The "No Spin" Zone? Really, O'Reilly?

Our old buddy Bill Orally is at it again. He says that the two female supreme court justices, Ginsburg and Kagan (you know, the ones with the unspeakable "lady parts"), have to recuse themselves from that so-called Gay Marriage case, since they both have officiated at same-sex marriages. That makes them "not impartial" to the issue... As if officiating at an "opposite marriage" wouldn't have the same effect the other way?

Sidebar: Since Clarence "Official SCOTUS House Negro" Thomas officiated at Rush Limbaugh's marriage to wife number three -- or was it four? -- maybe he ought to be impeached for subverting the whole "one man one woman" God-intended concept of marriage. Divorce is one of those Biblical judgments that will be visited on the divorced sinners. Catholics still kind of believe that, Clarence. Maybe you were busy with "other priorities" when you were an altar boy (he is Catholic, you know) and missed that lesson. I fear that God will not judge you kindly for that.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, which is BillO the serial lying hypocrite. It's fine if he believes that justices who have spoken out on a particular topic -- even though neither of the "ladies" on the supreme court have actually commented on the particulars of this or any other same-sex marriage case -- should recuse themselves. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

Or -- stop the presses! -- maybe two diametrically opposed opinions. Way back in 2006, when Antonin "Tony Quack-Quack" Scalia made a speech in which he quite clearly indicated which way he would rule on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case pending before the court.

Billy the Liar said that only the "nutty left" wanted Scalia to recuse himself, even though it was quite clear which way he would rule in the case.

No spin zone? Really, O'Reilly? Maybe it's because you are the center of the universe, and you don't spin. Everything revolves around you.

Or maybe it could be the PTSD that you caught from some random slut of a loofah mitt back when you were "in a war zone, okay?".

More on Bill O'Reilly, the Serial Liar

Over at Wonkette you will see the story that goes with this mostly-unrelated picture:

Jeez, it turns out that our friend BillO was an earwitness to history. He was on his way to interview the strange George De Mohrenschildt, a shadowy figure connected to the assassination of JFK through his odd friendship with putative assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.

According to BillO's own words, he was on De Mohrenschildt's front porch when George blew his own brains out with a shotgun rather than provide testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977.

There's just one little problem with that narrative. BillO was in Dallas at the time, a fact verified by numerous sources more credible than the Official Faux News Bully-in-Chief.

Wonkette calls it Ace Reporter Bill O’Reilly Killed Lee Harvey Oswald, Ran Area 51, Co-Piloted Amelia Earhart’s Plane on the Glassy-Eyed Knoll.

Is Bill Orally the Jack Crabb of the 20th Century?

I hate to jump on the heap with all this piling-on abuse of Poor BillO -- I know I should probably feel bad for fanning the flames, but come on. It's Bill O'Reilly!!!

BTW that picture is one of my favorite mockup Photoshop photos of all time, one that the Dead Kennedys should have grabbed for an album cover.

So Bill O'Reilly Was in a "Combat Situation, Okay"?

Normally I am pretty willing to give a little slack to people "misremembering" shit that happens to them. See for example How Do We Know What We Know, about the whole Brian Williams fiasco. So I was willing to cut Bill Orally a bit of slack over the years on his claims that he was "in a combat situation, okay?"

But if you as a "newsman" are going to pitch shit on a fellow reporter, you ought to make sure your own skirts are clean. Which is why I experienced a certain amount of schadenfreude glee when I read the Mother Jones story, Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem.

BillO of course was not so happy. He immediately doubled down by saying that he never said he was IN the Falklands for the Falklands War, just that he covered the war. From Buenos Aires and Montevideo. You know, where all the combat was -- NOT!

Media Matters has combed through various transcripts and compiled a bunch of quotes from BillO on this topic. Read them and then you tell me if he did not claim that he was in combat in the Falklands War. Maybe he didn't say those exact words, but context is everything, and the kind of people who are his normal audience are a little short on the nuance thing: "Because I was in a situation, one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete." Look at that and you will see that even the average listener, let alone the Bill Orally fan, would think that he heard that BillO said he was "in the Falklands". Also, an aside from the 12-year-old that lives inside my head..."this one time? at band camp?"

