|Back to Back Issues Page|
Bill O’Reilly’s Elitist Pompous Assininity.
November 08, 2010
Vic Biorseth, Sunday, November 07, 2010
Bill O’Reilly is an elitist, egotistical pompous ass. In fact, Bill O’Reilly put the pomp in pompous assininity. My Marcie likes his show, and I have to admit I like most of the content, but when I watch O’Reilly, most of the time he just irritates me. He rarely lets anyone complete a sentence without talking just talking over them, and that’s just rude. But what is worse than that is his superior and condescending attitude toward everyone, including his own audience, and – this is important – his lack of proper principles.
A long time ago, somewhere else in this website, I forget where, I’m sure I made mention of that old scandal involving one Andrea Mackris who accused him of sexual harassment and identified him as a “Phone Perv,” meaning a pervert who enjoyed masturbating while in lewd phone conversation with someone. There were supposedly recorded phone tapes of this stuff. But the whole case magically just went away and was suddenly hushed up, allegedly at a cost of umpty-ump million dollars from our Billy boy. Who doesn’t want to talk about it. Which tells me that there is something about it that cannot stand the light of day. I remember thinking, at the time, that if such a charge came up against me and it was false, that I would loudly and publicly challenge the accuser and settle it just as publicly as possible, and fiercely prosecute the accuser for whatever prosecution was possible. O’Reilly didn’t do that; he paid to keep it quiet, and that is what originally brought him low in my estimation.
But it goes deeper. He apparently doesn’t even know the real difference between the Right and the Left in American politics. He is of the school that thinks that ideology in and of itself is somehow bad, and that all ideologues are therefore bad, regardless of the ideas or ideals represented by their specific ideology. And what that says is that he doesn’t even know what it is that forms the foundation and make-up of a political party, or even a political argument or position. A reasoned political position is, almost definitively, ideological, unless, of course, it is all fluff and no substance.
Earlier this week he interviewed Sarah Palin, and she actually managed to complete a sentence or two, which is rare for anyone talking to O’Reilly. But Bill’s two big points of contention with her, which he kept hammering at, were whether she thought there was such a thing as being too far to the Right, and whether she insisted on “ideological purity” over elect-ability in new Republican candidates for office. After the interview, he let us all know that he believes that someone could indeed be “too far Right” and that insistence on “ideological purity” was somehow a negative. He liked to be more middle-of-the-road in everything. Fair and Balanced, I suppose.
American Right versus Left is somewhat different than in other countries, and considerably different than the current definitions out of American academia, which has a decided Marxist slant to begin with. In so-called Communist lands, a Conservative, or a man of the Right, is a good, stalwart supporter of Marx’s theories and of the Communist Manifesto. A Liberal, or man of the Left, is a “revisionist” enemy of the state, who opposes some part of Marx’s theories and the Communist Manifesto, in favor of individual liberty in some form or another. In the so-called free world, this is reversed; a Conservative is the protector of individual liberty, and a Liberal is one who would move the system toward state control, ostensibly in the name of equality.
But there is a fly in the ointment, brought about by a secret pact between Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler, and the subsequent feud between them once the secret pact was broken. Both Stalin and Hitler were Marxists, although of somewhat differing interpretation of Marxism. They secretly used each other in political intrigues to advance themselves within their own nations. Stalin demonized Nazism (National Socialism,) Hitler demonized Bolshevism (Communism,) and they secretly aided each other in their consolidation of absolute power within their nations. You can see the details in the Marxism page, if it interests you. Here I will only make the point that Communism advanced in the Soviet Union under the banner of Anti Fascism, and Nazism advanced in Germany under the banner of Anti Communism. It is crucial for young Americans to understand this point: Both Stalin and Hitler were Marxists.
The secret non-aggression pact was broken, of course, when Hitler invaded Russia. The Soviet Union maintained and exaggerated the false and invented Anti Fascism nature of Communism throughout World War II and after; foreign Marxists took up the chant, and it came to be “common knowledge” that Fascism and Nazism were somehow opposite to Communism, and that view is what is touted by all Marxists today. Communism on the Left, Nazi-Fascism on the Right. To be “too far Right” is to be approaching Nazi-Fascism; to be “too far Left” is to be approaching Communism. Of course, this is as false today as it was when it originated in the secret non-aggression pact between Stalin and Hitler.
The original Communist lie remains intact: to be too far Right is to be Nazi-Fascist. Most Americans today have been educated in that particular lie all their lives. In truth, Nazi-Fascism has its roots in Marxism, and is therefore Leftist. Hitler, after all, was an avowed follower of Marx.
I’m not sure Bill O’Reilly correctly understands all that, or, the following.
We said that, in the Free World, a Conservative is one who seeks or protects individual rights against the state, and a Liberal is one who seeks or protects the state’s right to rule the individual. (Here, now, Liberal has lost its older and more honored meaning of open minded seeker and moved to meaning political favoring of statism/Marxism.) The balance goes back and forth between the two arguments of individual rights versus the power of the state. In America, it is somewhat different than anywhere else on earth, because of our unique American founding and constitution documents, and the Principles upon which America is based.
America, as founded and constituted, is a unique and wonderful idea and ideal as well as a wonderful nation full of opportunity for the individual. The unique American idea and ideal may be thought of as an ideology. It is the ideology of the American Conservative, or man of the Right. The American Conservative sees the Declaration of Independence as a carefully worded and particularly wonderful blessing of a nation; and a golden chord of principled words that bind a unique people to their Creator and to each other. The American Conservative sees the Constitution as a fixed legal document, written in English, that says very specific legal things, organizing the American government, and laying the rules for how it operates.
But, Bill O’Reilly doesn’t like “pure” ideology, and he thinks it is possible to be too far to the Right. So, in his view, Sarah Palin (and all the rest of us) should not completely hold to the American ideal, and she ( and all the rest of us) should be ready to trash parts of the Declaration and the Constitution. In the interest of – what, exactly? Perhaps he too is educated in the old Communist lie, and he sees Sarah Palin (and the rest of us) as leaning toward Nazi-Fascism. Personally, I don’t think he knows his Right from his Left, or even Up from Down.
The Marxist Nature of the Democrat Party and the point by point close affinity between the Communist Manifesto and the Democrat Party Platform was discussed in the recent Blessed Polarization page. For over a hundred years the Democrat Party has been doing to America, in little bites and nibbles, what Lenin did to Russia in one fell swoop. Point by point. The Fed; the Income Tax; Organized Labor Unions; “Public” Education; etc., etc., etc. All of these things came out of the Communist Manifesto, not out of our founding and constituting documents. None of them are among the enumerated things our government is constituted to do, and therefore our government is not supposed to be doing them, because they are unconstitutional. All of them are designed and intended to drive the American system toward inefficiency, breakdown and eventual failure.
Comrade Obama merely brought it all to a head, so to speak, by putting the Democrat program on steroids, and ripping off limbs rather than taking little nibbles like his Democrat predecessors. He woke us up and made us pay attention to what was going on. As we became more aware, we began to get together, and we began brewing Tea.
Now, elitist snobs and pompous asses like Bill O’Reilly see Sarah Palin as some kind of far-out, kooky, Right Wing extremist, an uncompromising ideologue, and therefore of low political qualification for a run for office. I ask you to compare her qualifications to those of Comrade Obama. Compare her ideology to that of Biden. Compare her extremism to that of Hillary. Compare her clear representation of the ideals of we the people to anyone in Washington.
Republican “spokesmen” like Carl Rove, Newt Gingrich and others, and “professional” Republican office-holders like Trent Lott and others have publicly criticized not only Sarah, but our choices for office, such as Christine O’Donnel in Delaware, as being “extreme” and “inexperienced” and “unsophisticated” and “outside the mainstream” and “unelectable” and therefore examples of “Tea Party Mistakes.”
Christine O’Donnel won her primary race against the RINO the Republican Party preferred. She beat him. They said only he could win, but she beat him. There are none so blind as they who will not see. Carl Rove went so far as to publicly attack her on the day of her victory; her State Republican Party refused to support her in any way. He may as well have been working for the Marxocrat side. All of these big-time Republican “leaders” and other pompous asses like O’Reilly repeatedly minimalised her in the eyes of the voting public by either attacking her outright or damning her with faint praise. Christine was not the only one; the same thing was going on in Nevada, Alaska and other places, but I will stick to Christine O’Donnel because Delaware is such a good example of what we’re talking about here.
