Tag: Fox News

Sean Hannity’s 30 Minute Trump Interview Ignores KKK Controversy | Blog | Media Matters for America

Source: Sean Hannity’s 30 Minute Trump Interview Ignores KKK Controversy | Blog | Media Matters for America

Hannity Reportedly Calls For America To “Carpet Bomb The Shit Out Of ISIS” | Blog | Media Matters for America

Source: Hannity Reportedly Calls For America To “Carpet Bomb The Shit Out Of ISIS” | Blog | Media Matters for America

How Fox News Responded to Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Show versus White Rioters Smashing Police Cars

In a dazzling display of ignorance and hypocrisy, Fox News once again shows us why they are the premier spin zone for the Republican party and its backwards politics. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a regular contributor and panelist on Fox News programs, recently appeared on their morning show Fox & Friends sounding like an […]

Source: How Fox News Responded to Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Show versus White Rioters Smashing Police Cars

Donald Trump & Fox News: Timeline Of A Relationship | Blog | Media Matters for America

Source: Donald Trump & Fox News: Timeline Of A Relationship | Blog | Media Matters for America

2015 Broke A New Climate Change Record And It’s Bad News For The Planet «

How screwed are we as a species? Very.

Source: 2015 Broke A New Climate Change Record And It’s Bad News For The Planet «

The Fox Primary For November: Trump Leads, Rubio Surges | Blog | Media Matters for America

Source: The Fox Primary For November: Trump Leads, Rubio Surges | Blog | Media Matters for America

Speaking Of Media Bias… | Blog | Media Matters for America

Source: Speaking Of Media Bias… | Blog | Media Matters for America

Suspect in Virginia Slaying Kills Himself | Al Jazeera America

Franklin County sheriff says gunman who killed reporter Alison Parker and photographer Adam Ward has died

Source: Suspect in Virginia Slaying Kills Himself | Al Jazeera America

Andrew Bolt will ignore this report and wont take back his suggestion it was a hate -race crime against whites. He’ll play it like Fox News

Fox News set Trump up to fail at the first GOP debate. So why is he still on top?

Roger Ailes, President of Fox News

What Roger Ailes Really Thinks of Donald Trump

Jon Stewart has been one the most influential American voices in the last half-century, especially when it comes to calling out Fox News’ lies. To celebrate his last week on The Daily Show, here are some of our favorite moments:

The Best Of Jon Stewart Taking On Fox News

Fox News reported that an “ISIS-linked” Twitter account warned of today’s shooting in Tennessee before it happened, but the tweet in question was sent after the attack had ended. The falsehood was propagated by anti-Islam blogger Pamela Geller before spreading through conservative media

Fox Runs With Bogus ISIS Link To Chattanooga Shooting

http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2015/07/16/40878/fnc-yw-20150716-herridge-isis-3

UPDATE: Fox Admits It Was Wrong About ISIS Tweet

  • Four Marines were killed when a shooter fired on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Fox News reported that the attacks may be connected to ISIS because an ISIS supporter purportedly discussed the shooting on Twitter before it happened. Fox host Sean Hannity repeated the false claim on his radio show.

    In fact, the tweet Fox News referenced was posted well after the shooting had already occurred. Mashable editor Brian Ries first pointed out the discrepancy.

    On Your World, Fox’s chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reported, “the last investigative thread I would mention at this point is that we’re taking a hard look at a Twitter account — an ISIS-linked Twitter account — that seemed to have foreknowledge of the shooting in Chattanooga. The tweet went out at 10:34 with the hashtag Chattanooga referring to American dogs and a likely shooting. This of course was about 15 minutes before the shooting took place.”

    On his radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity also referenced the inaccurate information.

    HANNITY: We have a report from Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch, that he’s put together — a timeline regarding today’s, what they are now calling a domestic terrorist act in Chattanooga. We have four Marines that have been killed. By the way, our thoughts, our prayers are with the families and the entire military community there. According to the AP, the shooting started around 10:30, 10:45. The Islamic State tweeted a warning about the attack, posted at 10:34 a.m. The ISIS tweet specifically mentioned Chattanooga, which is an obvious reference to the attack. If it’s true that ISIS was taking credit for the shooting at the exact same time, or maybe slightly before the shooting commenced, that would be pretty strong evidence of a connection. And Spencer reminds us the Islamic State has called on Muslims to murder American military personnel here in the U.S.

    Fox repeated the claim in further segments on Your World, The Five, and later on Special Report.

    The source of the claim is conservative blogger Pamela Geller, who has a long history of anti-Muslim activism.

    Geller made the claim on Twitter and on her blog, writing, “This morning an ISIS supporter tweeted this at 10:34 am — the shooting started at 10:45.” The report cited by Hannity from Jihad Watch cites Geller as the source. Spencer has often worked with Geller on anti-Muslim projects.

    But the tweet was posted at 1:34 p.m. Eastern time, not 10:34 a.m., as Geller asserted. According to news reports, the shooting “unfolded at two sites over 30 minutes” and started “around 10:45 a.m. ET.”

    The image of the tweet she references on her blog appears to be stamped with the Western time zone — Twitter time stamps are based on the user’s time zone, not the time zone of the person who made the tweet.

    Media Matters took this screenshot of the ISIS supporter’s Twitter account at 5:13 p.m. ET, and it shows that the post was made 4 hours previously (near the 1 o’clock hour Eastern time).

    Conservative blog Weasel Zippers also made the erroneous conclusion about the tweet in a post headlined, “Islamic State Account Tweets Warnings About Chattanooga Moments Before Shooting Began.”

    UPDATE: After this story was published, Fox News began to pull back on their allegation. From Special Report with Bret Baier:

    BRET BAIER: Let me be careful about the tweet to the ISIS-related account. In Garland, Texas we know that it came out before the shooting, before that happened. In this case, the time stamp does say 10:34, but we don’t know if that’s Pacific time, Mountain time, Eastern time, so we have to be careful about it coming out before the shooting. Point is there are ISIS accounts that are pointing directly to this incident and touting it as one of own.

    UPDATE #2: On The O’Reilly Factor, this story was addressed at least three more times.

    At the top of the Factor, O’Reilly reported the “sensational” ISIS tweet story, even after admitting it wasn’t “exactly clear whether it’s accurate.”

    Midway through the show, Catherine Herridge reappeared and admitted that “there are now some questions about the time stamp on one of the ISIS tweets earlier today.” When O’Reilly pressed her on how she learned about the tweet, she said, “I first saw it this afternoon, it was part of the social media that was circulating.”

    At the end of the Factor, Special Report anchor Bret Baier clarified the timing of the tweet, saying that “all indications now are that it came out after the attack.” When O’Reilly asked if that meant the ISIS tweet story was “a bogus situation,” Baier replied, “yeah.”

The numbers don’t lie. Since 9/11, more Americans have died at the hands of white supremacists than radical Muslims

Fox News can’t bear the truth: Right-wing terror groups are America’s gravest threat

Robert Reich blasted overtime opponents for warning of “unintended consequences” from stronger wages “without an ounce of empirical data to back it up.” They also likened the policy to a “minimum wage hike for the middle class,” and explained that it will either boost workers’ pay or give them additional leisure time while adding new jobs.

“Greece On Steroids”: Fox’s Cavuto Attacks New Overtime Rules That Will Help Millions Of Workers

Fox has a long history of attacking overtime protections, recently complaining that the then-rumored proposal amounted to “left-wing economic engineering” and was “probably going to hurt a lot of other people.”

Robert Reich blasted overtime opponents for warning of “unintended consequences” from stronger wages “without an ounce of empirical data to back it up.”

Overtime Pay Is the Minimum Wage for the Middle Class

by Robert Reich and Nick Hanauer

The Department of Labor just proposed raising the overtime threshold from $23,600 a year to $50,440, and from the fearful squawks coming from the business lobby you’d think the sky was falling. But all this trickle-down scare-talk about job-killing regulations and unintended economic consequences is just that — trickle-down scare talk — without an ounce of empirical data to back it up.

We call it: Chicken Little Economics.

In fact, far from the end of the world, middle-class Americans never did better than when the overtime threshold — the annual salary below which workers are automatically entitled to time-and-a-half overtime pay — was at its peak. A half-century ago, more than 60 percent of salaried workers qualified for overtime pay. But after 40 years in which the threshold has been allowed to steadily erode, only about 8 percent do. If you feel like you’re working longer hours for less money than your parents did, it’s probably because you are.

Today, if you’re salaried and earn more than $23,600 dollars a year, you don’t automatically qualify for overtime: that means every extra hour you work, you work for free. But at the Obama administration’s proposed new threshold, everyone earning a salary of $50,440 a year or less would be eligible to collect time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. That would add nearly 5 million more workers to the numbers eligible, substantially increasing both middle-class incomes and employment. It’s not as high as the $69,000 threshold it would take to return to 1975 levels, but it’s a courageous step in the right direction. It’s like a minimum wage hike for the middle class.

Everybody knows Americans are overworked. A recent Gallup poll found that salaried Americans now report working an average of 47 hours a week — not the supposedly standard 40 — while 18 percent of Americans report working more than 60 hours a week. Indeed, overtime pay has become such a rarity that many Americans don’t even realize that the majority of salaried workers were once eligible. We just keep working longer and harder. And ironically, the longer and harder we work, the more we weaken the labor market, weakening our own bargaining power in the process. That helps explain why over the last 30 years, corporate profits have doubled from about 6% of GDP to about 12%, while wages have fallen by almost exactly the same amount. The erosion of overtime and other labor protections is one of the main factors leading to this worsening inequality. But a higher threshold would help reverse this trend.

Under the new salary threshold, employers would have a choice: They could either pay you time-and-half for your extra hours worked, or they could hire more workers at the standard rate to fill your previously unpaid hours. The former would put more money into your pockets. The latter would put more leisure time at your disposal while directly adding more jobs. And either would be great for workers and great for boosting economic growth.

Lower- and middle-income workers don’t stash their earnings in offshore accounts the way CEOs do — the more they’re paid the more they spend on goods and services. When workers have more money, businesses have more customers; and when businesses have more customers, they hire more workers. Whether through an increase in consumer demand or through a reduction in unpaid hours, a higher overtime threshold would increase total employment, tightening the labor market and driving up real wages for the first time since the late 1990s.

Of course, conservative pundits and politicians will attempt to preserve the status quo by warning that a return to more reasonable overtime standards would somehow cripple our economy, hurting the exact same workers we intend to help. But that’s what they always warn about every regulation — from the minimum wage, to Obamacare, to child labor laws. Yet it never turns out to be true. The sky never falls. And trickle-down economics looks more like Chicken Little Economics with every passing day.


Robert Reich served as the Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton. Nick Hanauer is a Seattle-based entrepreneur.

War On Christianity Heats Up

Dylan-Storm-Roof

CHARLESTON, S.C. – (CT&P) – The tragic attack on a black church in Charleston has captured the nation’s attention as many of our nation’s politicians, media figures, and other idiots try to make some sense of the event.

It was initially reported that Dylan Roof acted out of some weak-minded belief that black folks were inferior and although greatly outnumbered by whites were still somehow taking over the fucking country and raping our fine, pristine, virginal white women.

This crazy conclusion was supposedly backed up by Roof’s “manifesto,” his Facebook page, and comments that he made while perpetrating the vile act.

religioninamerica

Thankfully the brain trust at Fox News, with help from some of our political intellectual elites has proved this theory wrong by means of ironclad logic and an ability to see through the liberal media’s interpretation and get at the truth.

It turns out Roof’s real motivation was to destroy Christianity once and for all while it’s on its knees after the successful attempts by liberals, gays, Muslims, secular Jews, and other “unsaved trash” to ban all public displays of Christianity, like those we used to be familiar with around Christmas and Easter.

As we all know Christianity is under attack in this country, and it’s only a matter of time before the mere mention of Jesus will get you a ten-year prison sentence.

Roof appears to have been an early convert to this anti-Jesus movement and in an inspired move sought to mask his real intent by wearing the flags of bigotry and encouraging a “race war.”

“It’s rare we run across a kid with this level of sophistication,” said presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. “Roof represents the vanguard of the anti-Christian movement that will cause an asteroid strike on the United States. Mark my words!”

Fox News couch tumors Steve Doofus and Brian Killmeplease were quick to agree with Huckabee and others who make no fucking sense whatsoever like Rick Sanitarium.

“The race thing is just a red herring,” said Doofus, as he stared dully into the monitor during Fox and Friends, a show so repugnant that even the uneducated miscreants that watch it on a regular basis are continually amazed.

isis-execution

“This is clearly a case of Christianity under attack. After all, it did happen in a church.”

Although Doofus and right-wing politicians were able to get to the heart of the matter and uncover the real reasons for the attack, they offered little in the way of solutions to the problem.

