No Change in Strategy

There is an obvious answer to Bill O'Reilly's question.

Host: Why is Trump backing down?

O'Reilly: “He’s not backing down! He’s trying to defuse. Why would you say he’s backing down? You want a CNN contract? He’s not backing down, he’s diffusing the way he should”pic.twitter.com/A8BYokpPiH

— Red Line News (@RedLineNewsUSA) January 27, 2026

For context, below is the video of the entire interview. At 5:41, the podcaster and ex-Fox News broadcaster remarks

If you continue- and I mean "you" in a general sense- to allow states and cities to not enforce federal law, you don't have a country. It goes. O.K.?   Everybody should understand.

After NewsNation's Leland Vitter asks "so why is Trump backing down," O'Reilly responds

He's not backing down. Why would you say he's backing down? He's trying to diffuse. Do you want a CNN contract? Now, here's the most important part of this whole thing- unreported....

The obvious answer to "why would you say he's backing down" is that Donald frequently backs down. TACO. While he occasionally holds to his position when he sees the tide turning against it, he never diffuses. It would be inimical to everything he stands for. It would run contrary to the goal he hopes to achieve, and there is a very recent example.

Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar held a town halll meting in her Minnesota congressional district on Tuesday evening when a man approached, and sprayed, her with a syring containing a liquid.  He was tackled by her security force, identified as Anthony James Kazmierczak, and charged with 3rd degree assault for evidently/allegedly attacking the congresswoman with apple cider vinegar.  Notably 

Just hours before, at a rally in Clive, Iowa, the president waged another one of his bigoted attacks on Omar — one of countless times he’s fixated on the lawmaker in recent months.

When speaking about supposed violence caused by immigrants, Trump said immigrants must “show that they can love our country, they have to be proud. Not like Ilhan Omar.” The crowd booed.

He went on to make racist remarks about Somalia and Somali people, as he’s done numerous times in recent months, and relished in the idea of committing violence against them.

“They’re good at one thing: pirates. But they don’t do that anymore. You know why? Because they get the same treatment from us as the drug dealers get: Boom, boom, boom,” he said to laughter and applause, referring to his administration’s illegal boat strike campaign. “When we see them going in, ping, that’s the end of that.”

Trump has relentlessly attacked Omar as his administration has unleashed violence on Minnesota, sometimes for days in a row. He has said that she should be “thrown the hell out” of the U.S. while spreading lies about her status as a citizen; repeated false conspiracy theories about her; and, just on Monday, said that his administration is investigating her.

Only the assailant, not the President, is responsible for the apparent assault. However, Donald is responsible for his response to the incident.and

In a phone interview Tuesday evening with ABC News' Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott, Trump said he hadn't seen video of the incident and without providing evidence accused Omar of staging the attack.

"I don't think about her. I think she's a fraud," Trump said. "She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her."

By "diffuse," O'Reilly probably meant "de-escalate," an effort to calm things down, to ease tensions. 

Trump has dropped the extraordinarily nasty comments directed toward Minnesota goveror Tim Walz and Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, sent Customs and Border Protection director Tom Homan to Minneapolis to talk to Walz, and himself spoken to the Governor.

But these minor moves reflect only a short-term strategic shift in tactics. Donald will pivot back to his unique (except among dictators) approach, reassert his modus operandi, once he perceives it politically advantageous. Trump may modulate his words, but not his tone. He will not curtail his venom for more than a moment in time. He does not diffuse or de-escalate tensions or any situation. It is not his way.

Establishing autocracy is President Trump's goal and creating, or contributing to, crisis creates the chaotic and tumultuous situation he needs. The finished product is absolute power and creating havoc is a critical step in the recipe.

Share |

A Very Bad, Very Convenient, Memory

Bill O'Reilly makes the case for election of Donald Trump, and that warm feeling on your backside is smoke he's blowing up your rear end. Here, he claims

I don't care whether you like Trump or not. Trump governed this nation in a responsible way where everybody prospered. And if you don't believe that, you're a moron. Every single thing, every single indicator was on positive territory. All the working people no matter what color they were were making more money and there were more jobs. We didn't have inflation. We didn't have supply problems. We didn't have any of it. Now we have all of it, in addition to an open border.

🚨BREAKING: Fox News legend Bill O'Reilly just said: "I don't care whether you like Trump or not. Trump governed this nation in a responsible way, where everybody prospered. And if you don't believe that, you're a moron!"

What's your reaction? pic.twitter.com/NhS9UlgnUq

— PAMELA HENSLEY🇺🇸 (@PamelaHensley22) May 23, 2024

What a great country! All the working people were making more money and there were more jobs. Except that, as Vox explains

some of Trump’s signature economic policies have also been found to have had little to no measurable effect on the economy — and a few might have even hurt. Multiple studies have shown that the Trump tariffs at best had a neutral effect on the economy and at worst cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs and higher prices for consumers. And his 2017 tax cuts, which increased investment in the economy and contributed to modest wage growth in the short term, fell far short of Republicans’ promise that they would pay for themselves and are projected to significantly raise federal debt and increase income inequality.

"On the other hand," Biden

faced the immediate task upon assuming office of heading off a recession as the country started to bounce back from the pandemic. The US did recover from that pandemic economic slump. But there is evidence that his policies, including the stimulus checks he issued, contributed to an inflationary spiral. 

The US did, however, manage to curb inflation faster than other economically developed countries, while also maintaining much lower levels of unemployment and higher wage growth.

O'Reilly seems to have forgotten that

Supply chain disruptions rose nearly 70% in 2020, with the Covid-19 pandemic leading the way as the most damaging event, according to data from supply chain risk monitoring firm Resilinc, released this week.

The data come from Resilinc’s 2020 EventWatch Report, which analyzes information gathered from the company’s EventWatch AI global event monitoring service. The report shows that supply chain disruptions were up 67% year-over-year in 2020, with 83% of disruptive events being “human caused,” the company said...

