This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
I guess you want my views on Bill O’Reilly. He calls his political show as consisting of a “no-spin zone.” In the 21st century, Bill O’Reilly is one of the slickest deceptions in the world. I’ve commented on him before, but it’s time to outline his true agenda in a more concrete fashion. The first time I heard of Bill O’Reilly was in 2002. For years, he has been a popular political commentator. He calls his show the #1 popular TV political commentary show in cable television. A lot of people look at him, because typically we Americans love to see the views of controversial people (whether we agree with them or not). Bill O’Reilly is of course a controversial individual. He wrote at least 8 books. He was born in New York City. His parents are William
James Sr. (who died) and Winifred Angela Drake O’Reilly. His father was an accountant for the oil company of Caltex. By 1951, his family moved into Levittown on
Long Island. His sister is Janet. He graduated from Chainade High School (which is a private Catholic boys high school in Mineola). He attended Marist College. He spent his junior year of college in the Queen Mary College at the University of London. He viewed the Vietnam War as going wrong. He received his B.A. in History in 1971. He later taught history and English at Monsignor Pace High School for 2 years in Miami, Florida. He anchored TV stations all over the Northeast, Dallas, and Portland, Oregon. He is famous for being apart of Inside Edition. He was the first television host from a national current affairs program on the scene of the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Today, he lives in Manhasset, New York. He married a public relations executive named Maureen E. McPhilmy in 1995. He has a daughter named Madeline born in 1998 and a son named Spencer, who was born in 2003. There was a sexual harassment controversy with
O’Reilly sued Mackris in October 13, 2004, because he believed that Mackris and her lawyer Benedict P. Morelli was using extortion against him (for $60 million). Andrea
O’Reilly. Andrea Mackris accused Bill O’Reilly of sexually harassing him. Mackris said that Bill O’Reilly used explicit sexual phone calls toward her. O’Reilly still denies all charges, but both lawsuits were dropped after Fox News and O'Reilly agreed to pay Mackris an undisclosed settlement amount, which, according to the Washington Post, was likely millions of dollars. Today , his O’Reilly Factor is still controversial and popular. He plans on writing a book describing the political and historical dynamic of Barack Obama including his Presidency.
Bill O’Reilly claims to be an Independent or a traditionalist. Yet, back during the 1990’s, Bill O’Reilly was a registered Republican. This document proves it conclusively. Now, in 2009, he’s a registered Independent. Subsequently, it’s easy to deduce that Bill O’Reilly was once in adherence to one of the 2 major political parties.
Bill O‘Reilly is apart of the FOX News Network. Barack Obama and his allies criticize FOX for
coverage on their administration. The truth is that strong criticism against the powers that be is legitimate. Without oversight of the Presidency, then that leaves intimidation. No society should be intimidated by its governmental officials at all. This doesn’t mean that FOX News is an angel or perfect. FOX is headed by Knight of St. Gregory Rupert Murdoch. They have been involved in claiming that plans for FEMA Camps don’t exist (as said by Glen Beck), they demonize the 9/11 Truth Movement as equivalent to extremists (which is false), many of their hosts support the Afghanistan war, and some of them follow the philosophy of the discredited neo-conservatives.
On his show, Bill O’Reilly would raise his voice to make a point. Sometimes, he will raise his voice at a person for no legitimate reason as he did toward Jeremy Glick. Bill O’Reilly is anti-Second Amendment is a slick wary. He
call the President of the Gun Owners of America President Larry Pratt (although I disagree with Pratt’s CNP ties) a nutcase just because Bill O’Reilly opposes the assault weapons ban (according to an WND article that was posted on the Free Republic in 7/26/2004. The reality is that the assault weapons ban being eliminated didn’t massively effect gun crimes at all). The right of self defense is a paramount right to protect against tyrannical government. At least, Bill doesn’t call himself a conservative since he isn’t a real conservative. He’s a man that’s paid to promote the establishment line on most issues and get the public to be placed into divisions from left vs. right to traditionalist vs. progressive. Life is much more complex than these quaint labels. We’re independent human beings and we have a right to be independent, free thinking human beings. The vast majority of the guests on Bill O’Reilly’s show are establishment Republicans like Karl Rove, Laura Ingraham, Gretchen Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Jane Skinner,
Amanda Carpenter, Steve Doocy, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, Neil Cavuto Newt Gingrich, Bernie Goldberg, and I can go down the list for more people. In September of 2009, O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 174 guests, 141 Republicans, and 33 Democrats. There is bias on MSNBC and CNN, so this isn’t an one network deal though.
