Bill O'Reilly is NO History Teacher.

For several years now I have had a problem with Bill O'Reilly and his lack of comprehending history and the essence of “If you forget history you are doomed to repeat it.” The first thing I wrote was because of O'Reilly limited scope on history, as a person who has always been captivated with history and historical facts and as an aspiring writer history has proven itself to be full of surprises. And O'Reilly has proven my belief that those with a little knowledge can be
dangerous when they use it in the wrong way. My first article is proof.

My first article was a response to Bill O'Reilly’s Vlad the Assailer from August 14, 2008, O'Reilly comparing the historical Vlad Tepes the inspiration for Bram Stoker’s Dracula with Vladimir Putin of today’s Russia, O'Reilly making his usual jump of conclusion used limited knowledge of Vlad Tepes to say and I quote
“. . . Romanian ruler named Vlad Tepes who, in the 15th century, committed incredible atrocities like impaling thousands of captured people on
felled trees. Nice guy. For this, Tepes was called Vlad the Impaler.” But O'Reilly failed to dig deeper, Vlad Tepes had a problem we currently have today, an Islamic invasion who wanted to conquer Tepes country Wallachia and then move on to the rest of Europe. He also had a problem with the boyars (Romanian Nobles) who had a habit of betraying and undermining their country to enemies if that said enemy would leave them alone, oh and lest I forget a bout the Germans who had a habit of raiding Wallachia and taking slaves of its people. I should note that a lot of
the information regarding Tepes’s “evilness” was from those who were his and Wallachia’s enemies, in a way it would be like letting Nazis teach the history of the Jews, it wouldn’t make any sense to those of us who know what they did.

Now not that I want to be defending Tepes’s habit of staking people, but who exactly was he supposed to go to for help, Tepes’s lived from 1431-1476, no UN or League of Nations to help, not that either of those groups ever proved to be useful. Also he as the leader of a small nation about the size of New Jersey was facing an enemy who believed they were on a mission from God with an army close to one hundred thousand. Vlad Tepes was doing what he had to do to save his country and people, which by the way he put the freemen and peasants in to positions
that had originally only been held by the boyars.

Now again O'Reilly has shown that he is short sighted when it comes to history and historical facts. First a few weeks ago he tells Glenn Beck he doesn’t care what Woodrow Wilson did or about his progressive policies (please read here for more on Wilson) and now he doesn’t care that Obama has acted like a thug to BP instead of following the law saying “I’m fine with that,” well I am not, This is a republic not a Thugocracy run by the head thug.

In case you missed it Mr. O'Reilly a republic is not a democracy, a common mistake, some of the Greek city states were democracies such as Athens, those democracies though were run in a way we would find chaotic it was more of a mob rule. The classic example of this was the case of Socrates where he was found guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock Why? Because he called those in positions of leadership and thought of as wise men as fools and foolish because they thought that
they were wiser then the people (sound familiar.) There are more examples I can use, one favorite is a George W. Bush comparison, that leader lead the Greeks against the Persians and at the end they exiled him, ironically he lived the rest of his life in exile in the nation he fought against, Persia.

Now it was the Romans who brought us the first republic, instead of the people voting on every action, they would vote for representatives who would make these decisions instead, and within this republic there would be many districts. As many familiar with Rome know these representatives were the Senators of Rome. While democracies were chaotic and small, Rome proved that a republic could not just grow but thrive as Rome’s borders expanded out the number of senators were added. As a Republic we have much more in common with Rome then the Greeks, while many we became one, Americans, just as with Rome, it didn’t mater where you cam from if you became a Roman you were a Roman.

As some one who has studied Roman history and American the parallels can be startling Rome was started as a place for new beginnings and chances, America has the same, people coming to a new land to start new and away from the problems of the old world. Now we have the Progressives who are trying to bring back the darker ways and people like Mr. O'Reilly a “History Teacher” who could care less about history and are more interested in the “moment.”

Solomon.

P.S. to O'Reilly if he should read this, in case you are going to say you like the Greeks, I have one response, did you know that the ancient Greeks were pro man-boy love, and yes that means what you think. The Roman people on the other hand didn't like those ways.