Donald Trump was President in 2020, when he constantly assured Americans that the coronavirus would "go away" and "is disappearing," Inflation was low through most of 2020 (but rose to.4.2% in January 2021) because people were sheltered at home and there was little demand for goods and services. O'Reilly says "we didn't have supply problems," a claim which should surprise suppliers and consumers of toilet tissue.

The inflation rate is now 3.4%. At 3.9%, the unemployment rate is at a nearly 50-year low. It was at 6.3% in January, 2021, when Trump left office. (It was at 7.2% and inflation at 4.1% as Saint Reagan carried 49 states on his way to re-election bragging "It's Morning in America Again.")

Bill O'Reilly supports Donald Trump. But facts are facts. In 2017, O'Reilly was worth approximately $85 million and probably is worth much more now. Therefore, Bill he knows that under a President Trump, the tax he pays on his income will be significantly lower. There probably is a connection the two..

Share |

Trump's Effort Paying Off

"Many people who are dying, both here and around the world were on their last legs anyway, and I don’t want to sound callous about that."  -Bill O’Reilly, April 8, 2020

Donald Trump knows better than to be so blunt. However, The Washington Post has reported

Rick Bright, former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, told Congress on Thursday that political pressure forced “dozens of federal scientists” to spend a harried 48-hour stretch rushing to put together a protocol for approving hydroxychloroquine for widespread use in covid-19 patients. Ultimately, that approach wasn’t taken. The FDA issued an emergency authorization for hospitalized covid-19 patients who cannot participate in a clinical trial.

In his whistleblower complaint, Bright said he was removed from his position in part because of his reluctance to promote the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, because they had not been tested and deemed safe for treating covid-19....

“So we have had some great response, in terms of doctors writing letters and people calling on the hydroxychloroquine,” Trump told reporters Thursday. “And this guy is fighting it. There’s no reason to fight it. There’s no reason. But more importantly than that, we’ve had tremendous response to the hydroxy.”

But doctors, health experts and officials from Trump’s own administration say the evidence does not back up the president’s positive assertions. Those assertions, which Trump has claimed are partly based on “a feeling,” could be costing lives, they said.

One can only hope, President Trump (and O'Reilly) can almost be heard thinking. In one study of Veterans Affairs patients

More than 27 percent of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine died, and 22 percent of those treated with the combination therapy died, compared with an 11.4 percent death rate in those not treated with the drugs, the study said.

And in a collateral benefit for Donald Trump, as of March the USA had

all but exhausted its supplies of two anti-malarial drugs that are being used by some doctors in the U.S. and China to treat the coronavirus, but which lack definitive evidence as effective treatment or approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

Hopes that the decades-old drugs could be effective against the coronavirus were also boosted by President Trump, who told a White House press briefing last week that the compounds were “a game-changer'' and have shown “very, very encouraging results.'' He made similar remarks Friday and tweeted the recommendation again on Saturday morning, saying he hoped the medicines will "be put in use IMMEDIATELY.”

The sudden shortages of the two drugs could come at a serious cost for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients who depend on them to alleviate symptoms of inflammation, including preventing organ damage in lupus patients.

That sounds like a win-win for a President who last week in Allentown, Pennsylvania, described his concept of beauty- death to the weak- as nurses who are

warriors aren't they, when you see them going into those hospitals and they're putting the stuff that you deliver, but they're wrapping themselves, and the doors are opening, and they're going through the doors, and they're not even ready to go through those doors, they probably shouldn't, but they can't get there fast enough, and they're running into death just like soldiers run into bullets in a true sense, I see that with the doctors and the nurses and so many of the people that go into those hospitals, it's incredible to see, it's a beautiful thing to see.

We're presently at 91,000+ deaths in the USA from covid-19, and Donald Trump's frustration is only that we cannot get to the six digit milestone soon enough.

Share |

He Still Hates America, And We Already Knew That

Who are the Russians fooling? The Moscow Times (which otherwise does not appear to be the Russian version of The Onion) reports

The Kremlin has demanded an apology from Fox News host Bill O’Reilly for calling President Vladimir Putin “a killer.”

Presidential Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the outburst “unacceptable and offensive.”

O’Reilly made the claim during an interview with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Of course he did, because it's obvious, and O'Reilly could respond only "but he's a killer, though. Putin's a killer" after Trump maintained "I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not. And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world — that’s a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea."

The chat proceeded with

Trump: There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent. You think our country’s so innocent?

O’Reilly: I don’t know of any government leaders that are killers.

Trump: Well — take a look at what we’ve done too. We made a lot of mistakes. I’ve been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

O’Reilly: But mistakes are different than —

Trump: A lot of mistakes, but a lot of people were killed. A lot of killers around, believe me.

Trump was not "against the war in Iraq from the beginning" but that is, as the grammatically misguided put it, " past history."

More significant is the moral equivalence Trump is trying to establish between the violent authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin and the United States of America. "Take off that flag lapel pin, you're soiling it," David Frum aptly tweets.

When you spend 4-5 years in the Hanoi Hilton, wearing an American flag lapel pin is unnecessary, as John McCain conspicously- no, inconspicously- demonstrated in the 2008 presidential election campaign. Perhaps Trump should wear half a dozen.

But O'Reilly- he of "the spin stops here"- did not challenge Trump other than pointing out the obvious, which upset the sensitive soul of  Vladimir Putin.

But perhaps not of President Trump. "We've got a lot of killers," Trump alleged, and continued "what do you think- our country's so innocent. You think our country's so innocent?"

But Trump is saying only that the USA is not innocent- that it is guilty of something or other. He is not asserting that he disapproves.  Digby points us to an excerpt from an interview held with the candidate last March when Trump remarked

Look at what China’s doing in the South China Sea. I mean they are totally disregarding our country and yet we have made China a rich country because of our bad trade deals. Our trade deals are so bad. And we have made them – we have rebuilt China and yet they will go in the South China Sea and build a military fortress the likes of which perhaps the world has not seen. Amazing, actually. They do that, and they do that at will because they have no respect for our president and they have no respect for our country.

Recognizing this as old style, chauvinistic nationalism, Digby responds "So he's going to make them 'respect' us. And then, he'll take what he wants. To the victor belongs the spoils."  There is no reason to believe Donald Trump is offended by leaders who are killers, or by colonial powers, or by national leaders who exploit other nations for economic gain.

"If we kept the oil," President Trump recently contended, "you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil, but, OK, maybe we’ll have another chance.”  Now he says "a lot of people were killed. A lot of killers around, believe me." It is not at all clear Mr. Trump disapproves, and no clearer after the "interview" conducted by Bill O'Reilly.













Share |

Advice From Donald Trump

Two nights after the election, Bill O'Reilly commented

Is there a civil war brewing in the U.S.A.? That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. As we mentioned last night, the voters rebelled and Donald Trump won the presidency because of that rebellion. Just a few hours after the election was called though, some anti-Trump protesters took to the streets. Nothing major but the spectacle got intense in Oakland.

After video was shown, O'Reilly continued

The main beef seems to be that left-wing protesters don't respect an honest election. By the way, that's a hallmark around the world. Every communist and socialist takeover from Cuba to Venezuela to Soviet Russia back in the early 20th century featured violence and assaults on freedom. Here in the U.S.A. We honor protests, but increasingly we are seeing people who want our system destroyed. 








Since the election, there have been marchers throughout the nation who could take comfort from tweets arguing "we should march on Washington and stop this travesty' because "the world is laughing at us" as the "electoral college (has) made a laughingstock out of our nation."  "We should have a revolution in this country" goes one tweet, noting the candidate "lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election."

There is a problem, however. The tweets (now deleted, but preserved) are from 2012, not 2016 and were all made by one individual, Donald J. Trump, when according to Digby "he thought Obama was going to win the electoral college and Mitt Romney was going to win the popular vote." At the time, he saw the possibility of an Electoral College defeat coupled with a popular vote victory, concluded "we are not a democracy," and advocated revolution because "our country is now in serious and  unprecedented trouble... like never before."

Perhaps Bill O'Reilly can ask Donald Trump whether he still believes revolution is the answer when a presidential candidate with the greatest number of votes is denied the presidency. It would make for great television we'll never get to see.







Share |

A Game They Will Not Play

In January, the American Family Association issued a news release which- in the unlikely event it would be successful- would give opponents of same-sex marriage a fighting chance when the matter hits the High Court this summer. In part, it read (italics the organization's)




In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s announcement that it will hear the issue, American Family Association (AFA,www.afa.net) says Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse themselves from making any same-sex marriage decisions because they have both conducted same-sex marriage ceremonies.

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions that actively endorse gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Both Kagan and Ginsburg have not only been partial to same-sex marriage but they have also proven themselves to be activists in favor of it. In order to ensure the Court’s integrity and impartiality, both should recuse themselves from same-sex marriage cases. Congress has an obligation to Americans to see that members of the Supreme Court are held to the highest standards of integrity. The law demands it, and the people deserve it"....

Kagan performed a September 21, 2014, same-sex marriage ceremony for her former law clerk and his partner in Maryland. And Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage ceremony at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C., in August 2013.

*********************************************************************************

Bill O'Reilly emphatically agrees. However, the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, as did the State of Maryland in November, 2012. It is not unprecedented for Supreme Court justices to perform wedding ceremonies and the ceremonies cited by the AFA were as legal as opposite-sex marriages. Ian Millhiser persuasively argues

If mere participation in a legal institution was grounds for recusal, then it would be difficult to find judges or justices who weren’t recused from many cases. The speed limit in the state of Colorado, for example, is 75 mph, while other states have lower speed limits. Yet, if a litigant were to challenge one of these lower speed limits in court, a judge would not be required to recuse themselves simply because they once drove on Colorado’s roads and took advantage of its higher speed limits.

It's not only that Kagan and Ginsburg have done nothing wrong.  From 1976 to 1979 Clarence Thomas was a lawyer for Monsanto Corporation and as an Associate Justice has taken substantial money- as gifts or speaking engagements- from organizations advocating the interests of agribusiness.  Yet (or maybe therefore) he still sat when the US Supreme Court decided Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms in 2010 and Bowman v. Monsanto Co. in 2013.

Moreover, shortly before the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, in June 2012 Elizabeth Flock of US News & World Report explained that Justice Thomas' wife Ginni

has been a vocal critic of the Affordable Care Act, and she has certainly made money off of that criticism. In 2009, she founded the Tea Party nonprofit lobbying group Liberty Central, which lobbied against the law. There, she made a salary of $120,000, according to the group's 2010 tax filing.

A startup donation to Liberty Central to the tune of $500,000 came from Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate investor, Republican donor, and friend of Justice Thomas, Politico reported in 2011. Crow declined to comment to the New York Times about whether he was the source of the money.

Ginni Thomas later stepped down as CEO and president of Liberty Central, but started Liberty Consulting in 2010, which also did anti-healthcare reform lobbying, according to the liberal site Mother Jones.

And in January 2011, it came to light that Justice Thomas had "inadvertently" left out information about his wife's employment over the last 13 years—where her earnings added up to as much as $1.6 million, the Huffington Post reported.

One of her former employers: the Heritage Foundation, where Ginni Thomas made hundreds of thousands of dollars between 2003 and 2007, according to a letter from Thomas to the Committee on Financial Disclosure. The foundation has also been a vocal opponent of the healthcare reform law.