“Christianity has been so oppressed in recent years that I really see no hope for any kind of rebound,” said Sanitarium. “There are so few of us left that we have very little influence. I’m afraid that we are doomed to live in a secular country that follows the dictates of Satan by providing health care to the poor, legalizes gay marriage, raises taxes on the ultra rich, and offers equal rights to people who are not white. Jesus would be beside himself! I think our only hope is to hold out until he returns and obliterates mankind in an orgy of bloodletting.”

Huckabee in his wisdom did offer some hope to reduce the number of mass killings in the United States. He is organizing a group to push for a bill banning the name Dylann, Dylan, or any other variation of the name for newborn males, because he said the name was obviously cursed by God and any kid given that particular handle was bound to grow up into a “crazy-ass” mass murderer.

Murdoch’s America, Denial of Ferguson,Baltimore and Institutionalized Racism. It was the Reverend’s fault. 21st Century Schizoid Mann

Fox’s Scramble To Make The Charleston Shooting About Religion, Not Race

WSJ Editorial Page On Charleston Shooting: Institutionalized Racism No Longer Exists In America

NRA Board Member Blames Murdered Reverend For Death Of His Congregants In Charleston Church Mass Shooting

‘The Girl Was No Saint Either’: Fox Jumps To Defend McKinney Police Officer’s Brutal Manhandling Of Teen Girl At Pool Party. How Fox News Presents it

‘The Girl Was No Saint Either’: Fox Jumps To Defend McKinney Police Officer’s Brutal Manhandling Of Teen Girl At Pool Party | Research | Media Matters for America.

Fox News Devoted Less Than Two Minutes To The Duggar Controversy | Blog | Media Matters for America

Fox News Devoted Less Than Two Minutes To The Duggar Controversy | Blog | Media Matters for America.

Former CIA Official Calls Out Fox News’ Latest ‘Benghazi Myth’ | Blog | Media Matters for America

Morell on Special Report

Former CIA Official Calls Out Fox News’ Latest ‘Benghazi Myth’ | Blog | Media Matters for America.

‘War On Cops’: Fox News Abandons Its Catchphrase When Bike Gangs Threaten Police | Blog |Murdoch media bias

‘War On Cops’: Fox News Abandons Its Catchphrase When Bike Gangs Threaten Police | Blog | Media Matters for America.

A Terror Threat Fox News Won’t Cover Silence From Network After Christian Minister Arrested For Threatening To Kill Muslims

Fox News was completely silent after a Christian minister pleaded guilty to plotting to attack American Muslims in New York, continuing a habit of downplaying threats to Muslims and ignoring extremist acts with no ties to Islam.

Robert Doggart, an ordained Christian minister and former Tennessee congressional candidate, was arrested and pled guilty to attempting to recruit “expert Gunners” to aid him in a plot to kill residents of Islamberg, NY, a largely Muslim community at the foot of the Catskill Mountains. RawStory reported on the details of Doggart’s plan:

He met with the informant in Nashville and discussed using Molotov cocktails to firebomb buildings in the Muslim community, which was founded by African-Americans who had converted to Islam from Christianity.

Doggart told the informant during a recorded conversation that he planned to bring 500 rounds of ammunition for the M4 rifle and a pistol with three extra magazines – as well as a machete.

“If it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds,” he told the informant.

He said during a recorded call that the “battalion” he commanded hoped the raid on Hancock, which is also known as Islamberg, would be a “flash point” in a possible revolution.

“So sick and tired of this crap that the government is pulling that we go take a small military installation or we go burn down a Muslim church or something like that,” Doggart said.

The Daily Beast pointed out that the media has remained largely silent on the story, wondering at the absence of “the Fox News panic” and noting:

It goes without saying that if Doggart had been Muslim and had planned to kill Christians in America, we would have seen wall-to-wall media coverage. Fox News would have cut into its already-daily coverage of demonizing Muslims to do a special report really demonizing Muslims.

And in fact, Fox News has made no mention of the story at all. What’s more, the network does have a history of downplaying threats against Muslims while hyping any Islamic connection to terror it can find. After the Boston Marathon bombings, the network ridiculed former Attorney General Eric Holder for warning against retaliatory acts of violence, ignoring years of threats against Muslims. In 2010, Fox host Brian Kilmeade claimed that “all terrorists are Muslims.”

And Fox has reacted to terror attacks committed by right-wing extremists with a yawn. After the Department of Homeland Security released a report on right-wing terror in 2015, Fox News’ Eric Bolling claimed “you can’t name” instances of right-wing terrorism “in the last seven years,” ignoring dozens of examples.

Right-wing media have also been known to fearmonger about often-unsubstantiated Islamic terror threats. Outlets like Fox News, The Drudge Report, and The New York Post hyped an unfounded “jihadist” plot against Fort Jackson in South Carolina. And Sean Hannity and other conservatives promoted an unsubstantiated story of an Islamic State (ISIS) training camp on the U.S.-Mexico border around the same time Doggart was arrested.

Islamberg, the town Doggart was planning to attack, has also garnered Fox News’ attention in the past — a 2007 FoxNews.com article wondered if it was a “terror compound” and a report by Fox Business host Lou Dobbs claimed the town was home to a group engaging in “guerilla war training.”

Analysis Finds 50% Of All Fox News Statements Are FALSE

false

Analysis Finds 50% Of All Fox News Statements Are FALSE.

O’Reilly Parrots Anti-Tax Group’s False Claim That Obama Raised Taxes 442 Times : Murdoch Media

Bill O'Reilly: Pity The Poor Rich Man

http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2015/04/20/39653/fnc-factor-20150420-oreillyobamataxes2

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly parroted a previously debunked claim that President Obama raised taxes more than 442 times since taking office — a claim rated “Mostly False” by PolitiFact in 2014.

During the April 20 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly pointed to federal tax revenue to dismiss political rhetoric on income inequality, lamenting the tax rates of “Americans earning more than $400,000” and noting that “the U.S. has the highest tax rate on business in the world.” O’Reilly complained that President Obama has imposed “punishing taxation,” claiming that “since taking office, President Obama has proposed a whopping 442 tax increases” and asking, “how much more can the government take from the affluent without crashing the entire free market economy?”:

But O’Reilly’s claim that Obama raised taxes comes from Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist, and was rated as “Mostly False” by PolitiFact in 2014. According to PolitiFact, Americans for Tax Reform “overstate[d] the total number by a significant amount,” noting that “removing duplicates eliminates about 159 of the proposals” and “failed to account for other tax cuts that are part of Obama’s record, including nearly $220 billion in tax cuts that were part of the federal stimulus.”

O’Reilly Says Slager Video A Clever Hoax: “I Was There” He Claims

bill_oreilly6

NEW YORK – (CT&P) – Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly claimed that the video purporting to show North Charleston police officer Michael Slager gunning down an unarmed black man was a “clever forgery” created by the “liberal media” in cooperation with the Obama White House. “I know because I was there,” said O’Reilly.

slager

The video in question clearly shows Slager firing eight shots at an unarmed and fleeing black man who was later identified as 50-year-old Walter Scott. The video also shows Scott going down after the final shot, Slager approaching him, cuffing his hands behind his back, and later throwing an object down next to the mortally wounded man.

“I watched the entire event from behind a nearby oak tree,” said O’Reilly, “and it just did not happen the way it is depicted in the video.”

“Officer Slager was totally in the right on this shooting. The black man was listening to rap music, ignoring the officer’s commands, and acting disrespectful. Then he turned around and charged the officer, giving Slager no option but to pop him with his nine. I think this is all an attempt by the Obama Justice Department to paint all white cops as bigoted power-mad assholes, just like the liberal media is doing to me. It’s a conspiracy of the highest order.”

slager2

O’Reilly’s account of the incident has been called into question because his housekeeper, cook, butler, and 16-year-old Asian sex slave all told reporters for the New York Times that O’Reilly was staring at himself in the mirror at the time of the shooting, as he does most of the time he is not on the air.

O’Reilly dismissed his employees’ accounts of his whereabouts as being part of a “liberal smear campaign” designed to discredit him. He then threatened to kill them if they said anything else.

Meanwhile, Slager has been charged with murder and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division has launched an investigation of the shooting. Normally called in to cover up crimes committed by white officers against minority citizens, SLED is being supervised this time by the FBI and other federal agencies.

summey

Mayor Keith Summey and Police Chief Eddie Driggers of North Charleston held a news conference to tell the public that a “full and thorough investigation would be conducted as the result of Slager’s “bad decision.”

“The first thing we need to get to the bottom of is just why it took eight shots to bring down that nigger,” said Summey. “I’m gonna work closely with the Eddie here to reexamine our firearms training program and correct that problem as soon as possible.

“Also, we need to make sure that all our officers understand that when you decide to murder a citizen in cold blood, you need to make damn sure some smart ass ain’t filming it. If there is, the correct procedure is to gun down the photographer and destroy the evidence. That’s just common sense.”

summey2

Slager is currently being held without bond in North Charleston, but he is reported to be working with Fox News and several talk radio personalities to try to turn the tide of public opinion so he can get bail and repair the damage done by the “fabricated” video.

Slager backs up O’Reilly’s version of the story, calling him a “true American hero” and “the greatest broadcaster of all time.”

“Thank God for Fox News and Bill O’Reilly,” he said. “Without them, America would be in smouldering ruins and the rule of law would be a thing of the past.”

Fox News Confirms “Religious Freedom” Law Was About Discrimination Carlson: “What’s The Point Of The Law In The First Place?

After spending over a week denying that Indiana’s “religious freedom” law could be used for anti-gay discrimination, Fox News is now contradicting itself by arguing that the law has been “gutted” by new language that prohibits business owners from using it to discriminate.

On March 26, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. The measure initially provided a legal defense for those who refused to serve gay customers on religious grounds and sparked a widespread and bipartisan backlash across the country. Criticism of the measure eventually forced Pence and Indiana Republicans to agree to change the law. On April 2, Indiana’s RFRA was amended to prohibit its use for individuals and business owners who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Fox News did not respond happily to the change.

On the April 3 edition of Fox & Friends, hosts Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Brian Kilmeade, and Tucker Carlson dedicated two segments to criticizing the law’s amendment, decrying the lack of “moral courage” on the part of Pence and claiming the bill had been “gutted” by adding anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people. Carlson stated that he couldn’t “make any sense of [the amendment] at all, it seems like the law has been completely gutted. It says specifically you can’t use this law in court as a defense against denying service on the basis of your religious faith. So like, what’s the point of the law in the first place?”

http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2015/04/03/39423/fnc-ff-20150403-607-gutted

The segments represent a dramatic reversal for Fox, which has repeatedly denied that Indiana’s RFRA was discriminatory in intent or effect, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

On the March 30 edition of The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly flatly asserted the Indiana RFRA “does not allow for discrimination,” even though the law could override LGBT anti-discrimination laws in cities like Indianapolis. She doubled down on this sentiment on her April 1 show, claiming that it was “not that controversial,” and that the law “does not allow discrimination against gays.” On the March 31 edition of Outnumbered, co-host Andrea Tantaros argued the law “was done not so that gays are treated like second-class citizens.” Fox & Friends‘ Steve Doocy stated the law “does not discriminate against gays,” adding “here’s the thing — [the law is] not discrimination.” And Fox’s senior political analyst Brit Hume argued that the law couldn’t be discriminatory because “it never mentions gay people or gay rights.”

As Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman pointed out in reference to similar statements of RFRA supporters in Georgia, Fox News’ contradictory positions — that the original bill was not discriminatory but an anti-discrimination amendment guts it — are “not a logically tenable proposition” (emphasis added):

Of course, some advocates of the bill still attempt to deny or evade the charge that their efforts represent an effort to legalize anti-gay discrimination. State Sen. Josh McKoon, the sponsor of SB 129, says it “couldn’t be further from the truth” to say that the bill is a license to discriminate. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who just signed Indiana’s version of the law, repeatedly ducked that direct question when being interviewed over the weekend on ABC News.

Put bluntly, such people are being dishonest in the name of God. If you can’t be forthright about what you’re up to, if you can’t be honest about what you’re really trying to accomplish, then maybe, just maybe, you’re up to something that you know is wrong.

If Georgia’s SB 129 isn’t meant to provide legal cover for discrimination, McKoon and his allies would accept a simple amendment stating that it does not provide legal cover for discrimination. Instead, they have fought such language bitterly, with McKoon saying it would “completely undercut the purpose of the bill.”

That is not a logically tenable proposition. It is not possible for the bill to have nothing to do with discrimination yet be gutted with language that says so. At the very least, the debate here in Georgia and elsewhere has laid bare that contradiction, making the issues at stake crystal clear.

