Why We Love Bill O’Reilly
He says it like it is, and takes the heat.
-
“You know, if I’m the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium and I say, ‘Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you’re not going to get another nickel in federal funds,’” O’Reilly said Tuesday on his radio show as San Franciscans were approving the two measures.
“Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead,” O’Reilly went on. “And 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 want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”
NOTE: For the reading impaired, Bill O’Reilly is NOT (in no way) suggesting or recommending that anyone “blow up” Coit Tower. However, based on San Francisco’s insistence to alienate itself from the rest of America — i.e. legalizing homosexual marriages (with the Mayor himself presiding), promoting public S&M exhibitionism, harboring left-wing extremists, legalizing marijuana, holding a defiant middle-finger up to the U.S. military, banning legal gun ownership and recruiting for our armed forces — O’Reilly is simply pointing out that, given the City’s disrespect for homeland security (let alone personal security), “Baghdad by the Bay” should be the last place deserving of defense. San Francisco can use its liberal arrogance to fend for itself.
The S.F. Chronicle reports on some frothy reactions from local “leadership” after Bill O’Reilly expressed these candid remarks about San Francisco.
Reaction came swiftly from City Hall, which has taken other arrows in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election. Thursday on KNEW-AM — O’Reilly’s Bay Area radio home — conservative talk-show host Jeff Katz ripped handgun-measure supporters on San Francisco’s “Board of Stupidadvisors.”
Board of, uh, Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, whose district includes Coit Tower, suggested that O’Reilly should get his head examined.
“It sounds like he’s on the same medication Rush Limbaugh is addicted to, and he should go see a therapist,” Peskin said.
Resorting to cheap shots. Perhaps the “diminutive supervisor,” as the Chronicle has called him, resents O’Reilly’s stature — not to mention his towering intellect.
Mayor Gavin Newsom said, “I’ve never been impressed with what he’s had to say, and I’m not impressed now. Consider the source. Remember, this is the guy who wanted me arrested after (San Francisco sanctioned same-sex marriages last year). He never let his opinion get in the way of the facts.”
Well, Gavin, hate to break it to you: We’ve never been impressed with you either. And we most certainly consider the source: You are entirely driven by a political agenda that puts your personal opinions over public good. Care, Not Cash was your claim to fame. Last we checked, the panhandling homeless are still laying in the streets — of course, not in your neighborhood.
At least one liberal media watchdog group was offended by O’Reilly’s Coit Tower remark. Media Matters for America President David Brock said, “He’s encouraging terrorist attacks. It’s over the top.”
Wrong. See note above.
Furthermore, Mr. Brock would be better advised to recognize that national weakness encourages terrorist attacks, and that is the underlying point to O’Reilly’s remarks.
The Chronicle’s Joe Garofoli, who appears to be one of the few fair journalists around this town, concludes the article by asking:
But isn’t O’Reilly allowed the same type of latitude that liberals have said other entertainers should be afforded?
Indeed.
However, every outspoken liberal confidently knows that the same rules of free speech don’t apply to conservatives. We are held to a different standard that does not allow for dissenting opinons which may challenge their utopian fantasies.
If we do, that makes us “extreme.”
UPDATE:
PoliticalTeen has audio
RELATED:
Moonbat Voters: Only In San Francisco
Angela Alioto: Anti-Gun, Anti-Reason
November 12th, 2005 at 11:15 am
This is great. What are the “two measures” that he was making a commentary on?
November 12th, 2005 at 11:28 am
O’Reilly In Trouble For al-Qaida Comments
See also California Conservative’s “Why We Love Bill O’Reilly” where they hilariously refer to San Francisco as “Baghdad by the Bay.”
November 12th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
Dean’s Dot.Com Bust & Open Post
Dan Riehl: No Freaking Way
Point Five: ‘Cell Phone Bandit’ Robs Banks To Pay Cell Phone Bill
California Conservative: Why We Love Bill OÂ’Reilly
November 12th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.
For the reading impaired, Bill O’Reilly is NOT (in no way) suggesting or recommending that anyone “blow up†Coit Tower.
Guess you don’t read so good, huh? Every place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco? You want to blow up Coit Tower, go ahead?
Guess there isn’t much he could say you wouldn’t defend, huh?
