Pinhead O'Reilly

O’Reilly’s Betrayal

Well, who would be surprised? We featured blowboy Bill O’Reilly here when he loudly proclaimed his cowardice:

Chickenshit Bill O’Reilly: “The risk [of free speech] is higher than the reward” on the South Park Fartwa

Here he affirms  again that he’s a yellow bellied coward:

O’Reilly publicly promoted submitting to Sharia Law, thereby surrendering to the forces who killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

O’Reilly: “I can pull out the bible and find all kinds of inflammatory stuff”– he completely fails to ask the fundamental questions:

to whom does the “inflammatory stuff” apply? Jews, Christians? Well, Christians were not around when the old testament was writtten, and Jewish sages have moved on. But the Koran is the word of Allah for all time and any place, whereas the bible is at best a historical record of ancient tribes.  O’Reilly really comes across as a completely clueless buffoon….

Frontpagemag/Jamie Glazov

Bill O’Reilly is clearly continuing his shameless and cowardly surrender to Sharia Law. Daily on his program, The O’Reilly Factor on, 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

Laura Ingraham is also a pinhead. Her statement that Muslims in America have  somehow “done a much better job assimilating” has long been debunked.

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 notveiling 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 inthe 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?  . Read it all>>

17 thoughts on “Pinhead O'Reilly”

  1. Great post, Sheik. The shoe does fit O’Reilly, who’s been off the reservation for quite a while now, though the public should keep in mind that Fox’s owner, Ruppert Murdoch, sold a share of Fox to the Saudis – they can Google this info to verify the Muslim influence at Fox. No doubt it’s at least partly why O’Reilly can’t speak derogatorily against Muslims.

    Also, the Pew poll cited by O’Reilly may have been skewed in its wording to get their numbers. I daresay the numbers who support Arizona’s law to secure its borders are similar to Americans who disapprove of the burqa. That aside, a 335-1 vote in the French Assembly is striking in an ultra liberal country like that. Common sense must have ruled the day. Given the lopsided vote, rational minds should question how 2/3rds of Americans oppose what 99.9% of the French legislature supports. The logic is lacking.

  2. Yesterday, I turned on the TV and it was on the FNC – well, guess what? In the space of about 5 minutes with him talking to Dennis Miller – he didn’t want to even touch what Miller was saying about the muslims blowing things up, etc – because ‘he liked to live’ (I paraphrase).

    It only reinforced why I stopped watching the guy.

    It reminded me of his puke reporting of Ovomit so he could get an interview with the guy. His ‘fair and balanced’ is all in his mind.

  3. Hi Sheik,

    O’Reilly is losing the plot. He hasn’t figured out that the world has changed for the worse since BHO took office. He should listen to Laura and Beck more.

    I have read a lot of Jamie Glazov’s pieces and frankly I doubt any of them have ever shown so much anger and disgust.

  4. “Put the blame on the Europeans for not ALLOWING them to integrate” ???????????
    Oh please. Please. I think that conference in Sydney which you, dear and wonderful Sheik, alerted us to a few days ago, says it all. The slaves of Allah (I’m being kind in granting that bastard a capital A here), even if they want to integrate, aren’t allowed to by their busybody, women-at-the-village-watering-hole fellow muzzies, and most of all by the imams.

    Muslims are killed by fellow muslims for the sin of trying to integrate, for pork’s sakes. In fact, trying to integrate into western cultures is probably the number one reason why muslims kill other muslims – daughters and stuff, in the democratic countries.

  5. And on the video about the burkha. What we are not getting from the news is that every, single day the French were getting (at least around 2006 time period) at least one cop wounded over their ‘youths’ rioting. I read an article that said there were over 2,000 cops wounded from the date on the article. Sarkozy even admitted they were in a civil war. Now, I don’t know if this is still going on – but it sounds like it probably is if they are getting tired of muslim tents. It is not French, American, or anything that we in the West represent.

  6. American Public: Mr. O’Reilly, what does “Al Qaeda” mean in Arabic?

    O’Reilly: I don’t know

    American Public: You’re fired! It means “The Base”.

  7. This is for Hoosier- I did not know that the Saudis have stock in FOX… this is such BS. I mean the situation not your statement.

  8. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns almost 10% of News Corp!

    Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud came over and said ‘I want to give you a $10 million dollar check.’ Rudy Giuliani said, you see that over there? I don’t think we want your help. You already sent us help. And you flew that help into the plane, into the the trade centers. The same prince later blamed the U.S. policy for the attacks. Giuliani said, take your check, we don’t want your money.

  9. O’Reilly comes across more like a celebrity commentator pandering to patriotic conservatives than someone who speaks with honest conviction. After he called sCAIR lead Moose-limb Hooper a “stand up guy” I felt the vomit start slidin’ up my throat that I wanted to puke all over O’Reilly. I won’t watch the paper tiger anymore, he is a pathetic fake.

