Tag Archives: Bill O’Reilly

Foxy News fires O’Reilly

Originally posted at American Thinker

No one would deny that in advertising, sex sells.  If that weren’t the case, then attractive women wouldn’t be promoting things like cat food and sparkling water.  Over at the Fox cable news network, conservative news is the profit-making vehicle of choice, and Fox sells that product with the help of provocatively clothed commentators.

Take, for instance, Megyn Kelly.  Before setting her sights on NBC, the former Foxy News diva primed her meteoric rise to fame by discussing the events of the day in a spaghetti strap halter while showcasing designer shoes and oiled legs under a see-through glass-top desk.  For a time, the Fox News golden girl’s foray into serious journalism included ditching soft curls for a robotic ’80s hairdo that closely resembled Sly Stallone’s ex-wife, Brigitte Nielsen.

The gams and glamor worked so well for Miss Megyn that the combo jettisoned the precocious pundit right into the center of a debate confrontation with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

In the end, Megyn’s “world’s most beautiful people” allure ended up outweighing the seriousness of anything else in Ms. “Kelly’s File.”  And so, with Megyn gone, Fox should be honest and just confess that in addition to clips of Geraldo Rivera going mano a mano with a hurricane, the network’s official policy remains committed to daintily posing shimmering pins on sky-high stools.

The problem is that unlike men who are clueless when being beguiled by feminine wiles, women can usually discern when other women are flaunting their sexuality to attract male attention.  That’s why, to the feminine half of the Fox News audience, it’s obvious that the conservative cable news channel considers it “fair and balanced” to coerce two thirds of its on-camera personalities to double as eye candy.

Surely, Fox News would argue that the parade of gorgeousness coincidentally belongs to a group of doubly blessed politically minded female newscasters.  Either way, the Murdoch men should know that making a woman’s cleavage the emphasis of a news alert distracts from the intellect of highly accomplished women.

In fact, predictable décolletage displays are the very thing transforming Fox News into a kind of cable news Hooters.  The only difference between the two is that Hooters girls in revealing T-shirts serve chicken wings to hungry men, while Fox News fillies, outfitted in sleeveless skin-tight sheaths, serve up cable news to bored men sitting home in their pajamas.

Speaking of men sitting home in their pajamas, for the sin of responding like a man to having the news of the day shared by women emulating peacocks doing a mating dance, Bill O’Reilly of Fox’s wildly popular The O’Reilly Factor is the second high-profile loss from a network guilty of fostering an environment where Victoria Secret models sell the news.

In addition to embarrassing the Fox news giant, Bill O’Reilly’s fall from grace also exposes the hypocrisy of Fox News.

Think about it: how can Fox stand by and watch female news anchors struggle to find a ladylike position for their bare legs on a curvy couch in the morning, and then penalize their most popular host for reacting to the bait at night?  After hawking a full array of bodacious bosoms, flowing tresses and skin-tight mini-skirts, Fox firing a dude for being seduced by the wares being peddled smacks of conservative cable news entrapment.

At any point in time, did Rupert and his sons Lachlan and James advise Bill O’Reilly that if a female guest on his show bats her mink eyelash extensions and puckers her bee-stung lips, it’s not because she’s signaling interest in attending a pajama party at his Long Island home, nor is it a green light for the 6’4″ bloviator to kiss her on the lips?

In other words, other than the receptionist Bill referred to as “ hot chocolate,” what appears to have happened was that some of the women who used sex to attract a male audience on one side of the camera ended up garnering unwanted attention from Bill on the other side.

Now, in response, a self-righteous Fox News Channel is playing the politically correct prude by describing uninvited attention toward the very women Fox encouraged to seek male attention…as sexual harassment?

So even though the gangly senior citizen answered his hotel door in his skivvies, Bill O’Reilly deserves a break.  After all, if hairspray fumes could be converted into pheromones, judging from the line-up night after night on The Factor, poor Bill’s hypothalamus gland was likely in perpetual overdrive.

That’s why, after being in the presence of a bevy of newscasters who share the news while crisscrossing their legs like Sharon Stone under interrogation, it stands to reason that the big guy couldn’t help grunting at some of them like a testosterone-infused boor.

Even still, instead of succumbing to the sexually charged atmosphere nurtured by the Fox News Channel, Catholic school- and Harvard-educated O’Reilly should have at least known not to bite the carrot.  Bill should never have behaved like a troglodyte.  Instead, the host of The Factor should have exercised self-control by aligning his 1960s caveman thinking with current safe-space standards.

