View Full Version : Bill O'Reilly is anti 2nd Amendment. Interviews Oathkeeper founder. (Video)
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Po8LLjIlDw&feature=player_embedded#
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d19-Conservative-Bill-OReilly-supports-gun-confiscation-in-emergencies
I announced yesterday that Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes had been invited on The O'Reilly Factor to present his side of things following the Southern Poverty Law Center's Mark Potok's attack on the previous night. Regular readers here know Potok is continuing to sing an old tune, repeatedly trying to affiliate those who honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution with violent haters.
O'Reilly embraced that meme, beginning his segment with a "Tracking Hate Groups" graphic, and presenting Potok's most outlandish characterization of the group for the back story.
Asking Rhodes why it is legitimate for Oath Keepers to even discuss government disarming Americans, Rhodes properly cited exactly that happening in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. When O'Reilly brought up a state of emergency, Rhodes shot back by challenging him to show "where...it say[s] in the Constitution that bad weather suspends the Constitution."
"It's not a matter of bad weather," O'Reilly replied. "It's a matter of can't control the city."
O'Reilly doesn't get it if he thinks citing the Constitution as a reason not to generally disarm Americans, regardless of reason or pretext, is "a pretty extreme position."
"Being necessary to the security of a free state," particularly in time of need, is "extreme," Bill?
You admit the government can't control things, that is, it can't fulfill its prime function of protecting life and property, and your solution is to render those trying to protect their own defenseless, and to leave good people at the mercy of roving mobs?
You consider peaceable Americans exercising unalienable rights in the time when they most need them a threat to authority and control? Who do you think the true controlling authorities are? Just what document do you think authorizes state powers?
And the people who would argue that point are "extreme"?
The Founders would be doing a facepalm.
It's not surprising. What gets me is how many people consider O'Reilly a "conservative," totally stripping any meaning from the word.
I think Stewart did a great job in the time allotted. Click here to watch.
And I notice a lot of people catching on that O'Reilly really stuck his foot in it. It'll be interesting to see how he spins it, or if he just ignores it and hopes it goes away.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/too-extreme-for-oreilly-the-man-behind-the-right-wing-group-oath-keepers.php
Last night, Bill O'Reilly had Stewart Rhodes, founder of the right-wing extremist group "The Oath Keepers," on his show. Things got a little tense when Rhodes described the group's belief that members of the military need not follow orders they believe to be unconstitutional.
"That's a pretty extreme position," said O'Reilly.
O'Reilly had had Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center on the show the night before. Potok slammed Oath Keepers, which he said is primarily driven by the fear that the government is going to impose martial law and turn American cities into concentration camps.
Potok, it seems, wasn't exaggerating. From the group's website:
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.
We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not "just follow orders."
Rhodes explained this further on The O'Reilly Factor, claiming that some soldiers "don't understand that their oath is first and foremost to the Constitution," and not to the president.
O'Reilly, in disbelief, asked if this means that every soldier "makes up his mind whether the order he's given is Constitutional or not?"
Rhodes replied: "What were the Nazis told at Nuremberg? That disobeying orders is no excuse, no defense."
O'Reilly pressed him further, saying that "if it's a matter of interpretation" as to whether a solider has to follow an order, "you could have anarchy, easily."
O'Reilly also asked Rhodes about the group's core fear: "Who's going to try to disarm people and place them under martial law? Why would that even be something you would be discussing?"
Rhodes explained:
It happened as recently as Katrina. You probably have seen the videos there of an old lady being tackled in her kitchen and disarmed of her revolver. And there was house-to-house searches for firearms. And you have the police chief declaring that no one would be allowed to have weapons, and they're going to take all the guns. And they did. So they disarmed Americans over some bad weather. As though the bad weather suspended the Second Amendment. So that's the most recent example.O'Reilly pointed out that New Orleans was in a state of emergency after Hurricane Katrina, and that local authorities couldn't control the city. Rhodes replied: "So you call it state of emergency. Call it what you want. It's still unconstitutional."