Fox News Commentator Andrea Tantaros Wanted For Murder In New York

tanteros6

NEW YORK, NEW YORK – (CT&P) – The New York Times is reporting that Fox News personality Andrea Tantaros is wanted for questioning regarding the serial murder of 11 Manhattan residents. Ms Tantaros’ current whereabouts are unknown, and police are warning the public that if she is spotted under no circumstances should she be approached. She was last seen leaving a nightclub in downtown Manhattan at around 2 A.M. on Saturday.

tanteros4

Tantaros, a co-host on the vacuous round table show The Five, is well-known for her inane comments and tenuous grip on complex subject matter. She also co-hosts a show called Outnumbered, but its ratings are so low that very few people know it exists, including many Fox employees.

New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton held a news conference early this morning regarding the string of murders and told reporters that his investigators had reason to believe that Tantaros was responsible.

tanteros3

According to the Bratton, the victims in the murder spree are all male ranging in age from 22 to 45 and were murdered over a period of seven months beginning in September. The most recent victim was discovered only late last week. The men were all killed in the same horrific fashion, having the salt drained from their bloodstream by means of suckers similar to the ones found on cephalopods.

“In every case, Tantaros was seen leaving a nightclub late at night with the victim,” said Bratton. “Our best guess at this time is that Tantaros is some sort of shape-shifting misanthrope from outer space who has come to our planet in order to feed on humans. She apparently requires salt to survive in the same way that a vampire requires human blood to live.”

tanteros2

Tantaros’ colleague and co-host on The Five Greg Gutfeld told The Daily News that he was not surprised by Bratton’s revelations.

“I knew that something was wrong with her,” said Gutfeld. “It’s rare that you see someone over thirty have such childlike opinions on political matters. I mean that gal is just downright dumb. I guess Roger hired her because of her looks, but that lamprey mouth she has just turns me off. Frankly, I’m scared of the woman.”

The public is being warned by the NYPD that although Tantaros is thought to be mentally deficient, she should be considered highly dangerous and should not be approached. If spotted, members of the public should dial 911 and proceed as rapidly as possible to a safe location, preferably not a restaurant or any establishment with salt shakers on its tables.

Chris Wallace Whines That CIA Director Won’t Use Fox News’ Term ‘Islamist Extremists’ | Andrew Bolt Imports all his Shtik from Fox

Chris Wallace Whines That CIA Director Won't Use Fox News' Term 'Islamist Extremists'

Chris Wallace Whines That CIA Director Won’t Use Fox News’ Term ‘Islamist Extremists’ | Crooks and Liars.

Bill O’Reilly: “I Never Bought” That Fox Is “The Conservative Network”

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/03/20/bill-oreilly-i-never-bought-that-fox-is-the-con/202973

Bill O’Reilly Doesn’t Believe Fox News Leans Right

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/09/26/bill-oreilly-doesnt-believe-fox-news-leans-righ/196117

News Corp., donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association for the express purpose of defeating Democratic candidates. Asked for comment, News Corp.’s spokesman cited his support for “the RGA’s pro-business agenda.”

And now, the network’s most-watched host is calling the network “anti-liberal,” and the network’s website is trumpeting the column in which he makes the claim.

As Eric Boehlert said on MSNBC, there is “no daylight” between Fox News and the GOP, “and they don’t apparently care who knows it.”

Lying Is Nothing New For Bill O’Reilly: He wouldn’t be employed by Rupert Murdoch if he didn’t

If you think Bill O’Reilly suddenly got caught lying about a few things, and that he has not been caught lying before, you would be sadly mistaken. I have run this website for 15 years and the lies I have documented from O’Reilly are endless.

There are far too many to list, so I will show you about 100 of them.

1) O’Reilly bragged repeatedly he won two Peabody Awards hosting Inside Edition in the 90s. He won zero.

2) O’Reilly bragged that, woops, he actually had won a Polk Award hosting Inside Edition. He won zero of those, too. To be specific, the show did win that award–a year after O’Reilly left the show.

3) O’Reilly then said he never claimed to have won a Peabody Award. He actually did make that claim, repeatedly, using the award as proof that Inside Edition was not a tabloid show but very good journalism. He later admitted to making the original Peabody claim, but now he just says the Peabody guys are unfair liberals.

4) Repeatedly claiming he’s “an average guy,” O’Reilly has claimed that he came from nothing and “you don’t come from any lower than I came from on the economic scale.” Actually, O’Reilly’s mother has repeatedly talked to the press about regular vacations the family took to Florida, that O’Reilly and his sister went to private school and college with no financial aid, and that they lived in an affluent New York suburb. His Father was an oil company accountant who made $30,000 a year in 1980, which is equal to $100,000 a year today, which is upper middle class, not poor, or even close.

5) In 2006, O’Reilly boasted that he gets 6 million viewers every night. He got 2 million then. Today, he’s posting “slightly higher numbers” because he’s addressing the Argentina controversy–so he’s getting about 3 million viewers a night.

6) Responding to critics who say Fox News is too conservative, O’Reilly has long claimed to be a “normal guy” and a registered independent. It turned out, contradicting that claim, that he was a registered Republican.

7) He insisted that he is really an Independent and that when he registered to vote in 1994, there was no independent option and that he was “somehow assigned Republican status.” In 2004, comedian (now a senator) Al Franken went back and looked at O’Reilly’s voter registration form. Actually, there was an Independent option right next to the Republican box. O’Reilly had chosen Republican and then lied about it for the next decade on television.

8) NPR’s Mike Pesca reported O’Reilly’s political registration in 2001 on the radio. O’Reilly called it a hatchet job and said, “I’ve never heard of Mike Pesca.” Pesca had interviewed O’Reilly on tape for an hour for the report.

9) In 2004, O’Reilly said Iraq was producing chemical weapons in the run up to the 2003 Iraq war. They were not.

10) O’Reilly said Al Qaeda was working with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq even after the claims were widely disproven. They were not.

11) Early in the Iraq war, O’Reilly started a boycott of French goods in protest of the lack of French support for the war. In April 2004, O’Reilly said “they’ve lost billions of dollars in France according to the Paris Business Review.” Such a publication doesn’t exist and never did, first of all, and trade between the U.S. and France actually increased in the time between the war’s beginning and that statement. O’Reilly continued to brag about that successful boycott for years afterwards.

12) In an attempt to explain European opposition to the Iraq war, he said European media–the U.K., in particular–consists of state-controlled organizations led by liberal governments that deliver anti-American propaganda. In the U.K., meanwhile, the BBC was struck hard by controversy because they published reports embellishing the threat Iraq posed that misleadingly promoted the war–the same errant tale championed by the Bush administration. The chairman resigned.

13) O’Reilly claimed that former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean wanted to pull out of Iraq “immediately” in 2004. Actually, Dean said, “I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we’re there, we’re stuck there, and the [Bush] administration has no plan for how to deal with it, and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq.”

14) O’Reilly claimed President Bush never said “mission accomplished” regarding the Iraq war. Bush said that in 2003, never mind standing in front of an enormous “Mission Accomplished” banner on an aircraft carrier for a world-class photo op.

15) O’Reilly claimed the Iraq war was France’s fault because the country never pushed for weapons inspections. In fact, they did.

16) O’Reilly said the Dixie Chicks never recovered from the protests that followed their famous criticism of George Bush over the Iraq War. Meanwhile, they had the top-selling album in the country, the top-selling tour in the country, and won a Grammy.

17) In 2005, O’Reilly said “The secular progressive movement would like to have marriage abolished, that’s what this gay marriage thing is all about.” While it was clear even back then that this was a lie about the marriage equality movement, with broader legalization we can now look to 252,000 same-sex married couples as even clearer proof that marriage equality has always been about equality and not abolishment.

18) O’Reilly claimed that gay marriage killed straight marriage, particularly pointing to heterosexual marriage rates falling in Sweden after same-sex marriage was allowed in 1995. Actually, Swedish marriage rates rose following the passing of the law. Marriage rates are falling in the U.S., but it’s been dropping since well before any gay marriage law was passed in America.

19) O’Reilly said that, legally, gay marriage makes polygamy legal. After over 252,000 same sex marriages in the U.S., I’m still waiting on the man with 27 wives O’Reilly talked about.

20) When O’Reilly was accused of stoking hatred that led to Dr. George Tiller’s murder by an anti-abortion activist, O’Reilly said he never called Tiller a baby killer. He did, repeatedly. He said that when he used the words “tiller the baby killer” a million times over the years before his murder, he was just quoting what someone else said, and that since he quoted someone else he never said it.

21) He said the reason many, many, many of the Hurricane Katrina victims didn’t leave New Orleans before the storm was because they’re drug addicted and thugs who wouldn’t leave without a fix. Actually, many victims were poor and owned no vehicles. Reasons for staying vary, but drug addiction was never a significant contributor.

22) He said no one on Fox News ever claimed Obamacare would send people to jail for not paying health coverage bills. They did, pretty much every day

23) O’Reilly claimed Obama never ordered the military to assist during attacks on Benghazi. Obama did.

24) In a 2014 interview, Obama said that people believe verifiably false conspiracy theories about Benghazi because folks like you [O’Reilly] are telling them that. O’Reilly denied it–but, of course, he pushed the conspiratorial narrative every night.

25) He claimed poverty has gone up in the last half century despite the federal government spending trillions on social engineering. Wrong–poverty is down.

26) He said “the only reason to use marijuana is to get high.” Actually, it’s used for medical purposes in much of the United States. Marijuana helps to subdue pain for arthritis sufferers, for instance, or stop seizures in other individuals, including children.

27) Annoyed with legalization in Colorado, O’Reilly claimed the Denver Post actually hired an editor to promote pot. They hired an editor to report, not promote.

28) O’Reilly claimed no one but Fox News covered White House Communications Director Anita Dunn saying Mao Zedong was one of her favorite political philosophers. Lots of other media covered it, though perhaps not as much as he would have liked.

29) He claimed Obama failed to prosecute an easy voter-intimidation criminal case against the the New Black Panther Party because they didn’t want to charge minorities with violating civil rights. Actually, the Bush administration did that, the ruling to not prosecute came under Bush, before Obama even took office.

30) O’Reilly lies about taxes a lot. In an argument about taxes on the rich being too high, he said tax rates in New York City, Boston, and Los Angeles were much higher than what they actually were.

31) He said France and Germany taxed citizens at 80 percent. Actually, that’s double their tax rate.

32) In the lead up to the 2004 election, O’Reilly claimed the U.S. exported more goods than it imported because everybody wants our stuff, and we’re not wild about snails. That’s another snipe at France. In fact, we had a trade deficit, including with France.

33) O’Reilly made up a quote saying that liberal financier George Soros wanted his elderly father dead. Actually, Soros didn’t say that.

34) He claimed Democrats lost voters in the 2004 presidential election over its gains in 2000. Actually, Democrats gained 5 million voters.

35) O’Reilly claimed Bush won the 2004 election because Independents chose the Republican. Actually, Independents voted Democrat. And in the 2000 election Gore got more votes than Bush, but Florida voting corruption put Bush in the White House, and his brother just happened to be the Governor of Florida.

36) He claimed the Bush tax cuts didn’t create a budget deficit, and that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the real reason behind the budget issues. Actually, Bush had a deficit before 9/11 or any war began.

37) O’Reilly claimed that Hillary Clinton didn’t go to a single funeral or memorial service of a 9/11 victim. Not true. Further, as senator of New York at the time, Clinton took on the causes of first responders and won the endorsement of two NYC firefighters unions for her support.

38) O’Reilly said that illegal immigrants were biological weapons that killed more people than 9/11. Shortly thereafter, he claimed he never said that.

39) Talking about Fox’s biases, O’Reilly said, “There is no talking points. There is no marching order. It doesn’t exist.” Go watch the movie Outfoxed and you will see that he was lying.

40) He said Fox News has more liberals than conservatives on air. Well, that flies in the face of common sense, because conservatives outnumber liberals by 10 to 1, if not more.

41) One of O’Reilly’s signature moments was screaming at the son of a 9/11 victim on air and then repeatedly claiming the son, Jeremy Glick, was a 9/11 truther who blamed America for the attacks. In fact, Glick said he believed that American support for the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s laid the groundwork for Al Qaeda. There’s a difference, and Glick was right.

42) O’Reilly said Bush didn’t oppose the creation of the 9/11 commission. He did.

43) O’Reilly likes to say there is a War on Christmas. To support that, he claimed red and green clothes–Christmas colors–had been banned by a public school in Texas run by fascism. That was not true.

44) Talking about the War on Christmas, O’Reilly claimed Circuit City was owned by Indians. It was never owned by Indians.

45) Did someone say War on Christmas? O’Reilly claimed that a public school changed the lyrics to “Silent Night” in order to secularize it. Actually, it was an entirely new song written on the old tune, changed by the former president of Ronald Reagan’s church and performed in churches around the country.

46) O’Reilly said Best Buy banned the phrase Merry Christmas. They didn’t.