Verily, the majority of the American public understands the mainstream media is a mess and regularly spew out spin, deception, and lies. Tons of the U.S. media big wigs governing this apparatus are in the Bilderberg Group [whose members were the late Peter Jennings, Bill Moyers, George Stephanolopolis, and Paul Gigot], the Council on Foreign Relations [with people like Michael Eisner, Richard Parsons, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Lesley Stahl, Tom Brokaw, Carl Zelnick, Paula Zahn, Robin Wright, Fareed Zakaria], the Trilateral Commission [with people likeGeorge Will, Carl T. Rowan, Wyatt Johnson], and the Bohemian Grove [whose famous members include William Randolph Hearst Jr., William F. Buckley, Merv Griffin]. So it isn’t surprising to see pro-elite canards since their minions report their fables. These guys urge to mold us into sheeple and zombies unconditionally giving them praise instead of giving them a watchful eye for radical change. The media scaled into another level of propaganda when FOX News was composed in 1996. FOX News is a station that feeds millions of viewers the food of imperialism, submission to the status quo, and a hatred for opposing [potent] opinions about the truth on 9/11 plus the Bush family. Remaining to attempt for justifying the illegal war inside Iraq is another slogan of that network. The leaders of this empire are Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch (a CFR member and an Australian billionaire). Rupert Murdoch is also a slick pornographer: “…don’t bet that fool you into thinking that Murdoch is a Christian. You see, he
is also a pornography magnate ‘whose tabloids in Britain profit from their lurid, bare picture of beautiful young women…The new Seventeen magazine is described as ‘flashy, racy, titillating, hip…U.S. News & World Report mentioned that Rupert’s Sun magazine built its 3.5 million circulation with a steady diet of upper-crust scandals, royalty’s gaffes and foibles and pictures of topless models.” (Billy Graham and Friends: A Hidden Agenda?” By Dr. Cathy Burns pgs. 388-389. Burns used other sources as well. Even the Chicago Tribune called him “The Prince of Darkness”). Outfoxed, a movie truthfully manifests the corrupt legacy and intimidation tactics of the Fox News Network. Yet, Outfoxed mostly go into the left/right paradigm when MSNBC has many biased stories as well just like FOX News.
Bill O’Reilly and Foreign Policy I disagree with Bill O’Reilly the most on foreign policy affairs. In terms of foreign policy positions, O’Reilly aligns mostly with the agenda of the neo-conservatives. He persistently has an obsession with promoting the war on terror. He believes that Islamic terrorists only understand military force, so that is a justification for the West to attack them. He conveniently omits that many Islamic terrorists were created or aided by intelligence agencies for decades and how the “Islamic threat” have been exaggerated in order to promote a war on terror. The Presidential Directive W199i was instituted prior to 9/11 that block FBI and Defense Department officials from further investigating the suspect terrorists. This doesn’t mean radical Muslims don’t exist in the world. They do as found in Sudan, parts of Pakistan, and other places promoting theocracies, suppression of religious liberty, and the denial of basic rights among women. The reality is that the war on terror is a contrived event similar to the Cold War. Bill
O’Reilly still subscribes to the notion that the Iraq War was noble. It wasn’t because Saddam Hussein was a dictator and did wicked action, but you don’t fight a war based on deception or lies. Iraq wasn’t a direct threat to America and it has no complex weapons of mass destruction. It’s the Iraqi people’s responsibility to create real liberty in Iraq not us. Also, the U.N. sanctions and the Western aide to Saddam made Saddam’s dictatorship last longer. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have murdered thousands of civilians and G.I.s already. Some people even in the Barack Obama administration question the currency policy toward Afghanistan. Karen DeYoung writing for the Washington Post on October 27, 2009 commented that one foreign service officer resigned, because he believed that U.S. occupation is fueling the Afghan “insurgency.