Like I say, I'm willing to give a guy a little slack if, for example, he says he was in combat and we learn that he wasn't actually IN combat but was actually a block away and saw it go down. Everybody does a little "résumé enhancement" from time to time, but I'm not going to claim that I was in the 1968 Tet Offensive when I was actually half a world and three months away from Vietnam at the time. I can, however, say that I was in the so-called "Little Tet" of 1968, literally almost from the time my boots hit the ground at the Bien Hoa airfield on the 10th of May.

Speaking of that, BillO, you were born in 1949, which means that you were 18 years old in 1967. Why didn't you go to Vietnam? Why didn't you avail yourself of the opportunity for that real "war experience" you apparently craved so much that you thrust yourself onto the Mean Streets of the "war zone" of Buenos Aires at the very end of the Falklands War.

On the March 19, 2008 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly used his "war experience" to criticize Bill Moyers: "I missed Moyers in the war zones of Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East and Northern Ireland. I looked for Bill, but I didn't see him."

Yeah, BillO,  I looked for you in Vietnam but I didn't see you, either.

"Uppity Negroes" and Outside Agitators

The great and wise and powerful Oz wingnut pundit Bill Orally has pronounced that all of the nationwide protests over the Ferguson and Garner grand jury decisions were not the spontaneous reaction by a trodden-down community, but instead were orchestrated by a tiny cabal of race-victimization-thumping far-left radicals. After all, Bill Orally is exactly the kind of person god would choose to "understand" and to pass judgment on the actions of "The Negroes" and their leaders.

I am old enough to recall the first Civil Rights protests -- well, not the real first first, but the ones that made it to the Big Time, i.e., national television, in the mid-1950s. No less a personage than J. Edgar Hoover himself said, in his masterfully-ghost-written Masters of Deceit, that the whole civil rights movement was definitely a communist plot. No less an authority on the communist menace, and Genn Beck role-model/object-of-worship, W. Cleon Skousen, said the same thing in his totally factual and completely unbiased study, The Naked Communist.

I can also remember people saying, "Them damn niggers were happy before them goddam communiss agents started stirrin' 'em up 'n' makin' 'em all uppity!"

No, really. I actually heard that. From a member of my own extended family -- remember, I grew up in rural Oklahoma, and sadly not all of my family was of the liberal-progressive Agrarian Socialist line.

That sentiment is still around, although that particular expression of it may have gone underground, more or less -- but like a bloodstain that you can't get out, it's still there in the fabric.

It takes a certain amount -- no, a huge amount -- of racist arrogance to really believe that blacks were happy with their lot under the Jim Crow laws that ruled for a century, until they were provoked by "outside agitators" into believing, against all proof of reality, that their former-masters-and-still-racially-superior overlords, i.e., the white race, were only concerned about their welfare.

And that's why a Google search for the simple phrase "Slavery Good for Blacks" comes up with 9,940,000(!) hits.

So it all comes down to this: According to this line of thought, Black folk are simple, docile, wooly-headed semi-retarded children who would be happy with a shiny set of keys, if it weren't for all those communist/socialist/fascist/Islamist/fuck-if-I-know-ist agitators who just want to stir them up, make them riot and urge them to kill whitey, but don't really want to improve their lot in life. Improve their lot in life? Why would anyone want to do that for those uppity Negroes? After all, as Richard Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, the appropriately-named Earl Butz, famously once said, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit."

Jesus, when it comes down to it, who doesn't want that? Why would they even think they wanted more?

For a deeper analysis of Bill Orally and his pontifical judgment of this issue, see the always-valuable NewsCorpse site and its Black Folk Sure Is Lucky To Have Bill O’Reilly To Tell ‘Em Who Their Leaders Oughta Be referenced above.