47) O’Reilly claimed the income tax originated with Karl Marx. Actually, it existed before Marx was born.

48) During the Bush years, O’Reilly said the Clinton tax rates were higher than at any point since World War II. That’s a lie, taxes have been higher numerous times throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Especially during the Reagan years, top tax rates used to be 70%, they are now 36% and were 39% under Clinton.

49) O’Reilly claimed Jane Fonda turned notes smuggled by U.S. prisoners of war over to the Vietnamese. False.

50) In 2005, O’Reilly said the Bush administration was not engaging in torture. He pointed to a State Department report on human rights that criticized torture–except in the U.S. In any event, we can be sure now that torture took place.

51) In 2006, O’Reilly said there was no evidence the U.S. used electric shock torture. There was evidence then, and there is evidence now.

52) O’Reilly also claimed that Geneva Convention protections apply only to uniformed soldiers fighting for a recognized country, as opposed to stateless terrorists. That’s a lie. The Geneva Convention applies to everyone.

53) When O’Reilly gets things wrong, he’s exceptional at talking about how right he is. When he claimed federal housing assistance rose 1,400 percent from Clinton to Bush, he was off by 1,378 percent. When he was called out on it, he said these are hard numbers.

54) In 1986, Dick Cheney voted against a resolution calling to free Nelson Mandela from prison. Cheney has repeatedly said it’s because Mandela ran a terrorist operation, but O’Reilly has contradicted Cheney, saying that vote was cast in order to protect poor South Africans from sanctions.

55) One of O’Reilly’s favorite targets is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He’s famously stated that the ACLU supports pedophiles and a child’s “constitutional right to have sex with adults.” This is not at all what the ACLU does.

56) O’Reilly claimed that the liberal Boston Globe didn’t cover the rape of a 9-year-old girl. They did.

57) O’Reilly claimed that Hillary Clinton can write anything off against the Bill Clinton presidential library, thus giving her access to vast funds. Actually, the library’s finances are handled by the government.

58) Making the case that the Democrats went over the line in their questioning of the Bush administration, O’Reilly claimed that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) questioned Condoleeza Rice’s “respect for the troops.” Actually, Boxer questioned Rice’s “respect for the truth.”

59) O’Reilly claimed that Bush’s tax cuts meant that federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration. Actually, the year 2000 had the highest inflation-adjusted revenue until 2013.

60) Following the recent massacre at Charlie Hebdo headquarters, O’Reilly said France brought terrorism on itself because they allowed no-go zones where Muslims don’t let outsiders in. That’s not true.

61) O’Reilly then claimed he never said there were no-go zones in France. He said exactly that.

62) While opining about black America’s problems, O’Reilly claimed the Irish and African-American experiences were equivalent because both had to leave their homelands and came to America with nothing. Actually, in case you don’t have a history book on hand, Africans were forced to leave in bondage, kept in slavery for hundreds of years, and then, after the abolition of slavery, were thoroughly and systematically oppressed by legal, economic, and social forces that often persist in some form to this day.

63) O’Reilly said the black dropout rate was worse at the end of the Clinton presidency than at the beginning. It was better.

64) Criticizing public broadcasting, O’Reilly said PBS is going bankrupt. Actually, PBS’s funding–both public and private–has doubled to about $500 million since O’Reilly first went on Fox in the 1990s.

65) While in a rant against public spending, O’Reilly claimed liberal Californians wanted the federal government to pay for plastic surgery for prisoners, particularly pointing to an inmate who had breast reduction surgery as a liberal cause that targeted our money. Actually, that inmate was having a tumor removed.

66) One of the great political attacks of our time was the 2004 Swift Boating of John Kerry, wherein a political group claimed that Kerry lied extensively about his service during the Vietnam War. Actually, Kerry didn’t lie. In any event, O’Reilly claimed the Swift Boaters had little impact in 2004 and that he hadn’t even seen them on cable news. In fact, Fox News (as well as CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC) covered Swift Boaters extensively. They were everywhere on cable news, especially Fox.

67) O’Reilly claimed that Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain Iraq war veteran and a prominent anti-war activist, lied and changed her story about a meeting with President Bush. She never changed her story.

68) O’Reilly said CNN does not have a single conservative commentator. That’s obviously not true; but even being charitable and looking specifically at the time when O’Reilly first said it–March 2005–commentators Jerry Falwell and Robert Novak said otherwise.

69) O’Reilly claimed that courtroom perjury is on the rise because they’ve done away with swearing on the bible before testimony. Actually, the bible is still used before courtroom testimony, and there has been no rise in perjury.

70) While criticizing the 9th circuit appeals court, O’Reilly said they had their cases overturned at a record rate. That’s a lie.

72) O’Reilly claimed that Thomas Jefferson would have mocked secular fools over separation of church and state. Actually, Jefferson famously wrote about his support for that separation.

73) During a heatwave in the southwest, O’Reilly said the dozens of dead homeless people could have found some place to cool off, but they were mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. Actually, the number of homeless outpaced the number of beds available by thousands.

74) Arguing about abortion, O’Reilly said a woman’s life could never be in danger during pregnancy. That’s obviously not true. He also claims to believe in freedom, but when you tell a woman that is not your wife or a relative she can not have an abortion, that is the opposite of freedom.

75) O’Reilly claimed most Republicans didn’t want NAFTA. Actually, most voted for it.

76) O’Reilly said he wouldn’t call Sean Penn anti-American. About 8 minutes after he had just called Sean Penn anti-American.

77) O’Reilly claimed he didn’t compare the Koran to Mein Kampf. He did and he continues to do so.

78) In 2001, O’Reilly claimed 58 percent of single mothers are on welfare. The number was 14 percent, less than a quarter of what O’Reilly claimed.

79) In defense of Florida governor Jeb Bush’s education policies, O’Reilly claimed 37 percent of state universities were black. The number was 18 percent, less than half of what O’Reilly claimed.

80) In 2001, O’Reilly said the U.S. gave more tax money to foreign countries than any other country. No, Japan gave more then. The U.S. gives more now, somewhat due to the fact that a country we invaded (Afghanistan) receives billions more in aid than any other nation.

81) When an army recruiter was murdered in 2009, O’Reilly said CNN didn’t cover the crime except for Anderson Cooper. They covered it, a lot.

82) O’Reilly said the cause of global warming is guesswork. Scientists disagree.

83) O’Reilly said that, unlike Viagra, birth control is a choice, not a medical condition. Aside from the fact that doctors say pregnancy is a medical condition, birth control is used to treat a range of other medical conditions as well.

84) O’Reilly once said no lies have ever been told about anyone on his show. (See above and below.)

85) G. Gordon Liddy organized the famous Watergate burglaries. He’s also fundraised for John McCain, and McCain accepted his money. During the 2008 presidential race, O’Reilly claimed McCain and Liddy have nothing to do with each other. That’s false, not only because of the fundraising but because Liddy interviewed McCain multiple times, even during that very campaign.

86) O’Reilly claimed that then-Sen. Barack Obama did not cast a vote condemning MoveOn.org ads that targeted Gen. David Petraeus and defended John Kerry. Obama did.

87) O’Reilly said “no law is going to prevent a woman from giving birth when she’s raped or has incest. No law. Ever.” He meant abortion, as clarified by this next sentence: “If there’s incest, if there’s violence in your home, you can go to the courts and they’ll decide whether you can have the abortion, not your parents, OK? Every law says it.”

88) O’Reilly claimed no prisoners died because of abuse at Abu Grahib. One did, his name was Manadel al-Jamadi.

89) During a 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, O’Reilly said the New York Times editorial board wouldn’t criticize Israel because “American Jews are liberal.” They had already written three such editorials.

90) In 2008, O’Reilly claimed the NY Times cut 25 percent of its workforce because of criticism received for publishing an article about terrorism financing. They cut 2 percent, and the supposedly direct connection between the article and the cut was total speculation from O’Reilly, the very same speculation he claims to not allow in the no spin zone.

91) O’Reilly claimed Bush didn’t prohibit White House attorneys from appearing before Congress if transcripts were recorded. Bush did just that.

92) When O’Reilly saw a 2006 poll saying 53 percent of Americans viewed Hillary Clinton favorably, he said the poll wasn’t scientific. O’Reilly isn’t a statistician and that poll was scientific. To this day Hillary still has a majority that see her in a favorable way. O’Reilly even claims his website polls represent the views of the average American, even though they are unscientific and biased, and it says so right on the poll as you vote.

93) In 2006, O’Reilly said the National Security Agency (NSA) never tapped domestic phone calls. We already knew–and the White House admitted–that they tapped domestic phone calls without a warrant at that point but the rest of pandora’s box was yet to be opened.

94) O’Reilly said Mary McCarthy, a former CIA agent who leaked information to reporters, was accused of leaking information about the agency’s secret Eastern European prisons. She was never formally accused of that by the CIA, and the Washington Post maintains that while she did leak information to them, it had nothing to do with secret prisons. Instead, she reportedly leaked information about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by the CIA.

95) O’Reilly said former Mexican president Vincente Fox used his nation’s army to traffic drugs across the border to the U.S. That never happened. Under Fox, Mexico used its army to fight a violent war with cartels.

96) O’Reilly said New York City teachers are told to ignore students who curse them out. As a former New York City student, I know that’s not true. But if that’s not enough, New York’s public discipline code explicitly points out punishment for obscene language.

97) O’Reilly claimed Democrats also took money from Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist famously convicted in in a vast corruption scheme in 2005. That’s a lie, because only Republicans received contributions from Abramoff.

98) O’Reilly claimed renewable energy was a waste of time because God controls the climate. He’s also said nobody can control the climate except God, so give a little extra at mass. That goes against what modern science has concluded: Human beings contribute to climate change.

99) Criticizing attempts to bring diversity to Christmas, O’Reilly said Santa Claus is white based on the myth’s roots in medieval Greece. Now think about this, Santa is not real.

100) One of the most vast and mind-bending lies O’Reilly has ever told came just this week. Nose pointed squarely up, O’Reilly said that he doesn’t believe in personal smears and that he doesn’t condone hate and guttersniping that implies politicians like Bush and Obama don’t want to serve their country.

While O’Reilly didn’t invent the TV smear, he raised it to a lucrative art. During the Bush administration, he targeted anti-war politicians with exactly this kind of personal smear. In one glaring example from the height of the Iraq war, he said, Nancy Pelosi and her acolytes, people who like her, they want us to lose in Iraq. They want there to be chaos in Afghanistan. They want this. They’re rooting against their own country. He also compares political opponents to Nazis pretty damn often.

And the biggest lie he has ever told is that he is a fair and balanced Independent, and his show is a no spin zone.

He is a biased partisan Republican who puts out right-wing propaganda 99% of the time with 97% Republican guests. It is all right-wing spin, all the time, with a liberal guest once a show, just so he has someone to yell at, and so he can claim to be balanced, even though he sometimes has zero liberals on a show, while having an average of 6 to 7 Republican guests per show.


Republicans Calling Sabotage Of Obama With Iran Letter A Disaster
By: Steve – March 15, 2015 – 11:00am

Some Republicans are admitting anonymously that the Senate GOP attempt to sabotage President Obama with a letter to Iran has turned into a disaster.

Politico talked to insiders within both parties about the letter, and some Republicans are realizing that they are in trouble:

One-third of Republican insiders believe that Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and his GOP colleagues — including several potential presidential candidates — crossed the line when they published an open letter to Iranian leaders warning about a possible nuclear deal.

“The GOP letter — while sound in substance — caused the debate to shift from the administration’s wrongheadedness to the GOP’s tactics,” said a New Hampshire Republican, who — like all 92 respondents this week — completed the survey anonymously in order to speak candidly.

“That’s not helpful.”

“Policy wise, the deal Obama is trying to cut is a bad one,” said another.

“Politically speaking, however, the letter has been a disaster. The Democrats have totally framed and owned the debate, and our GOP senators are getting pummeled.”

The letter has turned into a disaster of a story that is following Republicans wherever they go. Republican presidential candidates are being asked about it on the campaign trail. And Republicans who didn’t even have anything to do with the letter are being questioned about it.

Sen. Tom Cotton’s letter created an issue where one didn’t exist. It is a self-inflicted wound that is not healing. There is nothing that Republicans can say that will explain or excuse the letter. The excuse making has been so feeble that John McCain even tried to blame the weather for his decision to sign the letter.

The Republican opposition to any deal with Iran will now look partisan and petty. Republicans also shot themselves in the foot with Democrats by sending this letter. Senate Republicans were building a bipartisan consensus for passage of legislation that would have required any agreement to be reviewed and approved by the Senate, but that is now gone.

The level of disrespect in the letter has even shocked people who don’t follow politics, but who vote in a presidential election. The behavior of the Senate Republicans can’t be undone. There is no way to repair the damage, and Republicans might have cost themselves their Senate majority with this blatant act of sabotage.