“ This person’s name is Matthew Hoh. Hoh fought in Iraq as a former Marine Corps captain. He was a senior U.S. civilian in the Zabul province, which is a Taliban hotbed. Hoh wrote a 4 page letter to the department’s head of personnel expressing his dissent with the strategic purposes of the U.S. in Afghanistan. Senior U.S. officials, concerned that they would lose an outstanding officer and perhaps gain a prominent critic, appealed to him to stay. U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry brought him to Kabul and offered him a job on his senior embassy staff. Hoh declined. From there, he was flown home for a face-to-face meeting with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hoolbrooke still couldn’t convince him to not resign. The good news is that more people are waking up about the propaganda sent by the mainstream media, the new world order agenda that’s promoted by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who was an architect of the modern al-Qaeda network. He wrote in favor of a technocratic society. He is an influence on Barack Obama. He believes in more aggressive action against Russia since he‘s a known Russia-hater), and the violations of our rights in the world. There is a whistleblower who defected from the Pakistani Taliban that has been assassinated just days after he claimed that the group was working with U.S. intelligence in order to destabilize the country. Qari Zainuddin is a tribal leader of the South Waziristan region in Pakistan. He was shot dead on Tuesday by a gunman. The gunman was said to be loyal to Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud. Some believe that Mr. Zainuddin's murder made a serious blow to the military campaign against the military (as support for his faction was considered crucial according to the London tribes). “[It] is a warning to other pro government tribal commanders,” said Mahmood Shah, a retired brigadier who had served as top official in the tribal region. Zainuddin followed the Pakistani government (after he rejected the Meshud's Taliban tribe. The Taliban utilized a string of suicide bombings which targeted mosques and civilians). The Pakistani government claims that Mehsud was responsible for the 2007 assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. One of Qari Zainuddin’s aides, who was also injured in the attack that killed the tribal leader, told the media that a lone gunman was able to enter Zainuddin’s office and open fire, before escaping uninjured. “It was definitely Baitullah’s man who infiltrated our ranks, and he has done his job,” Baz Mohammad told the Associated Press news agency. Zainuddin criticized
Mehsud as committing terrorism and rioting which was not apart of Islamic jihad. He criticized Mehsud heavily. Zainuddin also called Mehshud as an "American agent." Both Iranian and Pakistani media independently covered his remarks, adding that Zainuddin also described Baitullah Mehsud as having strong links with both Indian and Israeli intelligence (of whom he accused of trying to destabilize the nuclear armed nation of Pakistan). Some accuse Indian and U.S. Intelligence of funneling weapons, financial aid, and even fighters to the Pakistani Taliban (in order to pacify Pakistan). These facts were also recently highlighted by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, who admitted that the CIA and his country’s ISI together created the Taliban. The Taliban’s spread into Pakistan has also been connected to intelligence driven plots to Balkanize the middle East. Qari Zainuddin claimed that Mehsud and his men are working agianst Islam. The News reported that: “In interviews to various media organisations on Thursday, Qari Zainuddin and his deputy Haji Turkistan had alleged that Baitullah was an American and Indian agent, he had killed Benazir Bhutto and that the real Jihad was going on in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.” the report stated. “Many diplomats contacted Foreign Office and Interior Ministry officials
as well as media persons, seeking answers to their questions. Some Western diplomats were particularly confused over the claim that Baitullah was an American agent and that he had killed Benazir Bhutto. These diplomats were asking a question that if Baitullah was involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, does that mean that the American authorities were also involved in the conspiracy.” the report continued. Regardless of who killed Bhutto, there is no
doubt that Pakistanis are accusing Baitullah Mehsud of being on the CIA payroll and is being protected by the intelligence apparatus. Mehsud was never targated despite the Pakistani military had requested the US help to kill Baitullah Mehsud on several occasions and provided the US with accurate information of his location (according to Shaukat Qadir, who is a retired brigadier and former vice President plus founder of the Islamad Policy Research Institute). Therefore, there are strange things going on in the war on terror. The West have funding the Taliban and other terrorist groups for a very long time indeed.