That's (relatively) small potatoes, admittedly. Monsanto won both its cases overwhelmingly and the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA,  though it rejected its Medicaid provision. Of far more consequence, however, was Bush v. Gore (1st cartoon from slideshare.net, 2nd from Ann Telnaes), handed down a little over 14 years ago. Most famously, then- Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justice O'Connor had stated their intention to step down if the Republican became President.

More significantly, however, Ginni Thomas- yes, she again- was at the time working at the Heritage Foundation drawing up a list of potential appointees in a Bush Administration. And Justice Scalia's son Eugene was employed at the law firm of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, one of whose partners was Theodore Olson, lead attorney for the former Texas governor in the Supreme Court litigation.  and later Solicitor General in the Bush Administration. (Scalia's son John worked for the firm representing the ticket in the Florida courts.)

When it really counted- when the presidency of the United States and the integrity of the electoral process were at stake- Repub justices decided personal interests came before morality and ethics. Being Democrats, Kagan and Ginsburg probably would recuse themselves were there an actual conflict.  But there isn't, and they won't.

Share |

Playing By The Marquis De Queensbury Rules

Questioned on "Morning Joe" about the controversy swirling around Hillary Clinton for use of a personal e-mail account when she was Secretary of State, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) replied

I'd like to hear her explanation. I think Dianne Feinstein was right. She should come forward and explain the situation.I think it's only fair to say to Hillary Clinton "tell us your side of the story." Other Secretaries of State have done this. What was your side of the story? What did you put on your personal e-mail?

Please, Mrs. Clinton: Don't hire Senator Durbin as your campaign adviser.

Whatever Hillary Clinton put onto her e-mail, one thing is sure: it would get exploited for all its worth by both the GOP and the media. (After all, whatever she has on there, it is more important than oral sex. And that almost cost her husband the presidency.)

It's an old (and unfortunately valid) cliche- the best defense is a good offense. Rephrased: attack, attack, attack.  In related news, soon after GOP TV's Bill O'Reilly was revealed (a few years after Keith Olbermann did so in "the worst person in the world" segments) as a serial fabricator, Fox News issued a statement adamantly maintaining

Bill O’Reilly has already addressed several claims leveled against him.  This is nothing more than an orchestrated campaign by far left advocates Mother Jones and Media Matters. Responding to the unproven accusation du jour has become an exercise in futility. Fox News maintains its staunch support of O’Reilly, who is no stranger to calculated onslaughts.

Characteristically, O'Reilly went on the offensive, remarking  "I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone. Where he deserves to be."  Concerned a New York Times reporter covering the story might be critical, he warned "I am coming after you with everything I have. You can take it as a threat" (video below of Olbermann in his MSNBC days).






And Bill O'Reilly's ratings, already impressive, have soared in the wake of the revelations that, though he boasted he was "on the ground in active war zones [like] the Falklands," he was in Buenos Aires; saw photographs of nuns murdered in El Salvador, rather than having been a witness as he claimed; and was in Dallas during the suicide in Palm Beach, Florida of George de Mohrenschildt, a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald, at which O'Reilly claimed he had been present. (Video below is of Bil Maher acquitting himself much better than the passive Matt Taibbi and David Axelrod.)








Obviously, Hillary Clinton herself cannot threaten to kill reporters. However, amongst the groups and individual heavy-hitters who are publicly ready for Hillary, there must be someone who could put the fear of God into the media.

The Clintons, more than anyone, know that these these figurative brush fires will continue to flare up. If Democrats want to keep the White House and, eventually, regain Congress, they should let the media and the GOP know they will no longer play defense. They must exact a price when they are under siege (video below of Bill Maher guests Matt Taibbi and David Axelrod demonstrating how not to do it).

Dick Durbin wants Clinton to explain her side of the story. But the facts will not matter.  It makes little sense for the Repub establishment, such as Fox News, to fight a skirmish like it's a war while the Democratic establishment fights a skirmish like it's a skirmish.

Share |

A Little Bit Of Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing

On Wednesday, GOP TV's Bill O'Reilly in his "Talking Points" segment declared "The holy war begins…. The holy war is here and unfortunately it seems the President of United States will be the last one to acknowledge it…. President Obama needs to lead – needs to lead the world in this holy war.” The following night, he told Reverend Jim Wallis of Sojourners (video below)"The ISIS people would behead you, your family and everybody you know and you’d be saying, ‘You know, the Muslim people have got to deal with it from within."

In his "What ISIS Really Wants," Atlantic contributing editor Graeme Wood uses the phrase "Holy War" but once, in referring to Peter Bergen's "Holy War, Inc," so titled, Wood reports, "in part to acknowledge bin Laden as a creature of the modern secular world." Though he believes some military action by the US is unavoidable, Wood cautions against invasion and occupation specifically because it would confirm the suspicion of jihadists worldwide, who "all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims."

ISIS will not be beheading Wallis, O'Reilly, and not "everybody you know" anytime soon. Wood explains

The humanitarian cost of the Islamic State’s existence is high. But its threat to the United States is smaller than its all too frequent conflation with al-Qaeda would suggest. Al-Qaeda’s core is rare among jihadist groups for its focus on the “far enemy” (the West); most jihadist groups’ main concerns lie closer to home. That’s especially true of the Islamic State, precisely because of its ideology. It sees enemies everywhere around it, and while its leadership wishes ill on the United States, the application of Sharia in the caliphate and the expansion to contiguous lands are paramount. Baghdadi has said as much directly: in November he told his Saudi agents to “deal with the rafida [Shia] first … then al-Sulul [Sunni supporters of the Saudi monarchy] … before the crusaders and their bases.”