Regrettably for O’Reilly fans, it’s too late for Bill to embrace his feminist side, don a man-bun, and save his job.

In the end, if Bill did harass the women alleging he made unwanted advances toward them, then there his no defense for his behavior.  However, Bill is still a man and would have to be either castrated or dead not to react to some of the sensuality being passed off as journalism over at the Foxy News network.

 

Obama Tackled O’Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday

O'Reilly

Originally posted at American Thinker

Barack Obama probably didn’t want to be interviewed by big guy Bill O’Reilly on NFL Super Bowl XLVIII Sunday. But let’s face it, Peyton Manning was getting mucho attention so, not to be upstaged, the president agreed to a pre-game sit-down.

For the rest of America, watching Obama run in between O’Reilly’s legs while the Fox News cable show star attempted in vain to tackle the slithering POTUS was as painful to see as the Seattle Seahawks routing the Denver Broncos.

Casually dressed, Obama showed up for the interview with his perpetual smirk and shoes so shiny you could almost see a reflection of O’Reilly’s nostril hair.

Facing the president in a chair for short people, O’Reilly’s gangly legs had nowhere to go. Then, after bloviating for weeks beforehand, O’Reilly’s “alpha male” bluster seemed more like a tall guy in a pink tutu trying to appear aggressive, but failing miserably.

As for Obama, except for his clenched jaw he seemed relaxed and confident, and even smiled with pride twice: Once when O’Reilly blamed the Bush recession for six years of economic woes, and then again when Bill gave the POTUS props for raising money for the veterans he barred from the WWII memorial during the government shutdown.

Other than that, the president’s attitude was so imperious and evasive that the Factor Word of the Day to describe it was “peremptory!”

Nonetheless, Obama exhibited his remarkable prowess for bobbing, weaving, and dodging, accepted zero responsibility, and passed the blame. At the end of the day, the only person more powerless or humiliated than O’Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday was Peyton Manning.

Bill questioned and Barry sneered. The president treated the 6’4″ journalist as if his and Fox News’ questions, conclusions, and assumptions about him were not even close to warranted.

It’s strange how, in an effort to excuse himself from his own ineptitude, Barack Obama appears even more inept by implying that a cable news outlet has the power to hamstring his agenda. Yet, pre-game, that turned out to be a great defense because Bill O’Reilly, who publicized the interview promising he would pose tough questions to the president, did nothing of the sort.

Wait! There was one hard-hitting question, but it was froma California woman who wanted to know why Obama feels it’s necessary to “fundamentally transform the nation,” to which the president, who did in fact sayin a speech five days prior to the 2008 election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” replied “I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation.”

Tough-as-nails O’Reilly then gently pointed out, “But these are your words.”

In the end, Obama accused Fox of making money off of falsely representing him and placed the blame for his policies being unsuccessful at the feet of Rush Limbaugh… er, wait, that was last week. This week it’s on Fox News.

In the end, the interview was predictable — Barack Obama successfully resisted provocation and lied. Business as usual. But there was one part that was surprisingly pitiful and it had nothing to do with Obama being Obama.

After attitudinally emasculating Bill O’Reilly, Obama maintained that Fox News was “unfair” for daring to suggest that four Americans were left to die in Benghazi, for questioning and reporting the purposeful targeting for their political views of Americans by the IRS, and for addressing the problems associated with five million people being thrown off perfectly affordable and accessible health insurance after being promised they could keep it.

Horrified, O’Reilly, who prides himself on being the fairest of the fair, seemed milliseconds from crying.

With pure panic in his voice and eyes, O’Reilly began to grovel before the president asking, “Do you think I’m being unfair to you, do you think I’ve been giving you…?” Having the upper hand, Obama cut in, “Absolutely. Of course you have, Bill. But, I like you anyway, Bill.”

Aw, shucks.

Clearly flustered by the accusation that a haughty narcissist would even think Mr. Fair and Balanced was being unfair, O’Reilly, who is no Sean Hannity, said, “Okay, but — give me how I’m unfair. Give me how I’m unfair. Come on, you can’t make that accusation without telling me.”

Bringing up perfectly fair examples of how Fox News has been fair, the president said, “Bill — we’ve just run through an interview in which you asked about health, uh, health care not working, IRS where-where we, uh, wholly corrupt, Benghazi.”

