Bill O'Reilly O'Reilly picture O'Reilly, Bill

A Con Man?

Bill O'Reilly hasn't, as far as I know, swindled money from anyone.  So why do I say O'Reilly is a con man?  O'Reilly is a con man of a different, more dangerous sort.  He is an ideological con man.  He's quite skilled at selling people a bill of political goods that sounds good to them, but is in reality quite pernicious, if not fatal, to their economic --  and perhaps even physical --  well-being.

How O'Reilly Distracts People

O'Reilly exhibits unsurpassed demagogic skill in riling up his audience over hot button cultural issues.  If only the ACLU would stop trying to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge, if only the IRS would audit Jesse Jackson's tax return, if only students would stop shooting porn films on state college campuses, then things would be better.  Huh?  Would the resolution of such concerns truly improve the lives of any of the "folks" whom O'Reilly purports to represent?

What O'Reilly Ignores

If O'Reilly was really "looking out for you" ("you" being the average American) then O'Reilly would be addressing the issues that in a flesh-and-blood way affect their pocketbooks and their health, their very lives.

Here are some of the critical issues that O'Reilly rarely, if ever addresses:

  • The need for a federal "living wage"-level minimum wage to benefit the millions of Americans now paid a minimum wage that doesn't allow them to support their families.  
  • A national health care policy to provide for the 40+ million Americans who lack health insurance
  • Stringent enforcement of OSHA to reduce the number of workers needlessly injured and killed on the job
  • Corporate abuse of workers, such as the Wal-Mart scandal, where management is charged with forcing workers to work overtime off the clock
  • A national jobs policy to ensure well-paying jobs are not consistently replaced by lower-paying ones
  • A halt to the rollback of  laws protecting the environment
  • A guarantee of an honest vote in federal and state elections

If you asked "the folks" which issues were of most concern to them, would they pick the ones I've just enumerated above, or the Pledge and Jesse Jackson's tax returns?  O'Reilly has hoodwinked an unfortunately large number of people into believing that rappers and the ACLU are the biggest threats to their well-being. In so doing, O'Reilly has diverted their attention from the real threat -- those who fashion and enact economic policies that create economic havoc among the middle and working class.

O'Reilly Is Looking Out Only for Himself

O'Reilly never tires of ranting against "income redistribution" and "socialism" and a host of other terms he uses to denigrate the views of his guests.  He constantly brings up the fact that his poor self pays 50% of his income in various taxes, and then asks his guest, how much more does the guest want him to be paying? 70%?  80%?

Other wealthy individuals who truly have the well-being of the working and middle-class at heart support a more progressive tax structure, but not O'Reilly.  He's looking out only for himself and the other members of the wealthiest 1% in the country.

draft 8/23/04



Blowhard Bill O'Reilly Blog
Today's Updates Here!

Excerpts from the Past:

Saturday, August 21, 2004

The Nuclear Threat

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof focuses on the urgent threat of nuclear terrorism, but his proposals are aimed only at denying weapons and delivery to would-be attackers.

Prevention is an exercise in probabilities. It is bound to fail eventually. An alternative is deterrence, which seeks to undermine the motivation of the terrorists and their supporters.

Deterrence is the only nuclear defense strategy with a successful track record, and it deserves a close look before concluding that it cannot apply to terrorism.

What if an American president announced that the strategic doctrine of the United States in response to a terrorist nuclear attack would be retaliatory attacks on selected population centers of all the countries of origin of the terrorists, as well as any countries that were determined to have abetted the attack in any way?
A letter writer after Bill O'Reilly's own heart (remember O'Reilly's advocacy of mass murder of civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?)

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

On CNBC's Tim Russert , O'Reilly likened Media Matters for America to the Ku Klux Klan

O'REILLY: You are about the most un-objective person on the face of the earth -- Media Matters! Why don't you just call Fidel? Call him up in Havana. He'll tell you what's going on?

KRUGMAN: Oh, wonderful. Now we've got the great (inaudible) Whatever it is, it ends up being a Communist plot, you know?

O'REILLY: Oh my God! That's like me calling up some Klan operation. Why don't I call the Ku Klux Klan up and --

KRUGMAN: Here we go, here we go, here we go.
O'Reilly is so dense he's actually proud of this exchange, and played it on his own program!

Sunday, August 08, 2004

Bill O'Reilly has more integrity than Chris Matthews when it comes to the the anti-Kerry ad by the swift boat veterans. O'Reilly (and his guest Dick Morris) both condemned the ad. But neutered, smiley-faced, say-no-evil-of-Republicans Chris Matthews pointedly failed to do so when discussing the issue.