November 12th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Re. Pug’s comment, if it’s correct in context - as this is - yes, we will defend it, as CC has done quite nicely, thank you. Being part of the union comes with responsibilities. O’Reilly was pointing out that SFO has them, just like the rest of us. You want to take the opposite tack and argue for radical (even borderline secessionist) states’ rights? Be my guest. Conservatives have been trying to go there for a long time. It’s been liberals who’ve pushed back, pressing for a hyper-centralized government out of Washington. You can’t have it both ways.
November 12th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Let’s all miss the point
How to make stupidity stew: Step 1: San Francisco supports a wacky proposition to make military access to public schools more difficult. This is a perfect example of the left wing playbook. Every student is free to decide what
November 12th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
[...] California Conservative has a post up entitled “Why We Love Bill O’Reilly” which quotes something O’Reilly said on his radio show this week about San Fransisco and a vote in the city to keep military recruiters out of public schools. O’Reilly’s response: “You know, if I’m the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium and I say, ‘Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you’re not going to get another nickel in federal funds,’†[...]
November 12th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Paraphrasing Bill O’Reilly
Californian Conservative emphatically denies that the O’Reilly is “suggesting or recommending that anyone ‘blow up’ Coit Tower.” Oh, really? What if I make the quote a little more personal and use those same words with O’Reilly as the subject, wi…
November 12th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
This just in. Had to share. Another example of San Francisco’s finest.
- - -
To: info@californiaconservative.org
Subject: You terrorist fucking cowards
From: inshuti1994@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:43:35 -0800
Support O’Reilly, then come to SF so we “extremists” can kick your fucking moronic asses. You cowardly fucking morons! you’re pathetic–you’re all offspring of your granddaddies fucking your mothers.
- - -
We’re checking our family tree…this sounds complicated.
November 12th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
I love Bill
November 12th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
“For the reading impaired, Bill O’Reilly is NOT (in no way) suggesting or recommending that anyone “blow up†Coit Tower.”
You are correct.
What he is saying is worse.
Basically O’Reilly believes that if you happen to disagree with the President, then you no longer deserve to receive the due care and attention, of other citizens.
In other words you are no longer deserving of being a citizen of the United States if you dare have an opinion that that differs from his own.
Great way of thinking in a supposedly democratic nation.
Disgusting.
November 12th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
Bill O’Reilly’s “great” idea
This is why Bill O’Reilly will never be president. He’s an idiot. Of course San Francisco is full of a bunch of anti-American leftoids. But, the answer isn’t to accede to their wishes and let them secede from the country. (I know that won’t happen …
November 12th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
“Basically O’Reilly believes that if you happen to disagree with the President, then you no longer deserve to receive the due care and attention, of other citizens.”
Umm… I didn’t hear that. It’s interesting how libs hear things that aren’t there.
The military has been an important institution since the foundation of this country. All Bill O’Reilly was saying is that those who want to hinder the capability of that institution to do its job need not benefit from its work. It’s only fair…
November 12th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Reading impaired update: Bill O’Reilly’s remarks have nothing to do with President Bush. Nor do they have anything to do with “disagreeing” with the President or Administration policy.
Instead, O’Reilly’s remarks are in reference to San Francisco’s recent election which passed two left-wing propositions: 1. Banning legal ownership of handguns (criminals will still possess them the ‘old fashioned’ way), and 2. banning military recruiters from public schools (which receive federal funding)
November 13th, 2005 at 1:33 am
For a laugh, check out the truly humor impaired. Thinks O’Reilly should questioned by the FBI.
November 13th, 2005 at 5:16 am
“Umm… I didn’t hear that. ”
I don’t find that at all surprising.
November 13th, 2005 at 5:26 am
It’s Only Un-American In Your Version of the Country
California Conservative » Why We Love Bill O’ReillyOTE: For the reading impaired, Bill O’Reilly is NOT (in no way) suggesting…
November 13th, 2005 at 6:14 am
Brunch: 11/13/2005
Try one of these specials with your brunch:
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred look at the City Alight Of Light
Outside the Beltway looks at trouble in France
Blogs for Bush looks at the truth about White Phosphorous
Confederate Yankee has more on White P…
November 13th, 2005 at 6:49 am
“I don’t find that at all surprising.”
You shouldn’t. It’s because you made it up. Nothing like a little slander to get back at someone whose argument you can’t legitimately oppose, huh?