But if you watch the Factor for your news you would hardly know any of this, because O’Reilly supported the letter and only did one short segment on it with one conservative guest only, who of course also supported the letter.

Now if Democrats had sent a letter like this to Iran under Bush, O’Reilly would have screamed bloody murder and lost his mind, and most likely called them traitors who should be voted out of office. Fox would have slammed them 24/7 as un-American and reported it for a week. And is a perfect example of the bias from O’Reilly and Fox, the very same bias they complain the rest of the media has.


House Republicans Have Exempted Themselves From Saving Their Emails
By: Steve – March 15, 2015 – 10:00am

Talk about the ultimate hypocrisy and double standards, the very same House Republicans who want Hillary Clinton to turn over all her emails have exempted themselves from saving their own emails.

The same House Republicans who want to subpoena Hillary Clinton’s emails have made sure that they aren’t required to save their own emails. AP reported this:

Congress makes its own rules, and has never subjected itself to open records laws that force agencies such as the State Department to maintain records and turn them over to the public when asked.

There’s also no requirement for members of Congress to use official email accounts, or to retain, archive or store their emails, while in office or after.

That’s in contrast to the White House and the rest of the executive branch.

But if the rules at federal agencies are unclear, at least there are rules. On Capitol Hill, there are almost none. That means that the same House Republicans who are subpoenaing Clinton’s emails as part of their inquiry into the Benghazi, Libya, attacks are not required to retain emails of their own for future inspection by anyone.

House Republicans are contemplating no less than three investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Some in the House have gone as far as to suggest that the full House could subpoena the Clinton email server.

The news that House Republicans have exempted themselves from the same standard that they are trying to hold Hillary Clinton has pushed this story from being ridiculous to absurdity.

How can anyone take the Republican anger over Clinton’s emails seriously when they took steps to exempt themselves from having to save any of their own emails?

If there is one thing that Americans have learned since Republicans took control of the House, it is that they should never be trusted. The Republican hypocrisy is par for the course for the party of do as I say, not as I do.

In the coming days and months, House Republicans are going to try to make a mountain out of the Clinton email molehill, but every time they mention emails, Boehner and company should be asked why they keep their emails hidden from the public.

And btw, none of this information has ever been reported by Bill O’Reilly, because he does not want you to know the Republicans are massive hypocrites with double standards.


Andy Levy Blows Up At Fill-In Red Eye Host Over Ferguson Comment
By: Steve – March 14, 2015 – 1:00pm

On Fox News Red Eye early Saturday morning, temporary Greg Gutfeld replacement Tom Shillue said this: “The Ferguson story just got real.”

He was referring to the shooting of two police officers in that city this week, which he deemed a more important story than the killing of Michael Brown, which sparked outage there that has lasted for months.

And btw, after officer Wilson was not charged by the corrupt Prosecutor and Grand Jury, O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly both predicted the Ferguson story would be over in a week or two, and they were both dead wrong. Proving just how clueless they are, because the DOJ report had not even been released yet, and the protests were not ending.

Levy said this: “I don’t understand how you think Ferguson just got real when those assholes shot the cops,” co-host Andy Levy challenged Shillue after he’d completed his monologue. “If you didn’t think it was real before then, you should have thought it was real after the DOJ report came out.”

In Levy’s words, that report proved what the protesters had been saying all along, that the “whole damn city structure was racist.”

“Why, because they gave out a bunch of traffic tickets?” The far-right stooge Tom Shill responded.

“Are you kidding me?” Levy replied. “Everything in that report was utterly reprehensible,” he added, saying conservatives can’t tout the Constitution and then ignore First and Fourth Amendment violations committed disproportionately against African-Americans.

“That stuff was disgusting.”

Notice that O’Reilly also pretty much ignored the DOJ report, he did one short segment on it with a conservative guest only. He never admitted he was wrong, and he never said he was sorry for saying the protesters were wrong to be doing the protests. O’Reilly even slammed tham as un-American and anti-police, and pretty much said they were protesting for no reason.

When the DOJ report proves they were right and O’Reilly was wrong, but he never admits it and never said he was sorry. Which is what O’Reilly does, every time liberals protest O’Reilly slams them and calls them un-American, even though they are usually proven right at a later time. But when conservatives protest he supports them every time and calls them great Americans, even though they are usually proven wrong at a later time.


Mistrust Is Growing: European Leaders Slam GOP Senators for Letter to Iran
By: Steve – March 14, 2015 – 11:00am

‘This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva,’ said German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

An open letter to Iranian leaders from 47 Republican senators has provoked sharp rebuke from European countries that are party to the nuclear talks.

Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier blasted the U.S. GOP senators on Thursday, telling journalists, “This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva.”

“Obviously mistrust is growing,” he added.

In addition, the Associated Press reported Thursday that unnamed diplomatic officials in France and London made similar criticisms of the open letter. “In Paris, a senior French diplomat said the letter made it hard on the American negotiators, who have been leading the talks with Iran on behalf of the rest of the group,” wrote journalist Matthew Lee.

The letter, organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and co-signed by 46 other Republican senators, directly threatened Iranian leaders that, if a nuclear deal were reached, it would not last after President Barack Obama leaves the presidency.

It immediately sparked broad censure–from from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to U.S. President Barack Obama to grassroots movements-with many charging it amounted to a call for military escalation and potentially war.

The missive was released less than a week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a controversial congressional address aimed at derailing ongoing talks between Iran and the P5+1 group of Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States, and Germany.

And of course O’Reilly ignores all this negative reporting about the letter, because he is a Republican and he does not want to make them look bad. In the one lousy segment he did on the letter O’Reilly had one Republican guest and no Democratic guest for balance. And of course that partisan right-wing stooge supported the 47 traitors in the Senate who sent it.

Mr. Fair and balanced, did a one sided biased segment on this BIG news story, with nobody as a guest to provide the counter point. And that was the only segment he did on the entire story, while the rest of the real media has been reporting it for a week almost every day.


Rolling Stone: Bill O’Reilly Is A Pathological Liar
By: Steve – March 14, 2015 – 10:00am

Here are some quotes from the rollingstone.com article about Bill O’Reilly where they call him what he is, a Pathological Liar.

A good rule of callout culture is to never target someone for the same things you do. No adulterer is more insufferable, after all, than the fire-and-brimstone minister. But when NBC anchor Brian Williams was exposed for fabricating stories of journalistic heroism, poor Bill O’Reilly just couldn’t help himself. There was Williams, garnering widespread acclaim for the kind of stories Bill had already been making up for years.

A real American doesn’t tolerate that kind of crap, and Bill O’Reilly is a real American. He has evolved into a post-fact reality, nightly defending a singular nation of fear and confabulation against all enemies foreign and domestic. He is a fiction more palpable than himself, and he can’t stop, because it’s all he has.

Some of the story is probably familiar to you. O’Reilly has lied high and low during his nearly 19 years at Fox News, but the latest round of scrutiny about his stories began with an article in The Nation questioning whether O’Reilly’s reporting aided in covering up a massacre in El Salvador in 1982.

Instead of primarily focusing on whether O’Reilly acted as a stooge for murderous conservative policy 14 years before his Fox gig, the media instead latched onto O’Reilly’s claims that he’d reported from a leveled town where no one was left alive or dead, when in fact The Nation’s article included O’Reilly’s CBS footage of a very much not-leveled town with at least eight people walking around in the background of his shots.

That article and O’Reilly’s pummeling Brian Williams inspired Mother Jones David Corn and Daniel Schulman to look closely at O’Reilly’s other tales of hazardous, daring reportage, including his claims to have been in a “war zone” during the Falklands War. Despite O’Reilly’s calling Corn a “despicable guttersnipe” and attempting to handwave away the accusations as a liberal hit job, Corn and Shulman’s charges have stuck.

The nearest O’Reilly (or any other American reporter) got to the war zone was 1,200 miles, and his fallback assertion that protests he “alone” covered in Buenos Aires constituted one have been debunked multiple times over by O’Reilly’s former colleagues. Worse, O’Reilly’s own footage contradicts his story that he had a gun pulled on him.

The hits keep coming. Former colleagues flatly deny O’Reilly’s story that he was attacked by rioters in the 1992 L.A. riots. His story that he witnessed bombings in Northern Ireland was denied by Fox News own spokesman.

Further, his claim that he was on the doorstep when a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald’s committed suicide was impeached by the fact that O’Reilly was in Dallas at the time, (another) 1,200 miles away from the shooting.

This constant churning of preposterous BS runs through O’Reilly’s career like discarded picnic food through geese, a steaming heap of compensatory fantasy meeting defensive wish fulfillment.

He turned a comfortable childhood in the post-war suburban planned community of Levittown (with regular Florida vacations) into an Oliver Twist-tinged struggle, to complete the Horatio Alger arc corporealizing him as the American dream: “You don’t come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale.”

Those who would dare wake him from it are met with violence. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” he told the New York Times’ Emily Steel. “You can take it as a threat.”

Once laid atop the patterns of O’Reilly’s real life, one is surprised to realize that Bill O’Reilly hasn’t actually murdered anyone yet. The second is this: that the stories Bill tells as fiction are nearly identical to the fictions he tells himself and his viewers. The Nation and Mother Jones might have caught him out on the details, but he was telling us he is a vengeful, unhinged fabulist this entire time.

What consequence is there for real journalistic organizations anymore when it comes to going after O’Reilly? They get called attackers? O’Reilly calls them attackers merely for reporting facts inconsistent with his epistemic bubble.

His fans aren’t going to watch or read those other sites or channels? They don’t already. By this point, O’Reilly has trained his audience to consider digesting independent news an act of race treason on par with slaveowners letting negroes learn to read.

The response will be the same no matter the offense, so go ahead and call Bill O’Reilly what he is. A pathological liar and a paper tiger elevated to a glass desk in front of millions of people he wants to be as scared as he is of the intruding world. Let him revel in being attacked, then keep calling him the same things, and repeating them until they’re the only Google search result anymore. What’s he going to do? Sue historicity?

O’Reilly isn’t a newsman, he’s a blue-eyed cirrhotic cyst erupting acid onto the brass rail at the Now I’ll Tell You What the REAL Problem Is Pub. He’s the guy who sits next to you and brags about how he’d kick the hell out of any thugs daring to bring violence into his neighborhood, stumbles off his barstool, goes outside, reflexively crosses the street to avoid two black kids on the sidewalk two blocks up, then drives home drunk.

He’s the guy who picks a fight with you if you correct him, then refuses to throw down because he “was Gold Gloves in college and doesn’t want to end you, man,” then backs away toward his driveway while trying to make eye contact with anyone he thinks is a friend and saying, “I feel sorry for him! I have a pool in my backyard.”


The Real Story About That Fox Most Trusted Poll
By: Steve – March 13, 2015 – 10:00am

From aattp.org:

Not since the days of Keith Olbermann’s reign at MSNBC has Bill O’Reilly resorted to such relentless attacks on the network. His perceived victimization by a media cabal that he says is simultaneously impotent and omnipotent is reaching psychotic levels. And all of this is due to the fountain of lies that he has been spewing for decades and for which he is now being called upon to answer.

O’Reilly’s latest retaliatory harangue came at the opening of Monday’s Factor where he set out to claim once again that everything he does is sanctified by God because he has high ratings (First Church of Nielsen the Redeemer). His Talking Points Memo, titled “Hating Fox News,” heralded a new Quinnipiac poll that O’Reilly bragged “shows that Americans trust Fox News more than any other TV news agency by a substantial margin.”

As anyone familiar with O’Reilly’s aversion to the truth would know, he did not tell the whole story. The same poll shows that Fox News is also the network that is least trusted by Americans. Now why do you suppose he left that out?

The fact that Fox received a vote of confidence from 29% of the poll’s respondents means that 71% trusted another network more. That is not exactly something of which to be proud. What’s more if you add up the two categories of positive responses for trusted networks (a great deal + somewhat), Fox News is second to the last. It beats only MSNBC by a mere 3%.

If anyone is “Hating Fox News” it is the majority of the American people who reject its frothing hostility, fear mongering, and perversion of the facts. But no one should mistake O’Reilly’s tirade for a reasoned commentary on the popularity of the media. This rant is a thinly veiled assault on those who are demanding that he come clean about the frequent lies he has told to portray himself as an intrepid reporter risking life and limb to bring truth to the people.

But rather than taking on his critics forthrightly, he takes a more cowardly approach by pretending to be a victim of powerful enemies seeking the destruction of his employer. He’s attacking a broader, ambiguous foe because he’s afraid to face his critics head on. And of course that foe is, in his mind, a humongous titan of evil, even though he also insists that it is a weakling that has no support and can’t compare to the superhuman powers of Fox News.