Thursday, August 05, 2004

McCain Condemns Veterans' Anti-Kerry Ad

Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

...Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy, and one is deceased.
Much to his credit, Bill O'Reilly condemned the ad, as did his guest Dick Morris. Susan Estrich, filling in for Alan Colmes, should be praised also, doing a pretty good job cross-examining one of the veterans featured in the ad. Thankfully, Estrich exhibited none of her frozen-smile stares into the camera. On the down side, Hannity, true to form, did not condemn the ad. Hannity also obsessed about how horrible it was that Kerry admitted committing war crimes in Vietnam. In the next breath, Hannity condemns Kerry for accusing U.S. troops there of committing such war crimes. But if Hannity believes Kerry's admission, Hannity must also logically agree with Kerry's charge about U.S. troops in general there, since certain of the war crimes in question, free-fire zones for example, were clearly part of official military policy in Vietnam.

Friday, July 30, 2004

Two excerpts from O'Reilly-Moore on the ultimate question:

MOORE: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

O'REILLY: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous

MOORE: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

And later:

MOORE: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.

MOORE: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?

O'REILLY: I would.

MOORE: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?

O'REILLY: That’s right.

MOORE: Where’s the recruiter?

O'REILLY: You’d love to get rid of me.

MOORE: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.

O'REILLY: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…
Usual O'Reilly flim-flam. Saying he'd give his own life is meaningless, since he's way too old to go fight over there. But he wouldn't say he'd give his child's life, because he has a kid and I guess couldn't bring himself to say such a falsehood about something that then might, in a karmic way, come true.

Friday, July 30, 2004

More smear tactics by O'Reilly, comparing someone to Goebbels. This item is from the

On his July 28 FOX News Channel show, O'Reilly said filmmaker Michael Moore "has more power than probably anybody else other than Kerry and Edwards. It's scary. It's scary. You know this happened in Nazi Germany. ... Who was the most powerful person in Nazi Germany other than Hitler and Himmler and Goering, who? You guys know? ... Goebbels. The propaganda minister."

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

O'Reilly vs. Michael Moore Transcript  I reprint,you decide.

Friday, July 23, 2004 - The O'Reilly Factor - Guest - Guests and Topics: July 23  It's dishonest of Fox to lead people to believe that the show is live, when it's a repeat. To his credit, O'Reilly's own site makes it clear it's a repeat.

Friday, July 16, 2004

Earlier this week Bill O'Reilly said that in the last 20 years the United States has freed nearly a billion people. Huh???
A night or so later he referred listeners to his July 15, 2004 column for the evidence.
But even taking as true O'Reilly's assertions of U.S. responsibility for actually freeing all the people he claims in the article have been freed, you come up with nowhere near a billion people, more like 250 million.
And again, assuming that we really and truly "freed" all these people -- and that's a big if -- O'Reilly conveniently omits all the people in the last 20 years whom we denied freedom by providing crucial support to the dictatorships that enslaved -- and in some cases continue to enslave -- them.  To name a few: Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, South Africa, Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan, etc etc etc.


Please turn on your sound
and check out what
"Vibratin' Bill" 
has to say

O'Reilly cartoon

Are you in on the secret about what 
Bill "Snake Oil Salesman" O'Reilly
 is trying to sell you

A Very Special "Message to Bill"
(and his supporters)

Bill O'Reilly: Beyond the Hype

Bill O'Reilly Falsely Claims to Speak for Workers

O'Reilly's false claim

Two fans of Bill O'Reilly prove they've been duped!

Bill O'Reilly Can't Even Tell the Truth About Himself

If a talk show pundit brags about running a No-Spin Zone, how can you believe him when he misrepresents his own background?

O'Reilly claims to have a "working class" upbringing.  He seems to feel that gives him some insight into how to look out for "the little guy," one of his self-appointed roles.  Problem is, O'Reilly's childhood was not "working class" at all.  See Bill O'Reilly #1 .

Bill O'Reilly Advocates Mass Murder!

Bill O'Reilly had the brilliant idea that in order to force the overthrow of the Taliban, we should deliberately starve the civilian population of Afghanistan.  O'Reilly threw in Libya and Iraq for good measure.  Even O'Reilly's military guest that day was appalled at the idea. See Bill O'Reilly #2.

O'Reilly didn't know, and his staff was apparently too ignorant to find out for him, that besides being completely immoral, his idea violates the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war, a treaty which the U.S. is firmly committed to upholding.  See Bill O'Reilly #3 .

Bill O'Reilly Has a Jesse Jackson Obsession!

O'Reilly has devoted scores of segments to his unsubstantiated criticisms concerning the finances of Jesse Jackson's organization Operation Push.  The bottom line is, O'Reilly never seems to have risked anything for anybody, and he and other talk show blowhards have no right to criticize those like Jackson who have risked everything for others.   See Bill O'Reilly #4 .

Can Bill O'Reilly Ever Admit He's Wrong?

Bill O'Reilly, even when presented with irrefutable evidence that he is wrong, refuses to admit it.  This instance relates to his false charges about the United Way. Bill O'Reilly #5 . is how you get in touch with O'Reilly to tell him you're onto his game!