In response, O’Reilly gently prodded the president to acknowledge that those were unanswered questions, but control freak that he is, Obama shared that he doesn’t appreciate how Fox frames unanswered questions about negative situations in a negative way.

Unnerved by such a suggestion, Bill O’Reilly pushed the president to answer: “But if it’s unfair, I-I want to know if it’s unfair.”

So, the final takeaway from the much-hyped Super Bowl Sunday interview is that after all his unctuous begging, “alpha male” Bill O’Reilly still believes that “alpha male” Barack Obama has his “heart is in the right place.”

Phil Robertson’s Detractors Advance His Message

Phil RobertsonOriginally posted at American Thinker

For days now, the nation has been subjected to hearing gay activists, atheists, hypersensitive liberals, and First Amendment rights-defenders engaging in biblical eisegesis.  The histrionics began when Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson was quoted in a GQ interview where, in defense of his biblically based anti-homosexual-lifestyle views, he loosely cited 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

Unabashed in his enthusiasm about the saving power of Jesus Christ and his denunciation of the sinful life he openly admits he was delivered from, when explaining why he rejects the gay lifestyle, Papa Robertson also referred to female and male body parts as if he were reading out of a public school edition of Human Sexuality for Fifth-Graders.  Hearing the words “vagina” and “anus” caused quite a stir with the set that approves of live sex shows being part of a college curriculum.

Liberals who are determined to force kindergartners to use clinical terms for genitalia are now saying Phil Robertson’s comments were crude.  Aren’t these the same individuals who love to hand out Planned Parenthood pamphlets with a section that gives kids detailed instructions on how to masturbate?

Yes they are!  And now it’s the masturbation enthusiasts who are dipping their toes into the biblical interpretation waters and expounding upon their hollow theological insights.

Liberals interpret both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution similarly.  Generally they reject both, but they are the first to expose their ignorance when opining on how those who do believe in both the Scripture and our founding documents err in the proper understanding.

Now, in the aftermath of the Duck Dynasty controversy, disapproving unbelievers and biblical know-nothings are elevating themselves to the seat of authority and, on behalf of the gay community, are determined to iron the insensitive wrinkles out of the Scripture.

On the supposedly more conservative end of the spectrum, you have “Christian” pundits like Bill O’Reilly questioning whether Phil Robertson took it too far when he quoted the Word of God, which, Bill is well aware, condemns all sin, including homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, and adultery.

As an unapologetic Christian Bible-thumper myself, it initially disturbed me to hear Scripture being analyzed by people like gay Democrat pollster Bernard Whitman, who attempted to use the Bible to bludgeon a man I consider a brother in Christ.  What Whitman and others like him fail to realize is that their criticism actually helps Phil Robertson further his message.

In the 55th chapter of the book of Isaiah, verses 10 and 11, the Lord informed the prophet that:

As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Secular eisegetes are oblivious to the fact that their level of belief or lack thereof does not impact the intrinsic power of God’s Word to accomplish its purposes!

The more time the left spends vocally ruminating over what Phil Robertson said, the more the Word of God, which never comes back void, goes forth and impacts lost and hurting lives.  A&E and GLAAD may not realize it, but thanks to mutual religious intolerance, they’ve assisted Phil Robertson in getting out the message that he was originally denounced for expressing.  Let’s not forget — as with Balaam, if God has something to say, He will get a donkey to say it.  And at present the message being sent clearly condemns homosexuality, but with it also comes the hope of God’s unconditional love and forgiveness, and the free gift of salvation.

One can’t help but compare the modern-day predicament of Phil Robertson — unruffled by the furor, firm in his faith, and unwavering in his commitment to Christ — to that of the Apostle Paul.

When Paul wrote to the Philippians, he was imprisoned.  The overriding theme of Paul’s letter was that despite his captivity, his evangelistic work had not been hindered.  Instead, those who tried to thwart the spread of the Gospel unwittingly helped hasten its propagation.

For personal gain, phony preachers questioned Paul’s good character.  Paul was unmoved.  Imprisoned in a jail cell, the writer of the epistle ignored the allegations and focused on and rejoiced in what was of utmost importance to him: the advancement of the Gospel.

In like manner, as an unintended consequence of Phil Robertson’s comments, while the patriarch of Duck Dynasty remains unyielding, unlikely suspects on the left are successfully moving forward the very message that they themselves find objectionable.

