Share This:

I have been a periodic critic of Bill O’Reilly, and I am by no means a fan. O’Reilly needs to be applauded for bringing conservative voices to the media discussion, but he has been inconsistent with his own talking points in respect to conservative principles.

O’Reilly’s book, “Culture Warrior,” written in 2006, was a harbinger of the tyranny which was progressively creeping into the American mainstream. He was the first media voice to speak of secular-progressivism and George Soros. I must in good conscience credit Bill with the praise he deserves for the attention he has brought to the forces which threaten to bring down the republic.

But O’Reilly backed away from his earlier harbinger of national destruction brought to us by the Liberals. He became more moderate, and he failed drastically in notifying the “folks” as to the radicalism of Barack Obama. When it came to Obama, O’Reilly tried to be a voice of reason. Unfortunately, when it comes to Marxist extremism, there is no such thing as a voice of reason.

It was during this time that many of O’Reilly’s loyal viewers lost faith with the man that they had once considered to reflect their mainstream traditional values. For whatever motive, Bill decided to back away from his hard-hitting approach to progressivism and the culture rot which he had famously identified.

I always assumed that Bill transformed his show into an unpredictable moderate program, which strayed from its original conservative talking points, because he was either threatened or blackmailed, and probably the latter.

When I defend O’Reilly, I am not doing so from the supposition that he is innocent of the sexual harassment charges which have been brought against him. And I am not doing so because I am a devoted follower. I contend that despite his shortcomings, he is now a victim of the Left.

“The New York Times” is reporting or boasting that they are behind the current firestorm at Fox News regarding Bill O’Reilly and the sexual harassment claims which have been around for years. It was the NYT that decided to investigate O’Reilly’s behaviors at this particular time. There have been five women who have received payouts from complaints, two of those women have come forward since the ousting of Roger Ailes.

It is common knowledge for anyone who routinely watches O’Reilly’s Fox News program, “The Factor”, that O’Reilly has been a hard-hitting analyst of The New York Times. He has exposed not only their media bias but their progressive agenda as well. Could it be that the NYT has a grudge against O’Reilly? Could it be that the far-left NYT is settling an old score with O’Reilly? Could it be that Arthur Sulzburger Jr. decided that now was the time to take O’Reilly to task for sexual harassment claims that “The Times” had known about for years?

Several years ago, Joseph Farah, the editor-in-chief of the conservative website WorldNetDaily, wrote a column in which he warned that when the aging Rupert Murdoch, who is a moderate conservative, decides to surrender his Fox News duties to his sons, there will be dramatic changes.

Farah wrote that the Murdoch sons, James and Lachlan Murdoch, are Liberals. And he put his readers on notice that when Rupert tired of his position as the decision-maker at Fox, there would be dramatic changes within Fox News. There is little doubt that Rupert Murdoch knows that Bill O’Reilly helped to build Fox News. Rupert needed O’Reilly. And now O’Reilly needs Rupert to step up for him. But with James and Lachlan at the helm of Fox now, it is doubtful that their father will work his magic to save O’Reilly.

O’Reilly’s latest accuser, Wendy Walsh, complains that O’Reilly didn’t follow through on a verbal offer to secure a lucrative position at Fox News for her at Fox, because she rebuffed his advances. Is Walsh really that na├»ve or just plain stupid? While O’Reilly was wrong to ask her for sexual favors, if indeed he did, why did Walsh think he would want to go out of his way to get her a “lucrative position” at the network? Did she think he was just such a good guy that he wanted to make sure she was getting big bucks from Fox? Again, that is assuming that Walsh is telling the truth, which I doubt.

Is Walsh so arrogant that she believes a man of O’Reilly’s celebrity status helps all of his guests land high-paying positions on the top-rated network? It sounds to me that Walsh is angry, because she believes herself to be worthy of a Fox position that she didn’t get.

Bill O’Reilly is a powerful man who thinks a lot of himself and no doubt searches for sexual conquests. Similar complaints have been made about David Letterman, but for obvious reasons, “The New York Times” did not decide to investigate Letterman. Letterman was a Liberal. They were not going after their own.

Conservatives may cheer because Bill O’Reilly has finally been brought to task, but they just might want to remember that it is the Left that is driving the anti-O’Reilly train. And O’Reilly’s demise is a win for the Democrats and mainstream fake media.

O’Reilly’s demise, if it indeed occurs, will be a loss for President Trump and Conservatives. Just remember that.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.