November 13th, 2005 at 7:07 am
Sunday Funnies
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia provides our funny.
Cranky Neocon provides another.
First of all, something not funny. Project Valour IT did it! Argghhh has the results.
Wizbang has the carnival of trackbacks.
Cao’s got a funny that isn’t…
November 13th, 2005 at 7:38 am
[...] Its good to know that A Mom and Her Blog does not feed her kids to alligators. Blue State Conservative asks what galaxy are you from? California Conservative takes up for Bill O’Reilly My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is looking for Jesus Jones. They also have a message on Stray tolerance. Moonbattery has the new French flag Ogre has some fun with words. And who’s ever heard of a nerd Ogre? [...]
November 13th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Bill O’Reilly’s ‘controversial’ remarks
Cal over at California Conservative takes on those who are harshly condemning recent remarks Bill O’Reilly made after the election in San Francisco, an election which saw a majority of voters there choose to vote against military recruiting of y…
November 13th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Bill OReilly is Right!
Bill OÂ’Reilly is absolutely correct. San Francisco should not expect our military to come to their aid in any crisis. The city has effectively told our military to take a hike so we as a country should do the same. Let them defend themselves if that …
November 14th, 2005 at 10:50 am
That’s exactly what he’s suggesting, inviting al Qaeda to destroy a moment to firefighters no less!
What Bill O’Reilly is really suggesting though is that people take violent action against those they disagree with, advocating for the destruction of all citizens of San Francisco, even those like me who voted against both propositions.
I don’t like a lot of what goes on here in San Francisco. sometimes it’s amazing anything happens with all these bleeding heart liberals and wanna-be socialists, but it hit me the other day that I have to side more with them that Bill O’Reilly.
We live in a democratic republic with a right to vote and sometimes that means letting people make stupid decisions like they did on propositions H and I (and prop F as well).
I don’t like how it went either, and unlike O’Reilly, I live here and have a right to be more upset than he does, but I have to accept the vote and wait for the courts to overturn it.
Thankfully there is a court system to make sure when people vote for something unconstitutional it will be overturned. Maybe because I live here and a lot more issues that should get settled through the court, but catch phrases like “activist judges” really tick me off because they are protecting the Constitution from these kind of liberal propositions from the voters whims.
November 14th, 2005 at 11:18 am
We are fighting a war against terrorism, and every citizen, every state and every city must be vigilant. Banning handguns and military recruiting isn’t the way to do it. Liberal measures like this are only weakening society, while our enemies and criminals grow stronger.
San Francisco flaunts it’s responsibility, and is home to many who even sympathize with the enemy.
Let’s all stick to the facts. Bill O’Reilly said this:
“And 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 want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”
That is not the same as “inviting al Qaeda” to blow up anything. It’s stating the inevitable. America is under attack, and everyone agrees it’s not a matter of IF but when and where another 9/11 happens.
That’s why vigilance is required.
As for being a monument to firefighters, would you have preferred O’Reilly pointing to Shorenstein’s “BofA” building in downtown San Francisco? Of course, that would be far worse, as it’s filled with thousands of people working.
For those who are unfamiliar, Coit Tower is a relatively small monument visited primarily by tourists. Not a 52-floor office building — which would be a more likely target for terrorists.
The greatest irony of this entire discussion, one which O’Reilly might even agree with: as long as the San Francisco Bay Area continues producing moonbat protests and the likes of Cindy Sheehan, anti-Americans and anarchists against our government, it’ll be the last place for al Qaeda to target. Just as long as we keep aiding and comforting the enemy.
That’s not a policy; that’s a prescription for doom.
November 14th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
I think you are doing our cause of protecting America from terrorism by defending Bill O’Reilly’s statement.
Here you seem to be trying to justify that if an attack were to happen on Coit Tower, it’s relatively small size would make the attack itself unimportant. And to that I could say back that living in San Francisco, the World Trade Center is so far away in such a big city, what does it really matter if it were destroyed anyway?
I would be completely wrong, and you are as well, if that is the case you are trying to make.
And very much in the same vein, you cannot condone it’s destruction if it were filled with tourists and not residents. The fact it is a tourist destination, and a monument to firefighters only magnifies the the tragedy if it were destroyed. For those reasons, attacking Coit Tower is becomes much more of an attack on America, our citizens and our way of life than if a terrorist were to go for the biggest body count.
You are trying to change the subject here by implying I would condone an attack on the Bank of America Building while not addressing the actual issue that O’Reilly condoned an attack on Coit Tower.
I am not in the position of having to choose which one to be attacked. I don’t happen to believe it is alright to blow up any building.
I would be justified to this challenge by asking you an inflammatory question in return that challenged your loyalty to this country like “why do you think it is alright to blow up Coit Tower?” but I would much rather believe we both find either option unacceptable and want America safe.
O’Reilly said, “You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.” which is not acceptable and he should retract the statement so we can got on to the more important matter of overturning these propositions in a court of law.
None of us want a terrorist attack and we are fighting amongst ourselves over a statement that should not have been made, while the liberals are probably reading themselves for the court challenge. You are not doing our cause justice by trying to defend O’Reilly when you should be joining with me in asking him to address the real issue of defending the Constitution.
November 14th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
O’Reilly said, “You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.” which is not acceptable…
Of course not. And it was not intended to be taken seriously. After all, who’s he talking to? He’s mocking a conversation with al Qaeda — or does anyone think he’s really in communication with them? (Question withdrawn) It’s purely rhetorical, and everyone with common sense knows this. O’Reilly was merely underscoring the foolheartedness (and consequences) of San Francisco’s pacifist stance.
Do liberals take offense when Sen. Mary Landrieu suggests she’s going to “punch” the president, or when AirAmerica’s Randi Rhoades jokes about assassinating the President? No. They laugh it off and dismiss the critics.
O’Reilly’s comments have been pounced upon purposefully by those who don’t care for him personally, not because of his throw-away remark about Coit Tower, but because of the other controversial issues which he brings to light on his program. He exposes the lunacies of the Left and he has a big microphone with which to bring it to the attention of the rest of America. Hence, lefties like Chris Daly are seizing upon this as an opportunity to bring O’Reilly grief — to intentionally blow the matter out of proportion in a transparent attempt to discredit him.
We are not “defending” him but rather clarifying his statements which seem to be both misunderstood and misrepresented, more of one than the other.
O’Reilly should not and hopefully will not retract his statements.
And we thank him for bringing increased national attention to our City of moonbattery.
November 14th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
[...] Shameless Self-Promo » When Democrats Attack The President and How The MSM Reports It » San Francisco’s New Public Address Warning System Has Flaws » L.A. Named Nation’s Smog Capital » Karl Rove: In Rare Appearance, BlastsJudicial Activism » An Army of One » He’s Back!!! Part II » “In God We Trust” — Unless Michael Newdow Gets His Way » Big Bucks for Administrators at University of California » John Edwards: “I Was Wrong” » Will Warren Beatty Run For Governor? » A Tale of Two Stories » The Medal of Freedom: For He Who Did Nothing To Earn It » He’s Back!!! Part I » Harry Reid Gets A Fisking » Insurgents & Terrorists: What Is The Truth? » Why We Love Bill O’Reilly » Dean to Bush “We Can’t Stay the Course” » Mary Mapes: The Journalistic Standard » Angela Alioto: Anti-Gun, Anti-Reason List all posts » [...]
November 15th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
[...] RELATED: Why We Love Bill O’Reilly [...]
November 15th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
[...] RELATED: Why We Love Bill O’Reilly [...]
November 17th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
“Of course not. And it was not intended to be taken seriously.”
Hmm… He sounded pretty angry when he said it, but I’ll take your word for it being satirical, it’s just like when president Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He didn’t mean anything by it, as the evidence proves they never really existed.
November 26th, 2005 at 8:39 am
[...] RELATED: POLL: San Francisco Says Screw The Military  What Do You Say To Them? Hurt Feelings In San Francisco Why We Love Bill O’Reilly Angela Alioto: Anti-Gun, Anti-Reason [...]
April 4th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
[...] Last year, it was big, bad Bill O’Reilly that hurt some feelings in the City of carefree liberalism. Now, South Park is dishing it out and some don’t like it. [...]
August 30th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Xanax bars….
Buy xanax online. Xanax. Xanax effect. Side effects of xanax. Generic xanax….
July 4th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
That\’s great. i like your site