However, O'Reilly was not completely delusional when he contended the President would be "the last to acknowledge" disturbing reality.   On Thursday, President Obama stated

Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy.  They try to portray themselves as religious leaders -- holy warriors in defense of Islam.  That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the “Islamic State.”  And they propagate the notion that America -- and the West, generally -- is at war with Islam.  That’s how they recruit.  That’s how they try to radicalize young people.  We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie.  Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek.  They are not religious leaders -- they’re terrorists.  (Applause.)  And we are not at war with Islam.  We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.  (Applause.)  

In his research, however, Wood found "every academic I asked about the Islamic state's ideology sent me to (Bernard) Haykel," who grew up in Lebanon and the United States and is of "partial Lebanese descent."   Muslims, Wood writes

who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”

Further, Wood remarks

Western officials would probably do best to refrain from weighing in on matters of Islamic theological debate altogether. Barack Obama himself drifted into takfiri waters when he claimed that the Islamic State was “not Islamic”—the irony being that he, as the non-Muslim son of a Muslim, may himself be classified as an apostate, and yet is now practicing takfiragainst Muslims. Non-Muslims’ practicing takfir elicits chuckles from jihadists (“Like a pig covered in feces giving hygiene advice to others,” one tweeted).

I suspect that most Muslims appreciated Obama’s sentiment: the president was standing with them against both Baghdadi and non-Muslim chauvinists trying to implicate them in crimes. But most Muslims aren’t susceptible to joining jihad. The ones who are susceptible will only have had their suspicions confirmed: the United States lies about religion to serve its purposes.

There is little doubt that most Muslims did appreciate the President's sentiment, which may in part have prompted William Saletan to argue that Republicans who believe that Obama is "unwilling to see, or unwilling to acknowledge, that the vast majority of terrorism in recent years has been perpetrated by Muslims" are mistaken about him. "There's a difference, Saletan writes, "between what he says about Islam and what he thinks about it. The difference isn't dishonesty. It's prudence."

But it's what Barack Obama believes is prudence- and it is dishonest from a President quite capable of being knowledgeable and insightful, and simultaneously misleading. Absence of discord, Wood discovered, is a prime interest of a majority of Muslims worldwide and in the affected region. They probably realize they are ill served by an American president who purports to know what their religion teaches, especially when it is inaccurate.   It is instead a gift to religiously-motivated terrorists, as are dire warnings  from American opinion leaders of a Holy War.













Share |

They Have An Agenda, And They Stick To It

In an op-ed Obama wrote for the Los Angeles Times about the terrorist threat, he ended by remarking

Our campaign to prevent people around the world from being radicalized to violence is ultimately a battle for hearts and minds. With this week's summit, we'll show once more that — unlike terrorists who only offer misery and death — it is our free societies and diverse communities that offer the true path to opportunity, justice and dignity.

It is our free societies and diverse communities that offer the true path to opportunity, justice and dignity. On his way to blasting Obama for "a very, very damaging statement," Rudy Giuliani should have read the last paragraph of the piece before maintaining "I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents.  And when it’s not in the context of an overwhelming number of statements about the exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he’s more of a critic than he is a supporter."

Unlike the President, who cited our free societies and diverse communities, the failed New York mayor apparently could find no examples of American exceptionalism, though he did exhibit the conservative trait of excessive testosterone. Steve M. notes

Our pols and reporters aren't much on picking up guns these days, but boy, do they love words. Words are obviously the journalists' stock in trade, but words are pretty much all we ever get from right-wing politicians -- they don't do anything. (OK, OK -- at the state level they bust unions and shift the tax burden away from the rich.) So they've persuaded themselves that words are the secret weapon. They shout "Radical Islam!" and tell themselves: THIS CATCHPHRASE KILLS ISLAMOFASCISTS. They think trash-talk equals valor. (Yes, I'm talking to you, Rudy Giuliani and Dinesh D'Souza. They're still the self-deluding 101st Fighting Keyboarders -- but now they have the mainstream media on their side.

Many of Obama's critics do have an obsession with proving their masculine bonafides, shouting about Islamism but always stopping just short of recommending American ground troops, re-instituting the draft, or practically any solution. (See video below in which Bill O'Reilly stops just short of recommending American soldiers- or anything definitive; and below it, Chris Hayes' response.) Surveying the very secretive No Drama Obama Administration, John Ellis Bush
claimed "With grandiosity, they announce resets and disengage. Hashtag campaigns replace actual diplomacy and engagement. Personal diplomacy and maturity is replaced by leaks and personal disparagement."

Only a Bush would have the gall to condemn simultaneously a Democrat for "weakness" and for abandoning diplomacy. It was followed by nothing constructive, which is becoming a John Ellis Bush specialty.

The GOP's fascination with toughness is manifested in (intentional) carelessness, demonstrated by Giuliani slamming the President's alleged reluctance to tout America's exceptionalism," while himself avoiding  himself avoided specifics.    Similarly, Town Hall's Katie Pavlich is exorcised Obama stated

Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.

She remarks

What, exactly, does Obama mean when he says "legitimate grievances"? The grievances Al Qaeda and ISIS hold are against infidels and Muslims who don't go far enough to wage jihad on the West. These "grievances" aren't economic, despite what the State Department would like us to believe. 

In a post preceding the other quoted above, Steve M. observed this right-wing complaint and explained

Obviously, the president is referring to the legitimate grievances of citizens in many countries who are not members of ISIS or other terrorist groups. Some of them, he believes, might turn to extremist organizations out of anger at the state of their own countries.

Right-wingers know that, of course. They know the president is not legitimizing terrorist organizations. They're just exploiting the ignorance of their target audience, because fostering hatred for their political enemies is -- now and always -- their #1 priority. They care about that far more than they do about fighting terrorism or keeping America safe.

If you talk to many extreme conservatives, you probably have noted that while hatred of Barack Obama is priority #1, speaking in broad generalities is #2. Usually, they do not do nuance, and neither do their political and media stars, as when Bill O'Reilly Tuesday declared "The Holy War is here and unfortunately, it seems the president will be the last one to acknowledge it."

President Obama at times has gone overboard in suggesting both that global violence is unrelated to religion and that Christians have been as culpable as have Muslims. The global threat posed by radical Islamism exceeds that posed by radical Christianity. Still, proclaiming a holy war is irresponsible, as are the constant invocations of  American "exceptionalism." They threaten to take us down a very dark road.













Share |

Left Unsaid

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani still is blaming current New York City mayor Bill DeBlasio for the ambush murder of police officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos. As a former public official and individual of some sophistication, he does not say "DeBlasio is responsible for the murder of the two police officers."  Rather, he hides (video below) behind

At this point, I have to say he's bringing it on himself. He should have apologized, not for the murder. He's not responsible for the murder. He was elected by the people and he shouldn't resign.But he did create an atmosphere of anti-police bias- and feeling for a long, long time. He did it when he ran as a candidate then he continued it into being mayor... 







"He's got to say I'm sorry," Giuliani added, and Digby observes

Giuliani is a very typical white, wingnut authoritarian who sees absolutely nothing wrong with harassing innocent citizens of color. Anyone who questions it is an un-American cop-hater. And for the past few days, he and others like him have been pontificating virtually unopposed on television.

It is difficult- and highly dangerous- while the attention of the American people is turned to the ambush killing of police officers to be heard saying "but as to the underlying problem...." Nevertheless, though not a wingnut, the ex-mayor is an authoritarian.

There is a common thread among the conservatives criticizing Mayor DeBlasio, and it's not racism. Or at least it's not blatant racism..

After police officers turned their backs nine days ago to the mayor when he entered a hospital to pay his respects to the families of the murder victims, Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins stated “It is your failed policies and actions that enabled this tragedy to occur. I only hope and pray that more of these ambushes and executions do not happen again.”  The statement from Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch read “That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor.  When these funerals are over, those responsible will be called on the carpet and held accountable.”

(Outside the Ramos funeral, police officers, hundreds of them, demonstrated their disgust with DeBlasio; as shown in the photo, below, from Sharon Stapleton/Reuters. But contrary to most reports, they did not turn their backs on the Mayor. They turned their backs to a video of him delivering the eulogy.  Big difference.)

On the day of the funeral for Officer Ramos, former (Republican) New York Governor George Pataki twitted "Sickened by these barbaric acts, which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of eric holder & mayor deblasio."  It appears no one has asked the New York Republican why he does not give Eric Holder the respect of calling him Attorney General Eric Holder, nor what barbaric acts he was referring to, given that the murder of the two police officers constituted one incident.  Accuracy optional.

While on vacation, Bill O'Reily called in to his own show to call for the resignation of Deblasio, whom he claimed has "disgraced the officer of mayor of New York City." He called DeBlasio a "far left individual, who is incompetent" and "has been anti-police his whole career." Worst yet, he is, according to O'Reilly, a good friend of Al Sharpton.

Something is missing... something. It is an example of how he has "created(d) an atmosphere of anti-police bias," why "he has blood on his hands," what "the divisive anti-cop rhetoric" is, or how he always "has been anti-police."

It is clear, however, that it is far less anything the Mayor has done or threatened to do than with what he has said.  That would be DeBlasio's remarks on December 3 that

Chirlane and I have had to talk to Dante for years about the dangers that he may face. A good young man, law-abiding young man who would never think to do anything wrong. And yet, because of a history that still hangs over us, the dangers he may face, we’ve had to literally train him—as families have all over this city for decades—in how to take special care in any encounter he has with the police officers who are there to protect him.

And that painful sense of contradiction that our young people see first, that our police are here to protect us, and we honor that, and at the same time, there’s a history we have to overcome, because for so many of our young people, there’s a fear. And for so many of our families, there’s a fear. So I’ve had to worry over the years. Chirlane’s had to worry. Is Dante safe each night?

There are so many families in this city who feel that each and every night. Is my child safe? And not just from some of the painful realities—crime and violence in some of our neighborhoods—but is safe from the very people they want to have faith in as their protectors. That’s the reality.

At the conclusion of the segment (beginning approximately 4:20), Giuliani took a stab at it. But he did not acknowledge that circumstances have changed in the 50 years since he was a boy or that blacks have a particular reason to be wary of the police.

Nor would he mention the words "black" or "white" or the remarks by Mayor DeBlasio which apparently exorcised him.  There is a determination among the Mayor's critics, who consider the comments about Dante to be a swipe at the police, to cite those comments themselves.

One of the greatest journalists of American history would sign off his half-hour news broadcast by stating "courage" (video below). He had a lot of it, but the detractors of the mayor of New York City, some vociferous and even nasty, have so very little.











Share |

American History Disappears

This week, it's South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. Next week, or next month, it could be a couple of other conservatives.

Haley is a Republican and O'Reilly a registered Independent, but is no more an independent than is the Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.  

Raw Story has the story that

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) on Tuesday said that there was no need to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Statehouse grounds because it was not an issue for CEOs, and the state had “fixed” racist perceptions by electing an Indian-American governor.

During a South Carolina gubernatorial debate, Democratic candidate Sen. Vincent Sheheen called on the flag to be retired to a museum.

“I think the people of South Carolina are tired of having an image across America that’s not truly who we are,” Sheheen explained, adding that everyone should “rally together under a flag that unites us all, the American flag, that looks toward the future, and not the past.”

Haley responded that the Confederate flag was a “sensitive issue.”

“What I can tell you is over the last three and a half years, I spent a lot of my days on the phones with CEOs and recruiting jobs to this state,” the governor noted. “I can honestly say I have not had one conversation with a single CEO about the Confederate flag.”