    Hannity seems to be the only one who is have guests on that speak straight talk about Islam. The rest play the game of separating the mythical moderate from the radical [aka obedient,honest] Moose-limb.

  10. Gramfan sez:

    “He should listen to Laura and Beck more.”

    Ambulance chaser O’Reilly belittles Beck and seeks to portray him as some kind of conspiracy nut. And he still prattles on about “not being sure whether Obama is a Socialist.”

    That’s just dumb.

    s_sgt7 sez:

    “In the space of about 5 minutes with him talking to Dennis Miller – he didn’t want to even touch what Miller was saying about the muslims blowing things up, etc – because ‘he liked to live’ (I paraphrase).”

    He likes to live? What does he think? That he’ll live forever? That his life is worth so much more than ours?
    What a despicable coward.
    Remember those “artists” in Holland after Theo van Gogh was killed?
    When asked whether any of them would come forward to make a sequel of ‘FITNA’ the excuse was “we have children”. But what about the children? What kind of a world are we going to leave for them?
    Enslavement under Islamic rule?

    Really, I spit on those fools who feed the crocodile in the hope it will eat them last.

    The most recent cave in was Molly Norris. “Art critics” in the Muslim world have put her on a hit list for calling for a “draw Muhammad day” on facebook,

    Ms. Norris is a cartoonist who stood up for freedom of speech…for awhile. After the animated show “South Park” bowed to pressure and threats and removed a piece from a show showing the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit, Ms. Norris started a movement called “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” The idea took off and groups both left and right got behind the idea of standing up for freedom of expression.

    Some liberal cowards like Atlanta Journal Constitution “political cartoonist” Mike Luckovich didn’t join in because they were already aware of the way Islamic critics give a bad review. As were the folks at one of my favorite shows “The Simpsons.” After the “South Park” incident they had Bart do his punishment on the chalk board by writing, “South Park – We’d stand beside you if we weren’t so scared.”

    After her crusade for freedom took off, she backed away. She apologized to Muslims for offending them. She was honest as to why she was backing away when she drew a cartoon with herself saying, “I said that I wanted to counter fear and then I got afraid.”

    Didn’t work. She now has a fartwa on her head and a brave soldier of Allah will try to saw her head off. Terrorism works. Especially against cowards……

  11. I think the point is that O’Reilly is scared – at least that is how I read it. So …why is he scared …. has the prince been whispering sweet nothings in his little ear?? Who knows .. perhaps someone should have a quiet talk with him – but, even given that O’Reilly may be a a coward, the situation is pretty grim when the brave soldiers of allah (Here I wont bother giving the S_ a capital) can influence our politics and media – given that the real threat these cowards pose is mostly driven through an image that they themselves are providing. In short, stand up to them and the threat will dissipate. The irrationality of these muslims is astounding, particularly given that Ms. Norris went out of her way not to offend anyone. And naturally, the brain dead muslim umma took it as a sign to murder and threaten. Why are these idiots in our countries and why, little obama, are you bending over backwards to let them have their way?? Ditto for all that Sheik and others here have said.

  12. I hear ya Sheik.

    What O’Reilly has told us many times is that he was a history teacher. OF WHAT?!?! Ok, I know that one cannot know everything about the world’s history, but you would think that he would have at least looked up something about islam and know something about being a ‘useful idiot’!

    I didn’t even get degrees in history and I CAN READ! I get so disgusted with O’Reilly sometimes that I can barely listen to him anymore.

    As for revparadigm writing this: ‘O’Reilly comes across more like a celebrity commentator pandering to patriotic conservatives than someone who speaks with honest conviction…’

    revparadigm has got to be kidding! O’Reilly is an Independent who does NOT cater to conservatives because if he did he would sound more like Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc. Instead he did NOT do ANY research into what Obama was and wanted to give him a ‘fair’ chance. That is total hogwash – it would have been fair if Obama didn’t have such a background as he did, and his prior word record was so pathetic. The truth needs to be told – not favoritism so he can get an interview!

  13. Read what I said a little more carefully.

    “O’Reilly comes across more like a celebrity commentator pandering to patriotic conservatives than someone who speaks with honest conviction”

    I’m saying O’Reilly is not a conservative and merely panders to the demographics that Fox news has garnered…which means O’Reilly’s views on Islam are more in line with politically correct ignorance. Bill sounds like a celebrity moron when he plays the little game of separating Jihad terrorists from Islam.

    Get it?

  14. I don’t suffer fools easily and that goes double for cowards. I can no longer bear to watch this coward.

  15. From RevP.

    “I’m saying O’Reilly is not a conservative and merely panders to the demographics that Fox news has garnered…which means O’Reilly’s views on Islam are more in line with politically correct ignorance. ”

    Yes – I agree – but the question is why?? This needs to be understood before we can get a clean media again – i.e. are the Saudis filtering news reports, are obama and his team of morons accomplices to this (and the recent attempts by the Saudis to influence the education of American children re. the influence of islam suggest this is so).

Comments are closed.