Teachings of the Catholic Church That O'Reilly Continually Trashes

O'Reilly constantly expresses views about how society and our economy should be organized which not only directly contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church on these issues, but ridicule these teachings.  Following are links to the specific teachings he trashes.  The full document can be read here.

The world's resources were meant for all to share equitably, so that each individual and people have a sufficient share:

Christian duty must be similarly global in scope, our responsibility being to all of humanity:  

The market alone can not address all human needs, and its shortcomings need to be addressed:  

The existence of unjust political and economic structures must be recognized:  

So harmful are these structures that they can even be called "structures of sin":  

Working to remove these structural injustices, or "structures of sin," is critical, so much so that even the Vatican itself will become involved:  

Individual acts of charity are not enough:

A government role can be appropriate in effectuating the social Gospel:  

Extreme, life-threatening poverty is caused by injustice, not laziness:  

Demonization of the poor is therefore wrong:

Christians must exercise a "preferential option for the poor":  

A living wage is required by fundamental justice:

Help for immigrants, even for undocumented aliens, is required:

Fundamental changes in global economic structures and practices are necessary:

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats: Will Jesus Send Bill O'Reilly To Hell?


In Matthew 25:31-46, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself:

"Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45. Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.

If you have failed to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to "eternal punishment".

Can O'Reilly be considered a true Christian if he continually seeks to thwart others and society itself from implementing such a fundamental teaching of Christianity as Matthew 25:31-46?


It's fine to oppose government programs to help the Matthew 25 "least of these," as O'Reilly so often does.  But to avoid violating the Matthew 25 injunction, O'Reilly must then propose Equivalent Alternative Solutions.  Equivalent Alternative Solutions are ones which:

  • help at least the same number of those people who legitimately need help
  • provide at least the same amount of effective assistance to those people
  • get the help to them at least as quickly
  • are at least as certain to accomplish these goals


Equivalent Alternative Solutions can certainly be completely non-governmental, as long as they meet the four criteria directly above.


But O'Reilly consistently both opposes the plans of others to help the "least of these," and fails to offer Equivalent Alternative Solutions.


O'Reilly should be asked: "What about Matthew 25?  If you oppose my plan to help some of the "least of these," what do you propose instead?  How does what you're espousing here fulfill what Jesus commanded in Matthew 25?  In fact, isn't what you're doing exactly what Jesus condemned in Matthew 25?"


O'Reilly might reply:


Matthew 25 applies only to individual acts of charity.


The response is, Matthew 25 neither says nor implies any such thing.  If anything, the contrary: Jesus gathers the "nations," who speak to him collectively as "we."  Beyond that, should a passage such as Matthew 25 be interpreted narrowly so as to avoid responsibility?  Would anyone seriously maintain that Jesus would say it’s okay for society as a whole to let people suffer and die, as long as some members give some money to charity?


Yes, you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or lack thereof, but you are also individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these."  


As Pope John Paul II has written in this context:

It is a question not only of alleviating the most serious and urgent needs through individual actions here and there, but of uncovering the roots of evil and proposing initiatives to make social, political and economic structures more just and fraternal. Ecclesia in America

O'Reilly has plans to help the poor, and that certainly satisfies the injunction in Matthew 25.


The response: O'Reilly's "plans" are inadequate to fulfill the Matthew 25 mandate.  O'Reilly consistently advocates courses of action which by design do not help all those legitimately in need, or will help them inadequately, or will help them for too short a time, or are much less certain to take effect.


Similarly inadequate for Matthew 25 are vague hopes that "the free market"  or "competition" will solve the problem.  Vague hopes are not enough: plans to help the poor must be concrete.


As the Pope makes clear:

Christ's words "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25 :40) were not intended to remain a pious wish…Centesimus Annus


The motivating concern for the poor--who are, in the very meaningful term, "the Lord's poor"…--must be translated at all levels into concrete actions, until it decisively attains a series of necessary reforms. Solicitudo Rei Socialis

Jesus didn't say to have a government program to feed the hungry.


True enough.  Jesus didn't specify how to help the "least of these," he just insisted it be done.  So again, the reply to O'Reilly is, if you oppose a government program, what is your Equivalent Alternative Solution that will help the same number of people, the same amount, as soon and as certainly?


O'Reilly must start treating the "least of these" as he would treat Jesus himself. Then, and only then, can O'Reilly and other conservatives who claim to be Christian be considered Christian in more than just name. 


Until that time, O'Reilly is on an ever-accelerating spiritual express train headed in a radical downward direction.


The Truth About the "Liberal" Positions  O'Reilly Claims to Hold

Latest O'Reilly Crazy Talk, with Gingrich! (mp3)


About Contact Links


Fair Use Notice


© 2001-05  All rights reserved