The Oath Keepers have some connections to the Tea Party movement, which itself has gained a lot of traction within the conservative movement. For one thing, Oath Keepers is part of the Friends for Liberty coalition, an umbrella group for such Tea Party-friendly movements as Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project and the John Birch Society. Rhodes is even on the planning committee for the 2010 9/12 Project.
He is also scheduled to appear this Sunday at "Taking Back Texas" with Debra Medina, the Tea Party activist and candidate in the Texas Republican gubernatorial primary.
Also, notably, Oath Keepers has a booth at the ongoing CPAC conference in Washington, D.C., where they are handing out a DVD called "For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty" (the ties between the group and Ron Paul don't stop there - Rhodes himself is a former member of Paul's D.C. staff, according to his Oath Keeper's bio page).
For more Oath Keepers fun, check out the "Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey" on their website.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2323-LA-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d19-Safer-Streets-2010-Schooling-OReilly
Begging your pardon, Mr. O, but every conservative needs to be in favor of our second amendment, or one is not as conservative as he boasts.
The willingness to learn from experts is essential. Because the second amendment is about independence from government, I would not be so quick to ask government for clarification, nor to denigrate resistance to excesses of public servants. On this question, the sovereign are the experts.
I say this because on last night's O'Reilly Factor, Bill O. didn't want to listen to guest Stewart Rhodes, Founder of the liberty movement, The Oathkeepers. [See Oathkeepers.org and visit David Codrea's analysis as well. ] The Oathkeepers' mission is clearly a patriotic one, and where you sometimes find analysts who believe in sensible gun laws, you also find people who believe in the regulation of patriotism. There can be no such thing in a free country.
The Oathkeepers serve an important purpose of meaningful discernment as an essential element of patriotism. For every individual in a free country, discernment is essential to self-rule. You have to have a sort of independence radar, a personal better judgment over that of our public servants, so that you are less likely to be bamboozled by them. Gun control is a bamboozle, and so is the taking of guns from the electorate, the bamboozle coming in the form of thinking there is such a thing as a reasonable gun law to begin with. Take away guns, crime grows, crisis is cited, mandates are handed down. Bamboozle.
O'Reilly believes in reasonable gun laws, which might explain why he kept interrupting Rhodes with charges of encouraging soldiers and police and firefighters to choose which orders one obeys and does not obey. At this time, I am informed that soldiers are taught such discernment so they do not carry out orders as dupes in committing unwitting crime. To set this in stone, I have two words: My Lai.
Knowing right from wrong is going to save this country as easily as not knowing right from wrong is killing it. Virginia Tech was wrong and paid an $11 Million settlement for its watered down alert system. (Those alert systems in lieu of armed students don't seem much of a substitute.) The District of Columbia was found wrong and it cost taxpayers needlessly in legal burden hours. Other cities will throw away tons of money fighting the same wrong fight, and perhaps for nothing: we are the sovereign, the servants are not.
O'Reilly is the only FOX News Analyst I can think of who opposes gun freedoms. Any regulation whatsoever on personal gun ownership is an attempt to regulate the lethal force which backs our sovereign authority. This connection must be made in the mind of every citizen who believes in some measure of gun regulation. Gun regulation is about as sensible as the Fairness Doctrine; it is an attempt to regulate a safeguard of our sovereignty put in place to regulate the servants instead. They don't like being regulated.
When Rhodes furnished Katrina as an example of gun confiscations, O'Reilly interrupted by downplaying Katrina as bad weather; Rhodes countered by showing that bad weather doesn't suspend the second amendment. It doesn't.
But Katrina was not bad weather; Katrina is cited for it's being an example of organized gun confiscations and under-reported ones at that. It was the very kind of Orders that are known from the outset to be against the law, but carried out anyway. It was an organized disarmament by force under color of authority. Second amendment liberty foundations filed a lawsuit and prevailed, and the City of New Orleans was ordered by the court to return the guns illegally taken. At this hour, they have yet to return those guns to their rightful owners. You can see now how important it is to obey every order given. Will heads roll, or will the confiscation stand? Obviously, the confiscations stand.
There are other such confiscations around the country following inclement weather events. Liberty purists believe these are experiments to test the tolerance of the electorate.
This impelled people like Bobby Jindal to make it illegal for governments to confiscate weapons in time of emergency. Several other state legislatures followed, and it is now against the law over many parts of the country for governments to come for the guns under some ruse of safety.
It's worth noting, also, that in time of disaster, armed citizens have been much more asset than liability.
My advice to Bill O'Reilly is to consult more private gun owners on the question of what is reasonable and what is not when it comes to the second amendment. The public servants are generally the last people to trust on how much authority the sovereign has.
There is no such thing as a sensible gun law. The presumption that there is such a thing as a sensible gun regulation is the asumption that there is such a thing as a sensible regulation of our patriotism.
Bill has been slipping recently ? trying to stay to the center as he wants to but not realizing the center is not where it was a few years ago !!
I see his point that people like him think its radical ? (dont agree but I try to see what they see)
I wish the Oath Keeper guy said about the city out of control something like
My exact point when the gov can not protect you and they loose control of a city it will be up to you to protect yourself !
the gov should have done their job in the first place and controlled the criminals
so disarming the honest citizens put them in more danger as well as violated their rights !!!!
telecustom
02-21-10, 12:47
I've always thought Bill O'Reilly was a POS. He is loud, confrontational, and only cares about himself.
GermanSynergy
02-21-10, 12:54
O'Reilly has been slipping... I used to enjoy his show, but now will never watch it again. Beck, Limbaugh, Savage and a few others are worth listening to now, not BOR....
I seen it as it aired.
Infuriating.:mad:
I guess when things are really bad(and people need them most) is the only time it's ok to take away people rights to defend themselves and their families?
...Not really surprising though.
O'Reilly is way to busy being a pompous ass to truly believe in anything.Does anyone really buy his "man of the people" BS?:rolleyes:
I guess alot do.:(
I've always thought Bill O'Reilly was a POS. He is loud, confrontational, and only cares about himself.
Some of his other Youtube videos are outrageous. I think he needs a swift kick in the baby makers.
O'Reilly was interesting years ago...before the Iraq war, but since then, and especially of late, he has lost his fire. His show sucks now as he entertains people with viewpoints that are complete BS.
I've always thought Bill O'Reilly was a POS. He is loud, confrontational, and only cares about himself.
I agree. Bill O'Reilly has always been a pompous blowhard. He's not slipping lately, he's always been that way.
Outlander Systems
02-21-10, 13:13
I'm Anti-Bill O'Reilly.
I always get him confused with Lewis Prothero from, "V For Vendetta". An arrogant, self-righteous, prick, who is utterly and completely high on himself, and devoid of even a modicum of humility.
http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/lewis_prothero.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBpsyFbEOs&feature=PlayList&p=3E0E8E2DD3EA1E84&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=96
O'Reilly is equally voraciously vile, vindictive, vomitously vaniloquent, with vapulatory vermian vulgarities.
O'Reilly really stuck both feet in it, plum up to his knees or deeper.
I just sent him an email.I suggest others do the same...
oreilly@foxnews.com
Hopefully,if he gets enough,we'll get to enjoy watching him squirm and try to backtrack.
Wow - O has always been part of the "no one needs an ak47" type of guy. So was Charlton Heston. He just is wrong thinking there and obviously infatuated with himself. He seemed more to argueing it was legal "by-the-law" then and until challenged in court or like many states passing laws as to guarantee that right.
Honestly - what do you do when lots of men in uniforms with guns tell you to disarm and they are not enemy combatants or terrorists? Tell the its against the law, against the Consitution...while handing them your pistol...
I've always thought Bill O'Reilly was a POS. He is loud, confrontational, and only cares about himself.
100 + to that ! I,ve always said he,s a liberal koolaid drinker. :D
Wow - O has always been part of the "no one needs an ak47" type of guy. So was Charlton Heston.
Not defending the view point, but I think the NRA position at that time was based on what they thought they could defend tactically. In the theater of war, if you over-extend your front, you are not only vulnerable on your front, but deep into your flanks as well. Before the internet, Fox news, and the domination of conservative talk radio, fighting for assault weapons was a losing battle and most voters would have thought you to be a kook.