Haley said that she had tried to improve the perception of the state by ordering employees to answer the phone with the phrase “it’s a great day in South Carolina.”

“But we really kind of fixed all that when you elected the first Indian-American female governor,” she insisted. “When we appointed the first African-American U.S. senator, that sent a huge message.”

There are so many things wrong with a Governor supporting the Confederate flag being flown at the Statehouse because, she says, it doesn't offend chief economic officers and America proved it isn't racist because it has a black President and South Carolina a black Senator.  the statement does, however, encapsulate Repub philosophy brilliantly, suggesting

Screw what all you other people might think, the governor has talked with lots of CEO's—they are people too, you know, but better people, ones with nicer watches and private jets—and none of them think it's an issue. What the hell are the rest of you still going on about?

But let's be honest. The sheer elitism, as captured eloquently above by Hunter of Daily Kos, will be little noted in the corporate media.  Hopefully, at least, there will be an onslaught of criticism for the adoration of the Confederate flag, which is offensive to blacks and should be to all people who are pleased the USA came out on top against the the Confederate States of America.

There is a third disturbing aspect to Haley's remarks, one in common with a comment by O'Reilly when he faced off last night (video, below) with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.  The synopsis by Salon's Joanna Rothkopf of the event includes

On Wednesday evening’s edition of “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart invited Bill O’Reilly on the program with the sole intention of getting O’Reilly to admit that there was such a thing as white privilege, but under the pretense of discussing O’Reilly’s new book, “Killing Patton.”

Stewart begins by saying that there is a system of subjugation in the country when it comes to anyone who isn’t white.

“That was then. This now,” O’Reilly responds. “Maybe you haven’t figured out that there is no more slavery, no more Jim Crow…”

“Ooh. Alright,” Stewart says, casually sneaking O’Reilly’s book under the desk.

“And the most powerful man in the world is a black American, and the most powerful woman in the world, Oprah Winfrey, is black,” O’Reilly says.

“Being able to give people a free car does not make you the most powerful woman in the world,” Stewart retorts.

Rothkopf's post is very brief, leaving her insufficient space to note the most significant- yet bound to be overlooked- remark made by O'Reilly. While denying white privilege, he demeaned a wide swath of Americans when he lectured "Let me repeat this, and I'll do it slowly so even you can understand it: If you work hard, if you get educated, if you're an honest person, you can make it in America!"

We'd all like to believe that of course. However, there are Americans from the wrong side of the tracks- and increasingly from the right side of the tracks- who are stuck in dead-end jobs and have not made it in America. Usually, those individuals are ill-educated- but often not.  They are disproportionately minority, but far from exclusively.  And to Bill O'Reilly, they have not made it because they're lazy or dishonest. 

Yet what ties together the claims of O'Reilly and Haley is  the idea that, if there is a minority who has been given a position of authority, the USA has ridden itself of bigotry. He doesn't even have to be elected, for Tim Scott was appointed to the US Senate by Haley, who now appears to have made the choice so she can say racism has ended.   

It is even on its face ludicrous, though with power and lasting influence among Republicans. When O'Reilly exclaimed "the most powerful man in the world is a black American and the most powerful woman in the world, Oprah Winfrey, is black," Stewart's quick, witty response was decisive- in the moment, and as to Winfrey herself.

More, however, is needed.  If the likes of O'Reilly are to brag, on behalf of country, that the nation has elected a black man (Barack Obama) as President, he ought to be congratulated for having voted for Obama.  After (honestly) denying that he did so, he ought to be asked why he declined the opportunity to help demonstrate how great the country is.  That would make for interesting- even "exceptional"- conversation.

Share |

When Sensitivities And Ego Collide

In a clash of egos and hurt feelings, the O'Reilly team and the Obama team went after each other on the interview GOP TV host and cable TV giant (literally) conducted with the President preceding Sunday's Super Bowl.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote

Along the way, he interrupted the president 42 times, by my count — although, given the amount O’Reilly spoke, it may be more accurate to say Obama was interrupting him. Sometimes he argued with Obama as though the president were a guest on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Of the 2,500 words uttered during the interview, O’Reilly spoke nearly 1,000 of them.

O'Reilly dutifully labeled Milbank "a weasel (who is) beneath contempt," although he added, so sincerely, "Whatever he says, doesn't bother me because I know where it's coming from."

Confronted by a Fox News reporter about her own reluctance to go head-to-head with O'Reilly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated "One of these days maybe I will. I was not pleased with the disrespect that he showed to the president, so that wasn’t a warmer upper."  The exquisitely sensitive Pelosi, who demands to be treated with respect, didn't explain what a "warmer upper" would be, other than to claim the disrespect "speaks for itself."   Bill O'Reilly is not sufficiently warm and fuzzy.

But the Speaker merely was following the script written by the President, which increasingly has been her role during the presidency of the man the California feminist chose over Hillary Clinton.  (She now is for Hillary Clinton. African-American president elected. Box checked.)  In the unedited interview (aired by Fox News the following evening), O'Reilly asked whether the President "thinks(s) I'm being unfair to you," to which Obama responded "Absolutely. Of course you have, Bill. But, I like you anyway."

But he is not likable, nor is he unfair, although  Bill O'Reilly certainly likes Bill O'Reilly and has extraordinary respect for him. Four days after the interview, the Fox News host revealed to Geraldo Rivera "I'm going to predict that that interview that I did is going to go down in journalistic history as what should be done.  It takes a certain skill to pose questions in a factual way and be persistent without being disrespectful."

Oh, please.  On Sunday, we heard the guy ask the President about the now-fixed healthcare.gov, the trumped-up scandal of Benghazi, and the phony scandal of the IRS (video, below, debunking the right's fantasies),  and the Super Bowl.  There was nothing about the minimum wage, the capture during the Obama administration by the top 1% of virtually all income gain, the outsourcing and offshoring of high-tech jobs, the role of fast-track trade authority (including the Trans-Pacific Partnership) in the economy, inequality at home and abroad,  Secretary of State Kerry's effort at securing a stable peace in the Mideast, nor any substantive issues.  Instead, O'Reilly lobbed softballs, albeit ones intended to roil the anger of his base.  And the Obama team whined.

It was telling that before O'Reilly's quick concluding question (about the upcoming game), the host muttered "They're cutting me off." Journalistic history? Jon Stewart said it best: "it's the Super Bow pre-show.  You've got to play the hits."











Share |

IRS Obsession

It's the trumped-up scandal that won't quit.

It's not Benghazi, but even more ridiculous.  Bill O'Reilly asked President Obama about it in the interview (video, below) broadcast on the Fox network before the Super Bowl.   Former Reagan speechwriter, syndicated columnist, and This Week talking head Peggy Noonan wrote about it in her most recent column when she argued

In the past five years many Americans have come to understand that an agency that maintained a pretty impressive record for a very long time has been turned, at least in part, into a political operation. Now the IRS has proposed new and tougher rules for grass-roots groups. Cleta Mitchell, longtime attorney for many who've been targeted, says the IRS is no longer used in line with its mission: "They're supposed to be collecting revenues, not snooping and trampling on the First Amendment rights of the citizens. We are not subjects of a king, we are permitted to engage in First Amendment activities without reporting those activities to the IRS."

Wonkette's Gary Legum wants to tell Noonan and

Cleta Mitchell, attorney for some conservative groups, that part of the IRS’s revenue collection duties includes determining whether applicants claiming to be social-welfare organizations in order to get tax-exempt status are actually political action groups. It is ridiculous that the IRS is charged with doing this, but you can blame the conservative Supreme Court and its terrible campaign finance rulings for unleashing a flood of grifters. You’re not all goddamn special snowflakes exempted from the rules simply because you think you should be. 

But that didn't stop George Will Monday on GOP News from bizarrely equating the IRS flap to two gigantic scandals:  "Bret, we've had three major scandals in the last forty years. Scandals are a dime a dozen in this town – sexual, financial and all the rest. Three big ones involving the distortion and abuse of institutions. Watergate, Iran-Contra and the IRS."

The weapons of mass destruction fraud, including Condoleezza Rice's 'mushroom cloud' invention, didn't manage to make the cut.  But the IRS did, even though late last June Sam Stein found revelations which

greatly complicate the political scandal that has engulfed the IRS over the past few weeks. An inspector general report in mid-May revealed the tax agency had screened conservative groups with words like "tea party" in their name when considering applications for tax-exempt status. Lawmakers from both parties quickly denounced the creation of such "Be On The Lookout," or BOLO, lists. Republicans in particular argued the finding proved the IRS was trying to tip the scales of the election during the heat of the campaign.

Now it appears the agency's BOLOs were applied to organizations across the ideological spectrum. The IRS also screened groups advocating on behalf of Israeli settlements who were applying for non-profit 501(c)(4) status -- a criterion that may on its own prove politically toxic.

A request for comment from the IRS was not immediately returned. The news of the progressive BOLO was first reported by The Associated Press.

John Shafer, manager of the tax-exempt division in the IRS Cincinnati office had told congressional investigators that BOLOs were applied not for purposes of punishing conservative groups, but to ensure that similar organizations were being categorized and screened by the same group of IRS officials. The concern, he said, was that two different tea party groups would get two different decisions on non-profit status. So, the Cincinnati office developed filters to make sure that everything was categorized as cleanly as possible, he said.

Democratic staffers on the House Ways and Means Committee released a copy of a BOLO list Monday that showed the word "progressive" was one of those a filters.

When House Ways and Means Democrats released additional BOLO lists soon thereafter, groups advocating both limiting government and "expanding government" were included, as were "Green Energy Organizations."  

 Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee on Monday released 15 additional IRS BOLO lists dating back to August 2010. The information on those lists further suggests that the tax agency was indiscriminate (albeit tone-deaf) in its screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status.

In Feb. 8, 2012, for instance, the BOLO list included groups advocating limiting government as well as those advocating "expanding government.” The full file reads as follows.

Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, $ocial economic reform / movement. Note: typical advocacy type issues that are currently listed on the Case Assignment Guide (CAG) do not meet these criteria unless they are also involved in activities described above.

IRS BOLO also seemed to target liberal-leaning groups starting June 15, 2012, when it listed "Green Energy Organizations" as something to flag. The concern, according to the file, was that these groups wanted 510c3 status for supplying green energy to other groups.

The IRS at the same time flagged conservative-leaning groups for screening. Starting July 11, 2012, it began spotlighting organizations dedicated to paying down the national debt. That continued until April 19.

Last May, Joan Walsh observed

so far no one has identified a single conservative group that was denied status in the controversial review, though some faced bureaucratic hurdles and had their tax-exempt status delayed.

In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to have its status denied happens to be aprogressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. 

Under questioning from O'Reilly, Obama responded as well as he could as head of the federal government, maintaining employees in the Cincinnatti office "did not know how to implement" the applicable law and noting there has been "no smidgeon of corruption."  It would have been almost masochistic for him to point out that liberal groups were scrutinized to roughly the same degree as conservatives.  A defense of the federal government employees as simply doing their job as they were directed probably would have been untenable.

Still, it is a reminder that not all nonsense from the GOP comes from those "tea party" groups, upon which Chuck Schumer, some of his Democratic colleagues, and many members of the mainstream media focus as the right-wing threat to common sense.  Peggy Noonan suggesting the IRS trampled on the First Amendment or George Will comparing it to secretly selling arms to a terrorist regime holding American hostages reminds us that Repub propaganda can come from its mainstream figures unattached to the tea party movement.









Share |