Somehow all of this makes sense in O’Reilly’s cartoon brain. However, his campaign against his critics consists entirely of bluster, distractions, and outright threats. That’s why in Monday’s program he never once addressed the growing number of documented falsehoods he has been caught telling.

He just continued boasting about his ample audience and the prominent role that Fox News plays in shaping the American media.

On that note, O’Reilly pulled back the curtain on the journalistic fraud that is Fox News. The facade of fairness and balance is just another one of the lies that are baked into the Fox mission. In this one episode O’Reilly repeatedly confessed to the unethical biases of Fox.

For instance, he said this:

“Our primetime programs set the political agenda.”

“The fact is that Fox News is now a deep threat to the progressive movement and the far left despises us so they are in full attack mode desperately trying to marginalize FNC.”

“There are just two national news agencies that challenge the progressive agenda with authority: the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Fox News Channel.”

“If FNC did not exist, America would be a far different place and the far left ideology would have a far easier time. But we do exist and now dominate the primetime news cycle. Not good news for progressive politicians, the liberal media, and crazed zealots on both sides.”

How are any of those overtly partisan statements consistent with the practice of professional journalism?

O’Reilly is admitting that Fox is a political advocate of the right. This is why most media observers regard Fox as nothing more than the PR division of the Republican Party. Additionally, O’Reilly’s analysis that Fox’s very existence is bad news for progressives flies in the face of reality.

Someone should inform him that President Obama was elected twice despite the existence of Fox which fought so hard against him.

There is one thing, however, that O’Reilly got right. America would be a far different place without Fox. There would be far less wingnut propaganda and conspiracy theories masquerading as news.

We wouldn’t have to deal with wild goose chases for presidential birth certificates or claims that snowballs disprove the scientific evidence of Climate Change. Mentions of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump would produce confused looks and replies of “Who?” And the Tea Party would still be a gathering of folks who appreciate brewed herbs and pastries.


White House Rips Senate Republicans For Their Treasonous Letter To Iran
By: Steve – March 12, 2015 – 11:00am

And newspapers all across the country are also slamming the 47 Senate Republicans who attempted to sabotage President Obama by writing a letter to Iran. So far 22 newspaper editorial boards have spoke about against the letter. Even some conservatives have said it was wrong, and at Fox Greta Van Sustern said she was against the letter.

The White House ripped Senate Republicans for their attempt to undermine negotiations with Iran, and stopped just short of accusing the 47 Republicans who signed a letter to Iranian government of treason.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the Senate Republican letter to Iran where they promised to undermine any agreement that President Obama makes on their nuclear program.

Earnest said this:

I would describe this letter as a continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interests around the globe.

The fact is that we have heard Republicans for quite some time, including the principal author of this letter, make clear that their goal is to undermine these negotiations. Again, that is not a position that I am ascribing to Sen. Cotton, that is a position that he has strongly advocated. He described it as a feature of his strategy, not a bug.

I think the other thing that is notable here is that when you have a letter that is signed by forty-seven senators of the same party being sent to a leader of a foreign country, it raises some legitimate questions about the intent of the letter. It’s surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community.

The Press Secretary stopped short of calling out the Senate Republicans for treasonous behavior, but his description of the Republican behavior of trying to undermine the goals and national security of the United States left little doubt about how the White House feels about this issue.

Senate Republicans are attempting to undermine the United States government by establishing communications with hardliners in Iran who promote and fund terrorism. Republicans have taken their campaign to undermine and delegitimize the President Of The United States global.

Senate Republicans have once shown their true colors, and those colors are not red, white and blue.


GOP Senators Who Signed Iran Letter Called Traitors By New York Daily News
By: Steve – March 12, 2015 – 10:00am

And yet, O’Reilly did a segment on it Wednesday night with a Republican guest from the American Enterprise Institute, and no Democratic guest for balance. It was a biased one sided segment where of course the Republican guest supported the Senate GOP letter. Which is what O’Reilly does, because he is also a Republican.

On the cover of its Tuesday edition, the New York Daily News featured a picture of four Republican Senators with the caption “Traitors” in huge bold letters underneath in response to the letter 47 GOP Senators sent to Iran undermining President Obama’s negotiations with the country.

The four Senators represented in the picture were Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR).

Paul and Cruz are 2016 Presidential candidates while Cotton is the freshman Senator who came up with the bright idea to write a letter to Iranian leadership informing them that any agreement reached with Obama could easily be revoked by either another President or Congress.

Accompanying the Daily News provocative headline was a scathing editorial calling all 47 Republicans who signed the letter “un-patriotic” and an “embarrassment to our nation.”

The paper’s editorial board stated that while they aren’t in total agreement with the White House regarding the potential nuclear pact with Iran, they condemn the Republican Senate’s betrayal of the Constitution.

They are an embarrassment to the Senate and to the nation.

How the executive and legislative branches come to terms in the event that Obama presents his version of a done deal to America will be of grave national and international concern. There will be no place for juvenilia, and there should not have been at this expectant juncture.

Rather than offer objections domestically in robust debate, as is their obligation, ringleader Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and his band trespassed on presidential turf by patronizing Iran’s leaders with the suggestion “that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.”

The plain intent was to sabotage Obama by pushing the Iranians into balking at a deal out of fear that a turn of the U.S. political wheel could doom the pact in the not-so-distant future.

Late Monday evening, Vice President Joe Biden released a blistering statement through the White House attacking the Republicans who took part in this treasonous stunt. He was really mad at Cotton for authoring the letter, pointing out that if this sabotages talks with Iran, then the very real possibility of war is on the horizon.

Biden: The author of this letter has been explicit that he is seeking to take any action that will end President Obama’s diplomatic negotiations with Iran. But to what end? If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds.

Iran’s nuclear program, currently frozen, would race forward again. We would lack the international unity necessary just to enforce existing sanctions, let alone put in place new ones. Without diplomacy or increased pressure, the need to resort to military force becomes much more likely, at a time when our forces are already engaged in the fight against ISIL.

The President has committed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He has made clear that no deal is preferable to a bad deal that fails to achieve this objective, and he has made clear that all options remain on the table.

The current negotiations offer the best prospect in many years to address the serious threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It would be a dangerous mistake to scuttle a peaceful resolution, especially while diplomacy is still underway.

Cotton appeared on Morning Joe Tuesday morning to address Biden’s statement and defend the letter he wrote to Iran. Of course, he personally attacked Biden, claiming he’s been wrong on “nearly every foreign policy and security decision in the last 40 years” and telling the Veep to “respect the dignity of the Senate” by telling POTUS to submit any deal with Iran to Congress for approval.

Cotton also told the hosts that he would only agree to total nuclear disarmament of Iran — ummmm, they don’t have nuclear weapons yet — while stating Iran could not be negotiated with.

With those statements, Cotton was pressed by the panel that no diplomatic solutions or options would only leave military intervention. He finally copped to the fact that he would be completely fine with that, stating that Israel has done a good job with air strikes on facilities in Iran and America could join in with that.

To Scarborough’s credit, he pointed out during Tuesday’s broadcast that if he were still in Congress, he would not have signed on to this letter. Regardless of your personal feeling about the President or the philosophical disagreements you may have over foreign policy or tactics, you do not undercut the nation’s leader in their dealings with other countries.

That is potentially in violation of federal law. Many people have already pointed out that the 47 GOP Senators may have violated the Logan Act with their actions.

While I am not positive that is the case, one thing I do know is they violated the trust of the American people. They decided it was more important for them to act like little children in an attempt to embarrass the President of the United States than to allow him to find peaceful solutions to real-world issues.

Murdoch’s web of influence through Fox News is not exclusive to the USA. Fox News creeps it’s way to Australia . You only have to read Andrew Bolt’s blog on Ferguson today.13/3/15

Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes’ 21st Century Fox owns and operates 28 stations in major media markets around the country. These stations might seem independent, but Fox uses them to push misinformation to viewers like you.

Watch this short video to see how Fox News impacts local stations:

Fox News executives can transmit key right-wing talking points to large numbers of people who don’t watch cable news. And with Fox-owned stations now reaching 37% of U.S. television audiences, that’s a huge opportunity for the conservative media.

Unfortunately for Murdoch and Ailes, we know their tactics, and we’re not going to let them slowly turn their stations into miniature versions of Fox News.

Bill O’Reilly’s Next Book: Killing Truth | Crooks and Liars. Andrew Bolt’s Role Model

 

Bill O'Reilly's Next Book: Killing Truth

Bill O’Reilly’s Next Book: Killing Truth | Crooks and Liars.

O’Reilly Lied About Suicide Of JFK Assassination Figure, Former Colleagues Say | Blog | Media Matters for America

Bill O'Reilly

O’Reilly Lied About Suicide Of JFK Assassination Figure, Former Colleagues Say | Blog | Media Matters for America.

Bill O’Reilly To Viewers: “I’m Being Framed By Keyser Söze”. Bill is Andrew Bolt’s role model and hero maybe they could swap places Rupert. What a thought!!

bill_oreilly6

NEW YORK – (CT&P) – Insecure horse’s ass Bill O’Reilly went berserk again last night on his Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor after more evidence surfaced that he exaggerated his personal exploits during the Falklands War. Mr. O’Reilly reportedly got so agitated that he was treated for dangerously high blood pressure shortly after the show aired.

keysersozedrawing

O’Reilly has been playing defense since an article in the left-leaning magazine Mother Jones last Thursday claimed that, not unlike NBC News anchor Brian Williams, the Fox News host embellished accounts of his wartime experiences. In response to the story about O’Reilly’s reporting on the Falklands war between the U.K. and Argentina in the early 1980s, penned by Mother Jones editor David Corn, O’Reilly blasted Corn as a “liar,” a “left-wing assassin” and an “irresponsible guttersnipe.”

O’Reilly has maintained that he never said he reported from the actual war zone, in the Atlantic Ocean off Argentina’s coast, but did cover violent protests in Buenos Aires at the close of that conflict. CBS broadcast those clips at the request of O’Reilly, who featured them on his show Monday evening.

horseass2

However, that didn’t satisfy Mother Jones, which said the protest footage does not really support his claims. Nor did it convince the New York Times, which quoted former CBS News staff members who had taken issue with O’Reilly’s accounts of those protests.

What O’Reilly referred to as a “very intense situation where people got hurt,” was played down by CBS veteran Eric Engberg in the New York Times story. O’Reilly maintained the veracity of his account on Monday night’s show, pulling out additional reports that described the disputed the protest scenario that he confronted in Buenos Aires.

4.1.1

O’Reilly claims that the whole situation is the result of a left-wing conspiracy against him by Keyser Söze, a Turkish criminal mastermind personally responsible for the demise of hundreds of people. O’Reilly dedicated his last segment to a desperate plea for help from his viewers.

“I know it’s Söze that’s after me,” whined O’Reilly. “No one else would dare question me. He’s enlisted the help of almost all the members of the liberal media to tarnish my good name and say that I’m lying about being a war hero.”

“Söze’s henchmen are all over the place. Liars, left wing assassins, and ‘scruffy and badly behaved children who spend most of their time in the street’ are following me everywhere,” said a sweating O’Reilly.

“You, my loyal viewers, know damn good and well I’ve never lied and have never been wrong about anything in my entire life. I’m begging you to come to my defense in my time of need.”

“I want to stop this now. I hope we can stop this. I really do,” said a tearful O’Reilly as he closed the show.

Members of the media were not impressed with O’Reilly’s pleas. David Corn of Mother Jones told the New York Times that “As a despicable guttersnipe who seeks the truth, I must and will continue to uncover the lies told by this giant bipedal penis.”

Bill O’Reilly Scandal Grows As 8th Former Colleague Calls His War Coverage Claims Absurd

 

New TV Movie Based on Bill O'Reilly's 'Killing Jesus'

Bill O’Reilly Scandal Grows As 8th Former Colleague Calls His War Coverage Claims Absurd.

Former CBS News Colleague Calls O’Reilly’s Combat Claim ‘Absurd’ | How many mates of O’Rielly’s, colleagues does it take to make this Murdoch powerhouse say sorry?

Former CBS News Colleague Calls O’Reilly’s Combat Claim ‘Absurd’ | Blog | Media Matters for America.

Bill O’Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem | Mother Jones

Bill O’Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem | Mother Jones.

Fox News: Muslims don’t need help to understand ISIL Fox News’ showing of gruesome pilot video is irresponsible and suggests Muslims support ISIL.

The channel's decision gave terror the platform it needed, writes Shabi [EPA]

About the Author

Rachel Shabi

Rachel Shabi is a journalist and author of Not the Enemy: Israel’s Jews from Arab Lands.

@rachshabi

It’s hard to avoid hearing a sort of breathlessness emanating from the description of ISIL’s latest grotesque release. When the death cult put out a video showing the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh this week, many commentators alluded to the slick production skills, special effects and careful editing.