Things are gratually changing with the pro-gun movement as our lobbyists are supporting assault weapon ownership more and more. I don't think this would been possible without the improvements in the conservative media in the last 10 years. O' Riely is a fossil from the pre AWB era. He's a pompus prick, and overall I think he's more liberal than conservative based on his defense of many liberal agendas.
I thought this was common knowledge. He's always been part of the no guns, no drugs, no rights to your body, Christianity prevails, old irritable bastard group.
Bill lost me as a fan when he softened his position on illegal immigration and he has went down hill from there
I have been watching less and less of him lately since he is not standing up for conservative belief's. A few post above hit it right on the money that he is trying to please all by his position in the middle. Maybe his ratings will reflect his inability to take a position.
Heavy Metal
02-21-10, 15:33
Wow - O has always been part of the "no one needs an ak47" type of guy. So was Charlton Heston. He just is wrong thinking there and obviously infatuated with himself. He seemed more to argueing it was legal "by-the-law" then and until challenged in court or like many states passing laws as to guarantee that right.
Honestly - what do you do when lots of men in uniforms with guns tell you to disarm and they are not enemy combatants or terrorists? Tell the its against the law, against the Consitution...while handing them your pistol...
Lie to them.
Resisting an illegal law is permitted and lying is a valid and legal from of resistance in a situation like that.
That is the only case I would lie to an LEO.
I agree. Bill O'Reilly has always been a pompous blowhard. He's not slipping lately, he's always been that way.
This.
Belmont31R
02-21-10, 19:11
Email I sent to the douche:
What good does it do to own a gun for self defense if when you need it most the government can disarm you at will? A court order blocking confiscation doesn't do any good. It took months for NOLA to give guns officers confiscated back to their owners, and many of them were not recovered due to arcane rules surrounding their return. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting, or any other "cozy" use elitists such as yourself think it does. The 2nd gives us the right to own a weapon for self defense, as a check and balance against the government, and for a secure state. The amendment does not say, "unless a hurricane comes", and you cannot secure a state if when you need to do the securing your firearm is taken from you. Your logic is backwards, and makes me think you believe owning a gun is about hunting or some other "sporting" purpose which is clearly not the case, and is not supported by any Supreme Court decision, the Constitution, nor any documents from the Founding Fathers. They have all been implicit in what the amendment means. I think you need to do a bit of research about the 2nd's meaning, and also read about the Revolutionary War (specifically the opening engagements at Lexington and Concord where the British government ordered the confiscation of weapons). Our founders and patriots who fought the revolution fought the war so people could use guns to protect themselves (among many other reasons), and not have a tyrannical government confiscating their weapons at will. I doubt they fought and died for the cause just to have the US government do the same thing the British were trying to do.
Bill has always been about the state over the citizen. The only time he takes a stance where people come before the "authority" is kids and acts of a sexual nature. Anything else he believes in the almighty authority of the state to step into people's personal lives, and trample over their rights whenever they want.
He is not a freedom loving person in the least. He is a statist.
tracker722
02-21-10, 19:39
*****
I've always thought Bill O'Reilly was a POS. He is loud, confrontational, and only cares about himself.
Couldn't agree more. He's an idiot.
O'Reilly has always been anti 2A. This is not new news. He had a chapter about it in one of his books like 10 years ago. I tuned him out LONG LONG ago.
rickrock305
02-21-10, 20:24
Oreilly is and has always been a loud mouthed, over opinionated retard. just like every single other person on a news network, national or local.
cougar_guy04
02-21-10, 21:44
I never really watch the show, only caught this interview because of seeing the YouTube clip posted on a blog. "No-spin zone" my prominent posterior!
Pretty much anytime I ended up having Fox News on in the background when he came on I've regretted it. The show always seems to devolve into everyone trying to be heard over everyone else with O'Reilly talking down to, well, pretty much everyone. Makes my damn head hurt.
I don't generally care to watch O'Reilly...I did enjoy his Barney Fwank interview though...
They hang Lord Haw-Haw's after the war too Bill.
