Thursday, February 09, 2006


Bill O'Reilly is a hypocrite regarding the Mohammed cartoons. I respected his decision not to show them, but then came last night's segment on the issue. He was talking with Jim Pinkerton, from Newsday, and a gentleman from Editor and Publisher magazine, making the point that the NY Times hypocritically refuses to publish the cartoons, while publishing Chris Ofili's "dung" Mary painting again this very week. So far, so good.

As he was saying this, HE SHOWED THE OFFENSIVE IMAGE! (and I don't mean the Muhammed cartoons)

I'm a big fan of Mr. O'Reilly's, as most who read LEAVWORLD know. That remains true, but I have to take him to task on this one. He states that the NY Times should explain why they will run only material that is offensive to Christians or Jews, but not Muslims. I now have to ask him the same question.

Mr. O, you got some 'splainin' to do. I should have asked to get on the "bloviate with Bill" segment in my email to him about this. Hopefully, someone over at the Factor reads this and invites me, because I would nail his ass to the wall on this one. Every argument he made about the NY Times now applies to him, except the secularist angle. He's scared to publish the cartoons, just like the Times

There is a further disturbing aspect to his showing that image. It is clearly pornographic, with cutouts of actual photos of women's derrieres and spread vaginas. I can picture some kid saying "Are those butterflys, Daddy?." It turns my stomach more than any religious offense I take at the image.

The man is not looking out for children when he shows that image without any warning. He, like most of the MSM, are either blinded by the "art" label on this trash, or they've overlooked the pornography because of the elephant dung. Either way, bad job on that one, Bill.

Run the Mohammed cartoons, or stop running the anti-Christian pornography. Just don't make me compare you to the NY Times again!

No comments: