As the Grand Poobah of Insufferable Sanctimony on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly takes his role very seriously. That’s why he exhibited a particularly grating level of angst after the Senate declined to pass legislation that he personally proposed and promoted. The bill that he called “Kate’s Law” would impose mandatory sentencing (never a good idea) for certain undocumented immigrants convicted of a felony. And the failure of that vote inspired his commentary entitled “Anarchy in America.”
O’Reilly took out his anger on a variety of victims (video below), starting with the senators who voted against his pet bill. And for some reason he leaped out of reality to accuse them of having violated some unnamed law themselves. “Forty-five senators failed to uphold federal law,” he said, “violating their oath of office. Where is the outrage?” It appears that O’Reilly thinks that not voting for passage of a bill that he supports makes them guilty of not upholding federal law. That, of course, is just plain nuts. However, if wants to know where the outrage is, all he has to do is look in the mirror.
Next O’Reilly laid into Malia Cohen, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He was furious that the local government (something conservatives usually revere) voted to maintain their “sanctuary city” ordinances. But he was probably even more upset by what she said:
“We cannot allow hateful conservative news stations to drive how we respond to incidents in our city. I’m not afraid of Fox News and they don’t influence how I make my policy decisions here in San Francisco.”
Uh oh. Now she’s done it. Because the hateful news station to which she referred was, of course, Fox News, and specifically O’Reilly’s grandstanding on the subject of sanctuary cities, and his revolting exploitation of the tragic death of Kate Steinle. After playing the video of Cohen’s remarks, O’Reilly said…
“Now let me be very clear. That woman is a disgrace. And if I were the Attorney General of the United States I would immediately place her under arrest. I might not win the case, but I would send a message to all subversive office holders in this country that if you do not obey federal law you yourself will be prosecuted.”
Imagine for a moment how O’Reilly would react if a Democratic Attorney General suggested using the authority entrusted to him by his position to harass and threaten people with whom he disagreed. O’Reilly would regard that as a blatant abuse of power that bordered on tyranny. What’s more, he would be right. Law enforcement agencies are not permitted to use their legal authority to intimidate or to “send a message.” He’s probably thinking of the Mafia. In fact, it is illegal to arrest anyone, or to bring charges against them, without having a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. So O’Reilly is admitting that he would break the law were he in that position.
O’Reilly’s hatred for San Francisco is all consuming. He went on to say that “The city of San Francisco is hopeless. It’s a free-fire zone of anti-establishment behavior.” That’s an interesting comment considering how often he himself criticizes the establishment. But O’Reilly has had it in for San Francisco for a long time. Way back in 2005 he even gave permission to Al Qaeda to destroy the city:
“If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco.”
You have to wonder what has gotten into these wingnuts. O’Reilly articulates his desire to break the law by using government powers to intimidate his ideological foes. Ben Carson recently said that he would use the Department of Education to police college campuses “for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.” And Donald Trump just said that he would support closing down mosques.
These extremist conservative sentiments should be remembered whenever you hear Republicans claim to care about the Constitution. Each of these examples of their true beliefs violate constitutional laws. The party of small government wants it to big enough to arrest its dissidents, to tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies, to force its favored religion on all citizens, to censor speech and thought, and to enrich the upper-crusters who keep them in power. And every now and then, like O’Reilly, they admit it.
How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.
O’Reilly said she would be placed under arrest because she and the rest of San Francisco’s board of supervisors are violating federal law with their sanctuary city policy. Mark is ignoring the facts again.
But they are not violating federal law. And O’Reilly will arrest anyone who dares disagree with his sanctimonious rants…how’s that for freedom in the ‘exceptional’ USA?
Yes, they are violating federal law, it is simply not being enforced. And you are lying about Bill O’Reilly.
Your statement already contradicts itself.
I need not remind you either that sanctuary cities are considered constitutional.
Scottie:
I see you on this thread again — always good for a chuckle. The last time I saw your drivel you were pontificating and bloviating about Mayhem Kelly and I thought you were simply an adolescent “boy” in the basement of your parent’s home coping with failure, rejection, and waiting to grow up.
I guess I was wrong — still in your basement, but now helping bloviating and serial fact-challenged Bloviating Billdo sell books.
Scott, please tell us which law “she and the rest of San Francisco’s board of supervisors” are violating. Otherwise your reply is worthless.
Somebody oughtta do something about O’Reilly. Somebody oughtta take him out.
I assume you mean to Sylvia’s in Harlem to get some iced tea.
Nice try Mark – I don’t think that is what this Lib meant.
Read his name … his comment is meant as a caricature of O’Reilly.
Again, nice try. Libs are human too and can suggest violence. Let him defend his words – I’m just enjoying how easily you “enlightened” libs can turn to hatred and violence. I d on’t blame Mark for his defense, it’s his blog and he may want to keep things nonviolent and respectable. You’re just delusional.
Yikes. Stop taking yourself so seriously.
I think Mark recognized “George Tillers'” comment for what it was and I also think his comment was an attempt to cut you off at the pass as he knew you wouldn’t. Or at the very least would make some obtuse response about it. You’re predictable. And Ben is right–it’s a caricature. You should look that up. It’ll be “enlightening”.
You see, “George” was responding to the contents of the post and the hypocrisy of O’Reilly and how it’s OK for him to judge others that don’t agree with him by arresting them or asking someone to “take out” Dr Tiller. He was in not advocating for hate and violence . That’s O’Reillys’ game.
I get that you don’t quite grasp nuance–it’s real hard–but keep trying. I’m sure you’ll get it.
I thinks he just likes to portray liberals in a very negative light.
Wow, you really do think you’re all better than everyone else. The entertainment I get here is endless – thanks for the laughs.
Delu – actually that isn’t true. What is true is that I call things for what they are – I don’t make excuses for people just because he is a percieved lib or on “my” team. If the poster didn’t mean it the way it sounds – let them defend themselves. Mark just defends his own kind – he has proven that before. You really are shallow – glad I’m not a lib, I might need to become something pretty awful.
Bill O’Really, a big, steaming pile of horsesh–, always and forever. (Much like his buddy Donnie TRumphole.)
If I was a 2nd generation Mick Fathead Monkey, I Would get a handgun from a vending machine, & shoot myself in the place most folks have a heart.