculturalism cannot work when the foundations of our beliefs systems contradict each other. If they want the prosperity of the west, they need to leave behind all cultural trappings of their former country, that generate subservience, violence, and poverty. Don't bring your problems to the new land!
Murdoch sold "out" to the Saud – that's why Fox / O'Reilly won't tell the truth. It's the reason Breitbart needs to get on the air as quickly as possible. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/s…
Bill O'Reilly is not the brightest bulb in the tree.
O'Reilly likes to play the role of being the sanest person in the room. Whenever he's on the losing side of an issue he turns cute and laughs his way out of it. I think he's also something of a misogynist in the way he verbally bullies the women on his show. Is it possible to be both a lecher and a misogynist?
It sure is.
Seems to me he Is always on A fence trying to decide what side he will be on that day! He is confused and needs Help.
We have to teach everyone to say islam is not religion it is coult. the west have to stop islam or america & the west become muslim country & muslim will kill anyone not musalim according to sora in quran kill all unbeleive of muhammed.
Wake up America & the west we left middleeast to islam then islam come to kill us in america wake up before is too late.