There’s this queasy mix of revulsion for the deed and near-admiration for the delivery mechanism, in some of the analysis of frames from what is essentially a snuff movie.

And when Fox News decided to publish this latest ISIL terror offering, it sent the video to the top of the charts; since Tuesday, the clip has received over two million views.

Analysts have noted before that it is precisely the juxtaposition of medieval violence and modern media savvy that draws attention to the twisted propaganda of the so-called Islamic State – with this latest now dubbed a “Hollywood style execution”. The sadistic videos are designed to make us talk about it – and here we are, talking about it.

Remembering Moaz

Most media, unsurprisingly, decided not to publish this video of Kassasbeh’s sickening, devastating murder – showing, instead, photographs of the pilot in uniform, or grinning into the camera in a T-shirt.This means, hopefully, that the image most of us will have of him is of a vibrant young man, evidently proud to serve his country and filled with the possibilities of a full life ahead of him.

Rallies show support for Jordan air strikes against ISIL

Fox News initially didn’t give much of a reason for its decision – beyond that the channel wanted to bring to us “the reality of Islamic terrorism”.

This – again, unsurprisingly – sparked much anger and disgust. Across social media, people wondered why the channel, which had not showed videos of previous ISIL hostage killings – of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, or Alan Henning – had done so now, over a Jordanian hostage.

Responding to this question, Fox News executive vice president, John Moody, said: “As we’ve seen from the news reports out of Amman [Jordan], this – more than the previous acts of ISIL – has profoundly touched the Muslim world as well as the West.”

Understanding ISIL brutality

This answer pretty much confirms our worst fears over the Fox broadcast; the channel seems to think that Muslims need help understanding the brutality of ISIL. The suggestion is that this death video will dislodge supposed Muslim support for the death cult in a way that previous acts of terror did not.

ISIL’s terror is mostly waged against Muslims in Iraq and Syria – but, as usual, Fox News isn’t just inaccurate, it is spectacularly offensive, misleading and dangerous.

ISIL’s terror is mostly waged against Muslims in Iraq and Syria – but, as usual, Fox News isn’t just inaccurate, it is spectacularly offensive, misleading and dangerous.

Here is what the Fox head goes on to say: “Many people in the West and the US have asked where the Muslims are who condemn this. And all you have to do is look at the footage [from protests in Amman] and you see where they are now.”

Well of course Jordanians are more outraged over a Jordanian being killed – in the same way that anger and sadness over any terror killing tends to be more acute in the victim’s country of origin. I’d really like Fox to explain how you go from that to the assumption that Jordanian grief here is more to do with being Muslim – because honestly, I can’t figure it out.

Meanwhile, as terror experts pointed out, the channel’s decision over this video was giving terror the platform it needed; actually helping terror to be terror.

Working for ISIL’s media

Malcolm Nance, an expert on counterterrorism and radical extremism told the Guardian that the channel was “literally – literally – working for al-Qaeda and ISIL’s media arm”.

These ISIL murder videos, designed to simultaneously impress potential recruits and strike fear into the hearts of everyone else, in some way bring other images to mind; the giddy enthusing by TV experts over military hardware and “precision-bombing” during both Gulf wars; the pyramids of naked Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, or the photograph of one Iraqi prisoner shivering with terror next to guards holding large dogs; some Israelis setting up a make-shift, open-air viewing gallery to witness bombs dropping onto the Gaza Strip.

This is in no way to suggest that any of these acts are remotely comparable, or an attempt to instigate a disgustingness ranking system for such images. The sole point here is that it seems as though the cruel spectacle of war isn’t just a medieval relic; it has, in some manner, been running through our contemporary landscape, long before ISIL.

Perhaps, then, one aspect of the compulsion-revulsion element surrounding some of the commentary over ISIL’s propaganda is precisely that some of the visual motifs are recognisable as a part of our world, too.

There is a reference to our cultural output, too – as Guardian writer Steve Rose observed last year: “Western film-makers seem to be providing more material for ISIL’s image library. Hollywood has even been accused of setting the tone, with its dark, doomsday scenarios…”

Even something so grotesque as an ISIL murder movie, designed to terrify, seeming to revel in being the opposite of humanity – even that is connected to us somehow. It is an uncomfortable and unpalatable reminder that, whatever else this group represents, it did not spring out of a vacuum.

Rachel Shabi is a journalist and author of Not the Enemy: Israel’s Jews from Arab Lands.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Fox News Website Offers Unedited ISIS Execution Video

On Tuesday, media organizations around the world wrestled with whether to show either the still images or the video of Islamic State militants burning a Jordanian pilot alive in a cage. Within hours, Fox News posted the entire video on its website.

The clip was offered with no preamble, though a short text accompanying the video warned viewers that it was extremely graphic. Most other news organizations used photos or video clips showing the moments leading up to the execution.

“Fox is putting itself in the position of airing an unedited ISIS propaganda video,” said Bruce Shapiro, executive director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma at Columbia University.

“Not just the fact that they posted it,” Mr. Shapiro said, “but the way in which they posted it. Without explanation, without context, without editorial purpose, as just another extreme video.”

In a statement, John Moody, the executive editor of Fox News, said that after careful consideration the network felt that giving its audience “the option to see for themselves the barbarity of ISIS outweighed legitimate concerns about the graphic nature of the video. Online users can choose to view or not view this disturbing content.”

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe Unable To Locate His Own Ass : Chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Plays for Team Koch, along with other oliagarchs of fossil fuel, Murdoch Media and in Australia Team Abbott.

Immigration Presser

WASHINGTON, D.C. (CT&P) – Sources close to Senator James Inhofe are telling the Washington Post that the politician from Oklahoma is so stupid that he cannot find his ass even when he utilizes both hands.

tapir

“The man is as dumb as a box of rocks,” said an aide to the senator, on the condition that he remain anonymous. “He has roughly the same IQ as a tapir running around in a South American rain forest. I’m relatively new to the staff, so I don’t know how long he’s been like this, but let me tell you, the man has trouble crossing the fucking street by himself. It’s a classic case of ‘lights on-nobody home.’”

The revelation is all the more alarming because as a result of the November elections Senator Inhofe has assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

“It’s like making Barney Fife secretary of defense,” said Dr. Frank Black of the Banzai Institute in Holland Township, New Jersey. “This guy actually believes that the Bible somehow refutes man-made climate change. He’s as bad as those savages in the Middle East that want to take us back to the 7th Century. He belongs in a mental institution or a third grade science class or anywhere other than the U.S. Senate. The man is a menace.”

inhofe7

Senator Inhofe has become famous for his idiotic statements in the past, such as the time he compared the rise of gay rights to the sinking of the Titanic. Most Americans have up to this point considered him another Tea Party type clown with the native intelligence of cement block, but many are now alarmed that he is chairman of an important committee.

Inhofe’s first act as committee chairman was to take the floor and drone on and on about how anthropologic climate change is a giant hoax perpetrated by scientists who just want funding to continue their lavish lifestyles.

“Man made climate change is just a giant conspiracy like the moon landings and the JFK assassination,” said Inhofe. “We can’t trust these scientists at all, they’re just like doctors. Everyone knows it’s better to pray to God to be healed rather than see a doctor,” raved the moron from Oklahoma.

inhofe5

The senator used a video made in his garage to support his arguments. The video began with a list of people who don’t agree with the vast majority of climate scientists who say human-caused carbon emissions are contributing to climate change. Inhofe said he has compiled a list of 4,000 “renowned scientists” who disagree with the 97% of climate scientists who actually have looked at the data. Inhofe’s list actually has 650 people-not 4,000, and some of whom are television meteorologists, amateur gynecologists, pizza delivery dudes, and fry cooks at McDonalds.

InhofeBobl-438x330

Conversely, one of the most recent peer-reviewed studies on the state of climate science showed that out of 4000 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of global warming — 97 percent of these endorsed the point that it was human-caused.

In the video, Inhofe says this is “just not true.” “Whoever heard of someone reviewing a paper on a pier?” said Inhofe. “Piers are for fishing.”

“With people as dumb as Inhofe in positions of power in the federal government, well, things don’t bode well for any meaningful action on climate change for at least the next two years,” said Dr. Black. “It really cements the image of the U.S. Senate as being ‘old, white, male, and stupid.’ One thing about it though, with guys like this and those idiots in the Tea Party on television every week, the Democrats are sure to do well in 2016.”

Paid terrorism “experts” : Have you got egg on your face?

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/13/glenn_greenwald_on_how_to_be

Who are the so-called terrorism experts? In the wake of the Paris attacks, the corporate media has once again flooded its news programs with pundits claiming authority on terrorism, foreign policy and world events. We discuss the growing and questionable field of “terrorism experts” with three guests: Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and co-founder of The Intercept; Lisa Stampnitzky, social studies lecturer at Harvard University and author of “Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented ‘Terrorism'”; and Luc Mathieu, foreign affairs reporter for the French newspaper Libération.

#FoxNewsFacts Trends Worldwide, As Fox ‘Expert’ Calls English City ‘Totally Muslim’ | Crooks and Liars…Murdoch Madness…is this Free Speech when it’s all BS? Fox only 8% fact

 

#FoxNewsFacts Trends Worldwide, As Fox ‘Expert’ Calls English City ‘Totally Muslim’ | Crooks and Liars.

Fact-Checking Site Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18 Percent of the Time

Kimberly-Guilfoyle

While MSNBC’s numbers aren’t exactly worth bragging about, they’re still far better than the “fair and balanced” Fox News.

via Fact-Checking Site Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18 Percent of the Time.

How come the are allowed to sell a false product?

For liberals, it’s not exactly “breaking news” to find out that Fox News is mostly comprised of misinformation or flat-out lies.  Anyone with even a shred of common sense can watch just a handful of their featured shows and see that the entire channel is nothing more than a propaganda mechanism for the Republican party.

Punditfact, a branch of Politifact, has put together profiles for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News detailing just how honest each of these networks are.  And while it’s obviously not a completely comprehensive profile (it would be nearly impossible to fact check every single thing said on each network) it’s a decent measure of the honesty of each.

And what do you know, Pundifact found Fox News to have only told the truth 18 percent (15 of 83) of the time for the statements they checked.  And even of that 18 percent, only 8 percent of what they said was completely “True.”  The other 10 percent was rated as “Mostly True.”

A staggering 60 percent (50 of 83) comments were found to be either “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire.”

The other 22 percent were rated “Half True.”

Essentially well over half of what Punditfact has fact-checked on Fox News has been a lie and only 18 percent has been deemed factual.

To compare, CNN was found to have been honest about 60 percent of the time, while only having 18 percent of their comments found to be false.  As for MSNBC, they were found to have been honest about 31 percent of the time, while 48 percent of the comments they had fact-checked were deemed untrue.

So while MSNBC’s numbers aren’t exactly worth bragging about, they’re still far better than the “fair and balanced” Fox News.

Though I’m sure any conservative who might run across this article, or the Punditfact profiles, would simply dismiss the results as “liberally biased lies.”

You know, because anything that’s not approved by Fox News or some other right-wing media source is clearly “liberally biased propaganda.”

Which is really a fantastic piece of rhetoric, isn’t it?  Fox News, and other right-wing media sources, can lie as much as they want.  Then if any other source debunks the nonsense they’re spewing, the conservative media simply dismisses it as “lies perpetuated by the liberal media.”

It’s how conspiracy theorists manipulate their sheep.  They perpetuate some kind of asinine conspiracy, then when it’s completely debunked, they claim the information debunking it is “all a part of the conspiracy.”

And that’s exactly what the right-wing media does.

Which is why tens of millions of conservatives believe that Fox News is a “fair and balanced” beacon of truth, despite the fact that Punditfact found only 18 percent of their comments to be factual among a fairly large sampling of 83 relatively important statements made on the network.

– See more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/fact-checking-site-finds-fox-news-tells-truth-18-percent-time/#sthash.j3HHNXaA.dpuf

Bill O’Reilly Claims More Whites are Killed by Police than Blacks (VIDEO. One puzzels why 5-6 police are required to deal with an illegal cigarette street seller.Oh yes Corporate competion it’s a price protection crime . Whatever how many corporate law breakers do police kill?

The OReilly Factor

During an interview on the O’Reilly Factor with Tavis Smiley—liberal political commentator, Bill O’Reilly— American television host known for his bias and unbalanced views, reasoned that “more whites are killed by police than blacks.”

His notion stemmed from the controversial case surrounding African-American Eric Garner—43-year-old, 400lb, asthmatic father of six, who died after being put in a chokehold by officer Daniel Panteleo in Staten Island. O’Reilly also suggested that what happened to Eric Garner “would have happened to a white guy doing the same thing,” implying that Garner’s death had nothing to do with race.

http://racisminamerica.org/bill-oreilly-claims-more-whites-are-killed-by-police-than-blacks-video/

Related Article: Officer in Chokehold Death of Eric Garner Not Indicted (VIDEO)

Smiley refuted that assertion by stating that O’Reilly’s view is only a “speculation.” He went on to imply that actual facts include, “Trayvon Martin is not speculation, Michael Brown is not speculation, Renisha McBride is not speculation, Sean Bell is not speculation, Eric Garner is not speculation … there’s no respect for the humanity and dignity of black life in this country.”