There has been a development pertaining to Afghanistan. The New York Times proved that an Afghan opium kingpin in on the CIA payroll. The NY Times omits how for decades the US and the West supported the Golden Crescent drug trade inside of Central Asia. The suspected kingpin is the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The kingpin‘s name is Ahmed Wali Karzai. “The agency pays (Ahmed Wali) Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home,” reports the Times. A 2008 report from the Times proved how Ahmed Wali Karzai told a commander Habibullah Jan via a telephone call to release the vehicle and the drugs (this was in 2004 after security forces discovered a huge tractor trailer full of heroin outside of Kandahar). In 2006, following the discovery of another cache of heroin, “United States investigators told other American officials that they had discovered links between the drug shipment and a bodyguard believed to be an intermediary for Ahmed Wali Karzai.” The Times articles proves how the CIA uses Karzai as a go between Americans and the Taliban. Some suspect Ahmed as crucial in creating phony ballots and polling stations that were attributed to the President’s disputed election victory. It’s assumed that Karzai’s brother is benefiting from the drug trade. The Afghanistan war caused opium production to increase. The Taliban once used a crackdown against the opium trade before 9/11. This doesn’t mean that the Taliban aren’t extremists. They are. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world’s opium, with the equivalent of 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year. Other figures put the number far higher, at around 6,100 tonnes a year. The war in Afghanistan was used to implode the Golden Crescent opium trade according to Professor Michel Chossoudvsky (the West funded the Mujahideen to fight the
Soviets, while the streets of America plus Britain experienced cheap heroin). The deal was that the Mujahideen guerillas wanted the peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Pakistani intelligence facilities this crop of heroin (with hundreds of heroin laboratories) as well. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad according to Michel failed to instigate major seizures or arrests. The CIA was involved in the drug trade globally for decades. Michel Clossodovsky wrote that: “…As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had been funded through the laundering of drug money. “Dirty money” was recycled –through a number of banking institutions (in the Middle East) as well as through anonymous CIA shell companies–, into “covert money,” used to finance various insurgent groups during the Soviet-Afghan war, and its aftermath…” The big picture is that the Afghan opium trade for decades was promotes by the military industrial complex and it has increased with the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan (plus the illegal bombings of Pakistan). On torture, Bill O’Reilly agrees with it, but calls it “enhanced interrogation.” Also, he wants to execute everyone at Gitmo (when most of people there aren’t high level al-Qaeda at all without due process).
*There is even more information about Afghanistan coming out. Some believe that the Taliban might have links to the CIA. This comes after many reports show unmarked helicopters ferrying the Taliban to target people relieving them when cornered. “Just when the police and army managed to surround the Taliban in a village of Qala-e-Zaal district, we saw helicopters land with support teams,” an Afghan soldier said. “They managed to rescue their friends from our encirclement, and
even to inflict defeat on the Afghan National Army.” Dozens of other people have also claimed to have seen Taliban fighters disembark from foreign helicopters in several provinces. “I saw the helicopters with my own eyes,” said Sayed Rafiq from Baghlan-eMarkazi. “They landed near the foothills and offloaded dozens of Taliban with turbans, and wrapped in patus (a blanket-type shawl).” “Our fight against the Taliban is nonsense,” said the first soldier. “Our foreigner ‘friends’ are friendlier to the opposition.” There were reports of CIA airbases in Pakistan used for drones. Pakistan has been attacked by drones indeed. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari told NBC News on May 2009 that the CIA and the U.S. funded Pakistani ISI intelligence service created the Taliban. It’s easy to prove that the elite fund the Taliban and al-Qaeda (which is a blatant CIA creation) for decades. Even on October 18, 2009, 4 American citizens were caught photographing sensitive buildings in Islamabad. The 4 men were dressed in traditional Afghan outfits and had illegal weapons plus explosives. Their vehicles had 2 M-16A1 rifles, 2 handguns, and 2 hand-grenades. The police held the American citizens in custody for an hour before the Interior Ministry interfered and had them released without charge (even as preliminary investigation was being carried out). These are strange news and who gave these men these weapons. It’s clear that the CIA worked with Pakistani groups for a while. In Feb. 2008, the British were caught planning a training camp for the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan supposedly to make them “change sides.” Karzai expelled two top British “diplomats. This proves that like the Cold War, the war on terror is contrived resulting in the deaths of a lot of innocent human beings in the process. The agenda behind this is that the global elite (as found in select bloodlines, international bankers, the Vatican/Jesuit network, Pilgrims, Bilderbergers, etc.) want to use this war on terror was a means to promote globalization. This globalization is about using government credit to create a banking cartel monopoly worldwide, break down national sovereignty, institute population control policies that harm the human race, and create a new world order in the process. Muslims are targeted since most conservative Muslims reject the globalization/new world order plans of the Western elite. The Afghan war has caused Afghanistan to be a narco-state, opium trading center, and arms spending have increased over there. Even al-Qaeda co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski wanted a globalzone of percolating violence,” that included all of Central Asia, Turkey, southern Russia, and the western borders of China. It also included the entire Middle East, the Persian Gulf (Iran), Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is outlined in his “The Grand Chessboard” from 1997 in order to not want Russia to be an imperial power again and to pacify the Muslim population (along with the West controlling the resources of Eurasia since Eurasia is a breadbasket of oil, agricultural, mineral, etc. resources. In geopolitics, Eurasia is called the heartland. The rimland is Eastern Europe plus areas surrounding Eurasia. This has been talked about by scholars Nicholas John Skykman and Halfrod Mackinder).