Just as it is now for Phil Robertson, it was for Paul of Tarsus nearly 2,000 years ago when he wrote these words to the Philippians: “But what does it matter?  The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.”  And because truth is eternal, all Christians should join together with “Happy Happy Happy” Phil Robertson and rejoice.

Binder Bimbos or Benghazi?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

A newly-formed band of Binder Bimbos is working diligently to convince America that Mitt Romney demeaned women during the second debate when he described how he, as governor of Massachusetts, went about balancing his male-dominated Cabinet with women.  Responding to a question on pay equity, Romney said, “I had the chance to pull together a Cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

Like salivating wolves waiting to pounce on prey, liberal women have spent lots of time lying in wait for Mitt Romney to utter anything at all that could be misconstrued to prove he’s a woman-hating troglodyte. Thus far, the best they’ve come up with is “binders.”

Erica Payne, progressive public policy expert, commentator, author, and founder of the Agenda Project, appeared on the Bill O’Reilly show where she stretched the Binder Bimbo idiocy so far that she likened Romney’s debate comment to an Arab sheikh flipping the pages of a binder looking for women to stock his harem. After she said it, even Erica looked a bit embarrassed for proposing such a ridiculous analogy.

Meanwhile, the Binder Bimbos are in full attack mode.  Yet oddly enough, they have not condemned the women’s groups who delivered the “binders full of women” to the Massachusetts governor. Worse yet, while out trawling for GOP offensive words and actions, these same women seem to have zero problems with Barack Obama calling the brutal slaughter of four Americans “not optimal.” But then again, these are the same soulless individuals who protest “binders full of women” and applaud bio-hazard bins full of aborted babies.

Barack Obama’s now infamous “not optimal” comment was made recently during a Jon Stewart interview.  Stewart posed a question that began, “I would say and even you would admit it was not the optimal response,” about the Obama administration’s muddled communication after the deadly attack in Benghazi, to which the president coldly retorted with what he no doubt thought was a clever twist on Jon’s use of the word “optimal” by saying, “If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.”

Anyway, to Barack Obama’s detriment, his emotionless response has now married the carelessly thought-out words “not optimal” with dead Americans in much the same way Romney-hating women are now associating themselves with three-ring binders.

Yet, amid all the binder blather is a broken-hearted woman named Pat Smith who lost her son.  Pat is the mother of Sean Smith, one of four diplomats that included former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, all of whom were killed during the raid on the consulate in Benghazi.

Mrs. Smith welcomed her son home in a coffin at Dover Air Force Base and continues to maintain that the truth about what really happened to her child is painfully slow in coming.

Speaking from her home in California, Mrs. Smith, 72, who actually has something more serious than binders to be upset about, described herself as being in “pure hell” since she lost Sean. Expounding upon Obama’s “not optimal” comment, Pat said “It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don’t think it’s right. How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don’t think the President has the right idea of the English language.”

Pat Smith may be too respectful to admit it, but Barack Obama lacks the right idea about a lot more than the English language. However, what Mrs. Smith did do was take the President to task by saying, “It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal – he is also very dead.” Then the distraught mother admitted that “I’ve not been ‘optimal’ since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.”

Sean Smith’s mother concluded her comments by offering a candid assessment of Barack Obama’s Comedy Central interview when she said “There’s a lot of stupid things that have been said about my son and what happened and this is another one of them.”

In light of Obama’s callousness, a question needs to be posed to indignant Binder Bimbos everywhere: In the scheme of poorly chosen words, which is worse, “binders full of women,” or the Commander-in-Chief describing the death of four men in service to America as “not optimal?”

The answer to the question is clear. Instead of pointing out the ongoing insensitivity being shown toward a San Diego mother mourning her dead son, on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC “Morning Joe” talk show Binder Bimbo Mika Brzezinski chose to blast Mitt Romney for the “binders full of women” statement. Brzezinski, who is likely planning to vote “like [her] lady parts depend on it,” fumed at Romney about his attempts to recruit female cabinet members in Massachusetts. Mika told a disagreeing Joe that “It just happens to be a little bit insulting that he had to make up a story about trying to help women because he couldn’t find one on his own,” she said. “That’s kind of a problem.”

No – Mika, if you and the rest of the Binder Bimbos are so desperate to find a problem, how about focusing on a dishonest president who, for political expediency, told a made-up story to cover up a terrorist attack in Libya on 9/11?  Now, as a result of that deceitfulness, Barack Obama’s once optimal prospects for reelection have been downgraded to “not optimal.”

%d bloggers like this: