Boycott Bill OReilley Fox News

VA Lawyer · Feb 19, 2010

imported post

Oh good grief! O'Reilly just read some of the letters he received about this topic (he didn't read mine... probably too long)...

To paraphrase O'Reilly's response to one letter saying something to the effect that in no case can a state of emergency justify the blanket disarming of citizens:

"Let me make myself clear, it is legal [to disarm citizens in time of emergency] until a court can review it."

:banghead:

His responses to other letters were equally terrible.

I always thought O'Reilly had some statist tendencies... but that is pretty bad.

buster81 · Feb 19, 2010

imported post

I just caught the Billy-O show, and he read three or four e-mails disagreeing with his position against Oath Keepers and the nonsense aboutsuspending the constitution. He defended himself by saying that the government "has the right" to take action bla bla bla. Now I know why I don't watch this show.

ne1 · Feb 19, 2010

imported post

TFred wrote:

I suspect that a significant portion of O'Reilly's viewership was appalled at his remarks, and will let him know it.

What he chooses to read for tonight's viewer e-mail at the end of the show will tell us a lot.

TFred

"You posited that the individual should not attempt to determine the meaning of the constitution. Yet the lowliest private in the military swears the same oath as the president, justices and each member of congress. We have already seen how little respect that our higher officials have for our founding document (though it is written at about a sixth grade reading level) so perhaps the future of our country should be determined by those whom take the oath more seriously. I applaud them."

As usual, I didn't expect my comments to be published. His replies to those he did choose to air does indeed prove him to be a pinhead. "Who's looking out for the folks?" Not Oreilly.
I might watch a few more of his shows to see if he turns away from the dark side, but if he doesn't, the ratings he boasts of should take a dive.

old dog · Feb 19, 2010

imported post

Let's see if I understand.

We have no inherent rights, only the ones the government extends and those revocable at the whim of the state's functionaries.

What a neat system. Haven't I read something like this in the history books?

O'Reilly is certainly an ornament to the Republic.

Tomahawk · Feb 19, 2010

imported post

O'Reilly has always been an arrogant, self-important ass. Here's an example of O'Reilly being abusive to his co-workers years ago. Warning, Billy is a potty mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

Sabotage70 · Feb 19, 2010

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

O'Reilly has always been an arrogant, self-important ass. Here's an example of O'Reilly being abusive to his co-workers years ago. Warning, Billy is a potty mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

I personally like the dance remix. :celebrate:celebrate:monkey:monkey:celebrate:celebrate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE

zack991 · Feb 20, 2010

imported post

I hope his ratings fall because of his comments and I sent a email to beck to see what he think publicly but I am not holding my breath.

Tomahawk · Feb 20, 2010

imported post

IIRC this isn't really new, O'Reilly has been noted for his anti-gun, pro-police stance before, perhaps it was during Katrina.

But these guys count on their audiences having short memories. Not long ago Glenn Beck was calling Ron Paul supporters "domestic enemies" and his guest, David Horowitz, accussed them of being "in bed with the islamofascists".

Now Beck parades around with the Tea Party-types as if he's not an establishment tool and people cheer him.

Pace · Feb 20, 2010

imported post

O'Reilly makes a good point however, that maybe sometimes there is a reason. The issue I have is that its being used for whatever reason they want, including snow storms. I'm not aware however that anywhere in the Emergency Act Laws it allowed removal of firearms.

Also, O'Reilly in this report is just providing an alternative view, that's part of his job.

Pavegunner wrote:

OReilly indicated he approved of Government agencies having the power to disarm law-abiding Americans under emergency situations like Hurricane Katrina where they disarmed hundreds of citizens.

stainless1911 · Feb 20, 2010

imported post

shall not be infringed was worded that way intensionally, so that there would be no doubt of there being no reason.

Tomahawk · Feb 20, 2010

imported post

Pace wrote:

O'Reilly makes a good point however, that maybe sometimes there is a reason.

No, that was not a good point.

If a constitutional right can be suspended in times of emergency, then the government has lots of incentive to create as many emergencies as possible in order to usurp more power.

War, for instance. Since 1945 we have been almost continuously "at war with" or "under threat of" someone or something, constantly told that extraordinary times warrant extraordinary measures.

A constitution that can be suspended by the government it created is, by logical inspection, absolutely useless.

RockyMtnScotsman · Feb 20, 2010

imported post

Pace wrote:

O'Reilly makes a good point however, that maybe sometimes there is a reason.

...and you want to move to Colorado and run for office??? GTFO! :cuss:

PointofView · Feb 20, 2010

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

I suppose that I am not sensitive enough to have seen the sneer or detected the condescension (beyond normal media mogul). Leading with the merkin-mouth from SPLC was offensive.

The e-mail address really misspells his name? Try oreilly@foxnews.com

I am a prior military (free) associate member of Oath Keepers. I will abide those persecuted for keeping their oath to the Constitution and against the Obamanation's goonions.

Wow Oathkeepers Doug? Are you still bent out of shape about fluoride in the water? Yes oathkeepers championed this cause. What a great group of nut jobs.

shad0wfax · Feb 21, 2010

imported post

Pavegunner wrote:

Tonight, Bill Oreilly interviewed oathkeepers.org founder. The interview was more like Charlie Gibson interviewing Sarah Palin in 2008. He had an arrogant sneer on his face and condesending tone the entire time.

OReilly indicated he approved of Government agencies having the power to disarm law-abiding Americans under emergency situations like Hurricane Katrina where they disarmed hundreds of citizens.

This guy has gone far enough. Email him at oreilly@foxnews.com and tell him what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Po8LLjIlDw

This is a link to the interview.

I've never liked O'Reilly. He's a supporter of big-government and this video demonstrates that nicely. He first poses the question "Well, who's gonna try to disarm people and place them under martial law? I mean why would that even be something you would be discussing?" The response is the events in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. O'Reilly later says "It was a little bit more than that... The local authorities in New Orleans could not control what was going on in the city. [...] They disarmed everybody, there's not going to be any guns in the city and we're going to take them all because we're in a state of emergency. [...] It's not a matter of bad weather, it's a matter of 'can't control the city.'" He actually tries to justify a mayor or a governor declaring a state of emergency and disarming the people after a few minutes before he asks the question like it would never happen.

Stewart Rhodes handled himself well. Bill O'Reilly was acting more like Chris Matthews than he usually does...

I've never cared for O'Reilly and this interview didn't change my mind about him. I still dislike him.

jbone · Feb 21, 2010

imported post

I sent he this, he of course he will never see it!

Mr. O’ Reilly,
Good Lord Bill! Have you come out of the closet? I was shocked when you disclosed your support of disarming of American citizens, condemning the Second Amendment. You went on justifying the right of government to seize arms from law abiding Americans who in time of tragedy needed to protect life and property from the criminals. You sir have fallen prey to the same twisted anti belief that disarming responsible firearm owners will stop crime. Mr. Beck needs to have a one-one with you, and perhapsput your picture next to Van Jones? You Sir have made your own list “PINHEAD”

ne1 · Feb 21, 2010

imported post

Many municipalities have declared "emergencies" during recent snowstorms. How many of these emergencies have since been officially lifted? They seem to go on ad infinitum.
If an emergency is the excuse to deprive citizens of their rights, there should be some sort of citizen oversight.

Pace · Feb 21, 2010

imported post

Obviously no one read what I wrote: that there is a reason for a state of emergency, but that the government uses it way too often. Plus, I said that I was not aware of anything that allows the government to take away weapons in the national emergency acts, or in theory deny anyone any rights.

If you disagree with me, please point out the reason instead of one line comments, this is a "discussion" board.

RockyMtnScotsman wrote:

Pace wrote:

O'Reilly makes a good point however, that maybe sometimes there is a reason.

Click to expand...

...and you want to move to Colorado and run for office??? GTFO! :cuss:

Pace · Feb 21, 2010

imported post

Well, municipalities do not have a right under any law to declare a state of emergency. As far as I know the ONLY time that any rights can be abridged is under martial law. Martial law is not allowed in this country under any, any circumstance anymore.

Norman Oslen of the Michigan Militia points out, very nicely, and its the best quote I've found.

"One other important point needs to be made. Since The Constitution is the limiting document upon the government, the government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the servant cannot become greater than its master. Therefore, should the chief executive or the other branch of government or all branches together act to suspend The Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted to government would be canceled and differed back to the granting power. That is the people. And I'll conclude with this statement: Martial law shall NOT be possible in this country as long as the people recognize the bill of rights as inalienable."

ne1 wrote:

Many municipalities have declared "emergencies" during recent snowstorms. How many of these emergencies have since been officially lifted? They seem to go on ad infinitum.
If an emergency is the excuse to deprive citizens of their rights, there should be some sort of citizen oversight.

Pace · Feb 21, 2010

imported post

I find this statement to be disturbing, and its an unfortunate growing view point that things are legal until reviewed. This point of view is actually wrong when it comes to Constitutional Law. Something that is unconstitutional be definition has been unconstitutional from the start.

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

VA Lawyer wrote:

Oh good grief! O'Reilly just read some of the letters he received about this topic (he didn't read mine... probably too long)...

To paraphrase O'Reilly's response to one letter saying something to the effect that in no case can a state of emergency justify the blanket disarming of citizens:

"Let me make myself clear, it is legal [to disarm citizens in time of emergency] until a court can review it."

:banghead:

His responses to other letters were equally terrible.

I always thought O'Reilly had some statist tendencies... but that is pretty bad.

zack991 · Feb 21, 2010

imported post

Should I send this to O,Reilly. :lol:

Boycott Bill OReilley Fox News

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member