Jeremy Glick vs. Bill O’Reilly on 2/4/2003
Jeremy Glick was one of the singers of the Not in Our Name statement of Conscience who appeared on the show at February 4, 2003. The interview is so disrespectful and vile on Bill O‘Reilly‘s part, that it deserves no further comment at all. Glick's father is the Port Authority worker Barry H. Glick, who had been killed in the 9/11 attacks. It’s a disgraceful conduct by a journalist with 30+year experience. It’s one thing to show dissent of Glick’s opinion in an assertive manner, but it’s another to violently say “shut up” to someone or threatened physical violence to someone over an issue. Glick throughout the interview conveyed his anti-war stance in a nice manner and Bill O’Reilly’s fascism led him to a Satanic frenzy. When people disagree with Bill O’Reilly’s point of view, people are treated less welcome then those who don’t. Dissent isn’t a crime as O’Reilly, Bush and other fascists maintain. Fascists can be on the left or the right, so it’s not limited to one political spectrum also. This is the top 10 most disrespectful, irresponsible interview of all time on national television. Bill O’Reilly should be ashamed of himself. Read this interview a couple to get the feel of this O’Reilly person. This is the transcript of the whole interview:
O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA it self of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed... JEREMY GLICK, FATHER DIED IN WORLD TRADE CENTER: Well, actually, that's not true. O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement? GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved. O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement. GLICK: As an individual. O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that. GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro-Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising... O'REILLY: All right . Now let me stop you here. So... GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support... O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising. GLICK: ... escalating... O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to. GLICK: It's marginal -- right. O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this. GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.
O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but... GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush... O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are. GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that. O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed... GLICK: What I'm saying is... O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that. GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government. O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to... GLICK: Maybe... O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you. GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics. O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think. GLICK: Well, OK. O'REILLY: You're -- I want to... GLICK: But you do care because you... O'REILLY: No, no. Look... GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11... O'REILLY: Here's why I care. GLICK: ... to rationalize... O'REILLY: Here's why I care... GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide. O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch... GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families. O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do. GLICK: OK.
O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people. GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me. O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why? GLICK: Why? O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country. GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel... O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right. GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14... O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the... GLICK: On September 14... O'REILLY: Here's the record. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK. GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father! GLICK: The people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father. GLICK: ... didn't kill my father. O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there. GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people? O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are! GLICK: So what about George Bush? O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA. O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were... O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
GLICK: Well, I hope she is. O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: In respect for your father... GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing? O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up. GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up. O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians... GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government... O'REILLY: Out of respect for him... GLICK: ... not the people of America. O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to... GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority. O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR. GLICK: That means we're done? O'REILLY: We're done.