I just sent him an email.I suggest others do the same...
oreilly@foxnews.com
Hopefully,if he gets enough,we'll get to enjoy watching him squirm and try to backtrack.
Did you ask him how he would feel if his NYC CCW was taken away, along with his handgun?
I am sure he would say that should not apply to him, he brings the news.:rolleyes:
dirksterg30
02-22-10, 08:27
I've always enjoyed this video of O'Reilly flipping out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY
CarlosDJackal
02-22-10, 09:39
Prior to Katrina, Bill O was adamantly anti-gun. Afterwards, he softened his stance a bit. I guess now he has returned to his previous stance.
Bill O'Reilly is a pandering idiot that SOMETIMES come out with decent ideas. But his core belief has always been and will always be towards the left, at least when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
Disasters such as Katrina is when LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS should be allowed to keep and maintain their individual firearms. Because that is probably when they might need them for the defense of their lives and to hunt for food.
On another note, Glen Beck has been palling around with O'Reilly quite a bit and, if you're a Glen Beck fan, I think that's cause for concern. I'm starting to see signs of the same blowhard, narcissistic tendencies with Beck that are so very apparent in O'Reilly.
Dirk Williams
02-22-10, 11:22
I watch "The Factor" all the time and listen to Bill O while on patrol most weekdays. I don't like or dislike him. I do like his form and sometimes agree and sometimes don't agree with what he says.
He makes me think about the issues, He makes me question my principals and my values, to reaffirm where I stand on specific issues equally as important why I view the issues the way I do. A gut check.
Bill O has done some fantastic work for we the people. He's got stuff done via the power of the press that would never happen without the gentle nudge.
This specific interview sent me through the roof. To suggest that officers follow orders blindly from some meat puppet just because the meat puppett is in charge is insane, it's dangerous, it goes against the very essence of the oath taken by the police.
He used Katrina as the model. Suggesting that the unlawful removal of weapons by the police from US citizens was proper, simply defy's logic.
What concerns me even more is that the police blindly followed that order, unlawfully seizing citizens weapons. Hold accountable those we elect, by objective review regarding what is in the best interest of We The People, not what's in my personal best interest.
No Pain, No Gain
Dirk
On another note, Glen Beck has been palling around with O'Reilly quite a bit and, if you're a Glen Beck fan, I think that's cause for concern. I'm starting to see signs of the same blowhard, narcissistic tendencies with Beck that are so very apparent in O'Reilly.
I have thought this myself from time to time
On another note, Glen Beck has been palling around with O'Reilly quite a bit and, if you're a Glen Beck fan, I think that's cause for concern. I'm starting to see signs of the same blowhard, narcissistic tendencies with Beck that are so very apparent in O'Reilly.
yeah I have wondered if Bill is trying to keep Beck close to him ? or does Beck like being close to him and trying to get some of his audience ? or am I reading to much into it
my thoughts also are that Bill is scared about his numbers and audience being lost and is trying hard to control that ??
not sure if Beck has to kinda let him do this for a while cause of FOX or ????
Bill used to be OK in terms of investigative journalism, but they basically turned the program into fair to middling Johnny Carson / Tonight Show reenactment. I was about to say at least they don't have stupid animal tricks, but they do indeed have stupid animal videos on there.
The weird thing is that degenerate program Red Eye reliably has more current news and events than virtually anything else I've ever seen on television, or heard on radio.
Honestly, I like Bill and take everything anyone on TV sais with a grain of salt. I even enjoyed his books. Light reading at best, but was fun.
I can not listen to Rush, he is just to crazy for me. I still consider myself a conservative, but some things Rush sais are just way to out there.
I read Michael Savage's book and did enjoy it. But watching "The Factor" is not usualy an all to bad experience for me. Just have to think about it as a TV show. He will say things to get ratings.
The weird thing is that degenerate program Red Eye reliably has more current news and events than virtually anything else I've ever seen on television, or heard on radio.
Red Eye is probably the best show on Fox News.
NTM one of the funnier/better shows on TV.
Sure,it can be overly juvenile at times...But we're are talking about relative to other TV.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.