Referencing the 2012 FBI crime statistics, O’Reilly claimed out of 43 million blacks, only 123 were killed by police using gunfire. This suggests police officers killing blacks at an alarming rate is actually hyperbole. Furthermore, O’Reilly added that 326 whites were killed, “proving” that more whites are murdered by police than blacks.

Recommended: Giuliani vs. Michael Eric Dyson Heated Debate on Relevance of Black on Black Crime (VIDEO)

Smiley argued that he disagrees with O’Reilly’s point that and “in an era of the first black president [I might add] … do you [O’Reilly] not see a pattern” of blacks being killed by cops?

The right’s favorite new race guru: Why you should know Jason Riley: You will see his ideas transplanted to Andrew Bolt’s explanation of Indigenous Australia. Has Bolt anything original to say?

The right's favorite new race guru: Why you should know Jason Riley

WSJ’s Jason Riley blames liberalism for brainwashing black America. Here’s why it’s so wrong — and dangerous

The American left should start paying attention to the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley. His name is on the rise. An editorial board member of one of the nation’s most well-known publications, a paper that boasts an average weekday circulation of 2.4 million and falls under the umbrella of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News empire, Riley has a new book out, “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed,” which is beginning to pick up steam. This weekend, he’ll be featured on C-SPAN to talk about it. A few days ago, he sat down with Lou Dobbs. Before that, Bill O’Reilly. Now, his name is being praised by the National Journal (who called him an author who “annihilates nonsense”) and circulating throughout the Twittersphere as a man who has written “a great primer on race.”

As an African-American columnist, Riley has built his brand by diverging from the “black liberal” moniker. In fact, his career has been predicated on maintaining a conspicuous level of skepticism toward the “Lean Forward” stylings of MSNBC and the left’s alleged coziness with black America. He once said: “I think there’s a pattern at MSNBC of them hiring black mediocrities like Melissa Harris-Perry, Michael Eric Dyson, Touré and, of course — the granddaddy of them all — Al Sharpton, simply to race-bait.” Quite often he goes “against the grain” (much like ESPN’s Jason Whitlock). Perhaps this explains why a friend and former colleague of his at the WSJ lauded Riley for being an “affable” editorialist “who came to his views as a college student reading writers such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer in the otherwise liberal Buffalo News,” an independent thinker whose mind was heavily influenced by the works of “economist Tom Sowell and historian Shelby Steele, black thinkers who rejected the liberal pieties about race.”

Riley’s recent New York Post column“Why Liberals Should Stop Trying to ‘Help’ Black Americans” (much like his book) is undoubtedly a continuation of these teachings and his latest effort to invalidate liberal ideas. In it, he attempts to disentangle liberal rhetoric from the actual effects of liberal policies on black Americans. He wants to show how liberal ideology holds black success in the Lex Luger torture rack. But behind his fundamental question — “At what point does helping start hurting?” — also lies a troubling and familiar query, one that has historically proven resilient in American political discussion despite the best efforts to lay it to rest: Do black Americans actually need to be saved?

Riley thinks this to be the case. And it’s liberalism that black Americans need to be saved from. The crux of his claim, it seems, is that liberalism’s coercive powers cause more harm to black advancement than the painful enduring legacies of American slavery and Jim Crow era racism. These legacies, Riley writes, “are not holding down blacks half as much as the legacy of efforts to help them ‘overcome.’” To attach a sense of urgency to his words he then cites a few obvious statistics to show how the plight of the black community has worsened in the last 50 years. “The black-white poverty gap has widened over the last decade,” he writes, adding that the “black-white disparity in incarceration rates today is larger than it was in 1960” and that “the black unemployment rate has, on average, been twice as high as the white rate for five decades.” These grim statistics Riley puts forth demonstrate what we supposedly should have been skeptical of all along, liberalism’s ability to save black America.

Central to Riley’s rebuke of liberal politics is the presumption that black Americans have somehow been brainwashed into thinking of themselves as victims. “Today,” Riley writes, “there is no greater impediment to black advancement than the self-pitying mindset that permeates black culture.” This condition, Riley argues, is evidence of the triumphs(?) of liberalism, which “has also succeeded, tragically, in convincing blacks to see themselves first and foremost as victims.” Black Americans, so the story goes, have been duped by the liberal conspiracy. What’s more, they are as much to blame for conferring the status of victim as the grifting liberals who bequeathed that status upon them.

The problem with this logic is that it is unprovable and only exists in the minds of those who rely on myth to explain their own shallow assumptions. There is no evidence that blacks see themselves as victims any more than any other demographic, whether they be white, Latino, Asian-American or whatever. Black people don’t carry with them, in the words of New York’s Jonathan Chait, a “cultural residue” of oppression that they remain entangled in any more than the next race. If Riley bothered to survey actual black Americans he might realize this much. That blacks see themselves (like I hope Riley sees himself) not as victims, but as human beings, operating from unique experiences and disparate backgrounds while all tied to a larger complicated history. While, undoubtedly, self-pity may exist for some black individuals, it has not infiltrated the masses.

This is not to say that blacks have not been injured. The plundering of black people is as old as the country itself and still exists today. But it is not a result of the failures of liberalism; rather, it is a triumph of white supremacism. Liberalism did not deny opportunity and prosperity to black Americans; instead, racism attached itself to liberal policies. As the Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates eloquently articulates in his June cover story, “The Case for Reparations,” the liberal holy grail, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, was crafted specifically to include the racist traditions of the Jim Crow South. “The omnibus programs passed under the Social Security Act in 1935 were crafted in such a way as to protect the southern way of life,” Coates explains. “Old-age insurance (Social Security proper) and unemployment insurance excluded farmworkers and domestics—jobs heavily occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935, 65 percent of African Americans nationally and between 70 and 80 percent in the South were ineligible.” Coates also recounts how troves of black soldiers were denied access to low-interest home loans under Title III of the G.I. Bill due to racist local V.A. officials and racist lending practices by banks. Liberalism was overpowered by America’s most time-honored tradition.

Of course, despite evidence to the contrary, Riley is quick to remind us that this all happened in the distant past. And to be fair, his critique supposedly is limited to the last 50 years. Perhaps that is why he calls the spoils of the civil rights movement — “the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed racial discrimination in employment and education and ensured the ability of blacks to register and vote” — the shining example of “liberalism at its best.” This statement is not difficult to dispute, even if you only think (mistakenly) of liberalism within the confines of curbing racial discrimination. Other landmark achievements include legalizing interracial marriage and constitutional amendments banning slavery, giving blacks the right to vote, and bestowing full-personhood — rectifying the three-fifths clause — to blacks. “Liberalism at its best” was a set of laws guaranteeing black people what they supposedly were legally entitled to 100 years prior. The reoccurring theme was that “liberalism” (Riley’s definition) had to reassert its will against white supremacism.

Ironically, Riley’s beacon of “liberalism at its best” — the Voting Rights Act — is currently under threat, not by liberals but by conservatives. Yet, he makes no mention of this whatsoever in his column. Instead of standing up for what he says he believes, he chooses to stand with the very man, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who voted to effectively destroy it. Last year, Thomas was part of 5-4 split decision that ruled the VRA was unconstitutional. The court’s reasoning was that essentially, things have changed and gotten better; racism is a relic of the past. Riley’s complaint against liberals echoes the dangerous logic used by the court (what’s in the past is in the past!). Liberals “continue to blame the past,” he writes, inferring that times have changed. Liberals, black and white, seem drunk off their “obsession with racial slights real or imagined.” Essentially, this means that we talk too much about race. He then quotes Thomas who said to a crowd, oddly enough, despite what he wrote in his memoir, that America is more color sensitive now than during his time as a black child integrating into white schools in the deep South before the legal abolition of Jim Crow. “My sadness is that we are probably today more race-and difference-conscious than I was in the 1960s when I went to school … Everybody is sensitive,” Thomas said. Doubling down, Riley claims that we live “in an era when public policy bends over backward to accommodate blacks” and that even “King and his contemporaries demanded black self-improvement despite the abundant and overt racism of his day.” Once again liberalism’s best efforts to save black America have had a deleterious effect on the black psyche. We can’t even help ourselves.

According to Riley, the key offender of liberalism’s stranglehold over the black community is none other than America’s first black president, Barack Obama. Citing a sliver of the president’s remarks following the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin — “They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history” — Riley misconstrues the president’s empathy for liberal brainwashing. He writes: “Obama was doing exactly what liberals have been conditioning blacks to do since the 1960s, which is to blame black pathology on the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. And the president is conditioning the next generation of blacks to do the same.” Riley calls the president’s words a “dodge” for his policy failures, a representation of the “left’s sentimental support [that] has turned underprivileged blacks into playthings for liberal intellectuals and politicians who care more about clearing their conscience or winning votes than advocating behaviors and attitudes that have allowed other groups to get ahead.” Another example of the left’s indoctrination of black minds.

If this all seems like déjà vu, it should. Many of Riley’s criticisms echo the oft-cited talking points of the right wing. Which makes his polemic, one that excoriates liberals for “more of the same,” particularly laughable. It is not new ideas he yearns for, but old ones that conform with his limited pre-established political leanings. But on a deeper level, Riley’s invective sheds light on the twisted logic that continues to pervade Republican circles. He thinks that once the liberal spell is lifted, black liberation will be realized. That when blacks no longer drink the liberal Kool-Aid, believing in their status as victims, they will be made whole. Republicans, desperately trying to convince blacks to abandon the Democratic Party, have imparted the same messaging (evidence be damned): Liberals have made your lives worse; but we can save you. Rid yourselves of liberalism, and follow us down the road to salvation.

But the truth is no political ideology can save black people from the tireless forces of racism. White supremacy knows no party or clique. American history has proven how resilient the virus of racism can be; even when blacks have been made equal in the eyes of the law, racism resurrects itself and spreads through the veins that gives life to the American ideals of freedom and liberty.

This is history. And the Jason Rileys of the world can try to ignore it all they want. But they can only obfuscate what we feel all around us, that which we cannot separate ourselves from, that which we carry with us each day. As James Baldwin reminds us, “The great force of history comes from the fact that we carry within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do.” To tell ourselves otherwise is to subscribe to a much more troubling pathology than victimhood, which is to detach ourselves from who we are.

Strangely, this is the path Jason Riley has chosen. And the sad part is none of us can save him.

Fox News Americas News Corp and Andrew Bolt’s Mentors. [no fear no favours] He stole that from the ICA and CPA of Australia

Laura Ingraham To Be Placed In Quarantine

Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham speaks during the inaugural Freedom Summit meeting for conservative speakers in Manchester

Radio talk show host and Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham has been detained and will be placed in quarantine facilities in Atlanta, according to Dave Daigle, a spokesman for the CDC. The action comes only two days after Ingraham blamed President Obama for the current cases of Ebola that have cropped up in the United States.

lauraingraham

On Wednesday’s edition of “The Laura Ingraham Show,” the child-hating anti-immigrant pundit made some despicably naive and misleading comments about President Barack Obama’s handling of the Ebola crisis, using faulty logic: even though President George W. Bush did more for Africa, Obama’s “familial connection with Africa” and compulsion to aid the impoverished region is much more dangerous.

Ingraham wants her listeners to believe that like every other problem in the known universe, the Ebola crisis is Obama’s fault.

lauraingraham2

At a press conference on the steps of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Daigle told reporters that Ingraham had exhibited symptoms of “pretzel logic, bigotry, and an inability to make any sense whatsoever” while on a national broadcast. “We just could not take the chance that Ingraham would spread the infection to her listeners,” said Daigle. “We already have enough conspiracy theory wing nuts running around the country as it is. God help us if she spreads the malady to even more dim witted Americans.”

Daigle stressed that the quarantine was “only a precaution,” and Ingraham would be placed on the same ward with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, who were already under observation.

palin-spider

“We just want to make damn sure that this special form of idiocy doesn’t spread, and we intend to ere on the side of caution, after all, a disease that threatens our ability to reason is just as deadly as Ebola or Dengue Fever to our national well being.”

As she was being transported into the facility in a straight-jacket Ingraham screamed at reporters that she was not insane. “I always make perfect sense! I’m not crazy! This is what you get when you let illegal immigrants into the country! All those kids should be shot!”

Ingraham’s audience of over 1200 listeners are expected to take the quarantine in stride and tune into Glenn Beck instead until she is released.

Real Media, Alt News, Politics, Critical Thought, War, Global events, Australia, Headlines,