There are other events that happened right before the commercial break. When O’Reilly said “we’re done”, he used two motions with his hands signaling his bodyguard or staff to throw Glick out of the studio. After the commercial break, Bill O’Reilly’s rage takes on a whole another level. O’Reilly said to Glick personally “Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to f__king pieces!” (according to Glick) It’s not just a typical fascist threat by O’Reilly, but a threat for bodily harm for a dissenting opinion which is Satanic fascism and deviation. After O’Reilly infamous threat, nearly the whole staff approached Glick to apologize for O’Reilly’s behavior. They further wanted Glick to leave before O’Reilly found out that he was still there while Glick was drinking a cup of coffee to calm his nerves. The fake, sickening apology by O’Reilly gave after the commercials were: “I have to apologize. If I knew that guy, Jeremy Glick, was going to be like that, I never would have brought him in here, and I feel bad for his family. I really do.” Glick never accused Bush or anyone else specifically of having prior knowledge of or helping plan or execute the attacks.
The next day, O’Reilly continued his attack of Glick saying that “Glick was out of control and spewing hatred for this program and his country using vile propaganda. This is a no-spin zone, and wild ravings will be shut down quick.” That’s a lie, because it’s obvious that O’Reilly was the un-American fascist who can’t stand dissent by a person. Glick can actually sue O’Reilly with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office for violation of NY Penal Code Section 240.26, “Harassment in the second degree” since the incident occurred in New York City. This intimidating fascist policy didn’t begin with the Bush administration, but it won’t end with it either. It’s ironic that Bill O’Reilly would mock many conspiracies (even legitimate ones), but back in 1989, he express a positive view on the evidence of CIA evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Bill O’Reilly’s Controversial Quotations
1). "Reverend, you can go back to Africa if you want to. I mean, you could go and repatriate back to the continent or anywhere. Not any country will take U.S. citizens, but African countries will." --Bill O'Reilly, to slavery reparations advocate Rev. Al Dixon (The O'Reilly Factor, 3/6/01)
My Commentary: Wow. First whether you agree or disagree with reparations, Bill’s comments were not only stupid but overtly racist because the reparation argument has nothing to with emigration to Africa at all. Second, anyone who
supports reparations don’t want to go back to Africa, but receive some compensation for 300+ years of racial oppression. You can obviously agree or disagree with this view. Yet, O’Reilly is silly, because many Americans of Japanese descent, Jewish descent, and other ethnic groups have receive monetary payments for their unjust treatment in history and that’s very justified.
2). “Oh, I am with you there. You've got to get the high-tech stuff there. But I'll tell you what. I've talked to the commanders, and they tell me, "Look, you deploy us down there, we stop the drug traffic dead"… We'd save lives because Mexican wet___, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes -- they're not going to do what they're doing now, so people aren't going to die in the desert. So we save lives, all right, and we seal it down and make it 100 times harder to come across. And 79 percent of Americans see that, Congressman. You are in the minority on this one, and so is President Bush. I'll give you the last word” (2/6/03)
Commentary: No comment is really needed here. He exposed himself yet again. O’Reilly never made any apology to this day to the Hispanic groups or the Hispanic community for his blatant racist epithet showing once again that he is still a racist bigot. Bill O’Reilly said these words to Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas).
3). One April 15, 2003, Bill O’Reilly said to African American students jokingly not to steal his hood caps of his car. He said: “"Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps."
This is my Commentary: No comment is needed is here. First these are children, little children who participated in a simple play. They have totally no intentions of stealing hubcaps and Mr. Bill O’Reilly is exposed once again for his disregard for minorities. Everyone has a right to be a racist bigot if they want to, but to be a journalist, you have to be objective in your coverage and that cheap shot is typical of him. 4). On the September 13, 2005, broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly claimed that "many of the poor in New Orleans" did not evacuate the city before Hurricane Katrina because "[t]hey were drug-addicted" and "weren't going to get turned off from their source." O'Reilly added, "They were thugs." In a February 27, 2006, conversation with a caller about the disproportionately few jobs and contracts that have gone to locals in the rebuilding of New Orleans, O'Reilly said: "[T]he homies, you know ... I mean, they're just not going to get the job."
This is my Commentary: This is expected from Bill O’Reilly New Orleans have always have a diverse population. Hopefully, in the future, New Orleans will be a more stable dwelling for its people. Bill O’Reilly stereotyping is refuted on how people nationwide are helping those in New Orleans to get on their feet (despite of that critical process not being easy).
5). During an interview for Stuff magazine (November 2002), O'Reilly opined that "the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries." O'Reilly later insisted (New York Daily News, 10/10/02), "There was no malice intended. It was just in jest." Commentary: He claims that he was in jest, yet these words are very sexist. The reason is that women globally and even in the Middle East have intellect and great value. You judge a person (male or female) on their character and actions, not on their physical appearance, which will change radically as we age anyway.
The Culture War Bill O’Reilly claims that society is in a culture war between traditionalists and progressives. What is the truth? The truth is that it’s bigger than left vs. right or traditionalists vs. progressives. The left/right paradigm control these establishment left and establishment right group. On easy example proving this is that the CNP infiltrating the Republican establishment is heavily influenced by the Vatican, high level Freemasonry, CFR, and the international bankers. Groups and people like the Huffington Post, George Soros, Think Progress, etc. are funded by international bankers the CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilateralists, and Big Foundations (like the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation,
etc). Another example is how the Council on National Policy may legitimately expose abortion and population control, but they won’t talk about how Dominion theology is a grave heresy in the world. Huffington Post will legitimate disagree with torture and corporate corruption, but they refuse to see that the United Nations was originally formed by the same corporate elite (as found in the CFR, etc.) they claim to oppose. The same people control the leaders of both sides, so real solutions aren’t done in American society. There is a cultural war, but it’s more bigger than Bill O’Reilly is presenting. This war is between people that want liberty for every human being in America, and those who want to constrict liberty (whether it’s the right to life, the right to bear arms, the right for human beings to live their own lives legitimately, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, religious liberty rights, the right to have a relationship with who you want to, the right to not agree with immoral wars, etc.) among the citizenry to promote a new world order system. The global elite want militarization and a high tech police state. The social engineers (which institute a false corporate culture in the world not only in America) use propaganda from televisions and other media in order to stir society.
It’s easy to decipher that Bill O’Reilly is anti-civil liberties. He agrees with the Patriot Act and many pro-torture methods (that he classifies as “harsh interrogations”). He agrees even with the warrantless wiretaping of citizens. He is
for profiling of citizens. On the August 16, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly argued extensively for "profiling of Muslims" at airports, arguing that detaining all "Muslims between the ages of 16 and 45" for questioning "isn't racial profiling," but "criminal profiling." I disagree with profiling any citizen for any reason. Why? The reason is that we find criminals by just cause (including a warrant) not by their race, creed, nationality, or their background alone. Also, most Muslims in America are law abiding. Profiling citizens is judging someone guilty before they have an opportunity to prove their innocence in a court. America ought to embrace the concept of a person accused of a crime as being innocent until they are proven guilty. So, Bill O’Reilly’s agenda is easy to figure out. Individuals are intimidated by his angry exterior, but just because you yell, doesn’t mean that a person is accurate on their information. Bill O’Reilly’s inaccuracy has been exposed by human beings from across the political spectrum. Society is waking up about real issues. Bill O'Reilly pushed a Obama supporter, whose name is Marvin Nicholson. The incident was triggered when O’Reilly–with a Fox News crew shooting–was screaming at Obama National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson "Move" so he could get Obama’s attention, according to several eyewitnesses. "O’Reilly was yelling at him, yelling at his face," a photographer shooting the scene said. O’Reilly grabbed Nicholson’s arm, said "move" and shoved him, another eyewitness said. Nicholson, who is 6′8 said O"Reilly called him "low class." The Secret Service intervened before both man could possibly fight each other. Although, O'Reilly denies he was trying to fight the man. Even if Obama refuses to go on his show, Bill should just move on and wake up. Using violence against a man (especially a man that isn't violent toward you) isn't justified at any circumstance. Bill just acted immature in that instance. If Bill viewed Marvin as blocking his view and the man didn't move, then Bill should call security to handle the situation.
Bill O’Reilly is known for criticizing George Tiller for legitimate reasons. Tiller’s death was wrong and immoral, but Tiller’s baby killing was evil as well. Bill O’Reilly nicknamed him Tiller the baby killer since he did partial birth abortions on demand. Bill O'Reilly had exposed the abortionist George Tiller, while condemning his death. I agree with him on these points (like that Tiller made casual abortions and that partial birth abortion is murderous and evil).Yet, he has made one serious error in this situation. Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly asserted that the over 60,000 abortions done by George Tiller (that was apart of late term abortions) were legal. Bill O'Reilly also called the unborn babies as potential life. That's wrong of course. The unborn babies are human beings and are apart of life. They aren't potential lives. George Tiller as we know killed innocent human beings. Killing unborn babies in the first trimester is bad enough, but killing unborn babies in the third trimester for casual reasons is blatantly immoral. Kansas may have laws that condoned some of these abortion procedures, but there is a different between moral and immoral laws. Certainly, ripping a baby's body parts out if an unjust law. Even Dr. Martin Luther King, William Blackstone, and others exposed that unjust laws
aren't in harmony with the law of God. Hitler's laws were legal, but they were immoral and unjustified. Just because someone is called apart of the law, doesn't mean it's legitimate since many evils then and now are legalized. So, the unborn isn't a potential life (or viable fetuses), it's human life since the moment of conception. 3D and recently 4-D technology have proven the unique, human life of the unborn. Fetus is a term utilized by the pro-abortion crowd in order to dehumanize the unborn human being inside of a mother's womb. The Constitution doesn't support abortion at all. Jane Chastain has written a note to Bill O'Reilly about this issue.
Bill could wake up by exposing the new world order, Agenda 21 (a real plan in stealing private property to built a globalized government. The Trans-Texas Corridor is similar in which foreign international corporations are trying to have a monopoly on the roads in Texas plus across the heartland of America. One company involved is owned by Knight of Malta King of Spain Juan Carlos), The Jesuits, the CFR, and other truthful subjects. I will forever disagree with some of the authoritarian, antiliberty policies of Bill O’Reilly. That’s the truth.
Moving forward is a great prescription in life.
Yet, moving forward isn't a justification to accept personal compliancy or ignoring the past. The past can
acquire itself to be a valuable asset in making necessary reforms not only in the present, but in the timeframe of the future. The past should never be burden to oppress or restrict insight into the future, but it ought not to be exploited into something thrown away to sanitize events or truths either. Recently, the new and extensive amount of knowledge pertaining to economics, history, philosophy, and other modes of study certainly have given me a renewed focus in my life. Therefore, I will certainly write about these points more, especially about the errors found among Austrian economics. One of the new things that I've comprehend pertain to the post World War II period in the world. It has been classified as the Cold War. As numerous folks realize, the Cold War was a series of contrived events. Both sides were funded by the same international bankers. Also, the Cold War was a veiled
way for the Anglo-American establishment to try to stop even authentic Third World nationalism from taking place in Africa, South America, Latin America, Asia, etc (with the Third World legitimately promoting land reforms, etc.). Even after WWII, the British Empire still tried to control Indonesia
for the purpose of continuing the evil, unjustifiable policy of Imperialism (in order to dominate Africa and Asia). Fortunately, nationalists from Indonesia in 1945 and 1946 fought valiantly against European imperialism to develop their own independent nation of Indonesia. When overt imperialism failed against the Third World, the elite used neo-colonial methods to pacify the Third World (via IMF/World Bank oppressive loan policies, multinational corporations owning their resources, and fermenting evil wars the world over). That was fundamentally evil of course.