Christine beat her so-called “moderate” Republican adversary who would likely have voted with the Obamunist cause a significant percentage of the time, and the official Party big shots flew into a blue snit and refused to support her in any way. Why were they so in love with their Lefty candidate, and why did they express such animosity toward Christine?
Because that is what effete snobs and pompous asses do. Who the hell did these Tea Partiers think they were? The Party Elites know best how to run and win political races and the last thing they need is any rank amateurs diddling around with the “professional” Party game plan.
Christine O’Donnell lost her final race not because of anything the Tea Party did or did not do; she lost her race solely and exclusively because of Republican Party actions and inactions, and the continuous negative running commentary of so many big name jackasses like Bill O’Reilly. They operated in direct opposition to another Tea Party candidate, and that fact should not be lost on us, nor should it be forgotten by we the people. The Party preferred a quasi-Communist Republican candidate because they didn’t know how to run a real American Constitutionalist candidate against a flat-out philosophical Communist Democrat opponent. Read that sentence again. They thought such a contest would be impossible. And their elitist feelings were hurt, so they not only didn’t support the victorious Republican candidate, but they opposed her.
Never forget that.
The Republican Party is in business not to support Conservatism or to support the Constitution, but to do political competition, pure and simple, and they are exceptionally jealous of their own elite controlling position in all things relating to Republican political races. They don’t care nearly as much about America as they do about the nuts and bolts of political campaigning and being the political experts and go-to people for all candidates and all issues. We the people, disorganized and unprofessional people that we are, stepped on their toes and dared to trespass on their turf. And so they set out to teach us a lesson by working to the detriment of Christine O’Donnell’s chances.
Christine O’Donnell publicly announced that the so-called Constitutional Principle of Separation of Church and State may not be found in the Constitution, thereby setting off a flurry of public howling tantrums by lots of big-time ignorant clowns like O’Reilly who were certain, certain that she was dead wrong about that. But she was quite correct. It ain’t there. Never was. Go to the link to see. Here we see the mal-education and the sheer stupidity of the elitists coming to the forefront, for all the world to see. And they are the ones who call her unsophisticated, loopy and fringe. They who screamed that she was wrong are themselves the ones who are wrong about it. They just don’t know any better, poor fools.
Christine made some public negative references to masturbation, and that set off another tirade of negativity. Apparently O’Reilly, Rove and friends like to masturbate, see it as a healthy activity, recommend it to others, would like to see it normalized, embraced and accepted in all social circles just like open homosexuality, and they probably contribute to and support the multi-billion dollar Masturbation Industry, and defend it as free expression. They see opposition to masturbation, or even using the word sin, as loopy, fringe, and far Right, and politically indefensible. In their circles, masturbation is normal, socially acceptable and fine, and the word sin is not to be considered. Which is probably just about the way things were when Lot walked away from ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, like Christine, was the oddball.
Christine makes no secret of her Christian faith, and that lights up more fires of controversy with the likes of O’Reilly, Rove and other detractors, because public reverence of and reference to Jesus Christ is seen as loopy, fringe and far Right wing, in their families and their circles. Religion is out, as far as they are concerned; to be a good Republican candidate worthy of support one must either be or appear to be a follower of the silly superstition of Atheism, like them. If O’Reilly is any kind of a Christian or any kind of a Jew then he has a damned funny way of showing it. Among the elite and the pseudo-sophisticated, it is best to avoid God altogether. This is probably just about the way things were when Jonah first approached Nineveh and announced the 40 day warning. Jonah, like Christine, was the oddball.
The elite sophists who either oppose Christine O’Donnell or dismiss her as a loser are all men-of-the-world, and we all know who rules the world. In the best case, these snobs do not know who rules the world; in the worst case, they do.
We the people know better than the experts what this contest is about. We don’t give a damn about political Party turf, expertise, machinations and stratagems. We need more candidates like Christine O’Donnell in office. Period. All those Tea Party supported candidates who made it into office need to join Michelle Bachman’s Constitution Caucus and use it to co-opt the Republican Party. Trent Lott needs to be sidelined until he can be dismissed. New state legislatures under Republican control thanks to Tea Party victories need to form their own state-level Constitution Caucuses and begin to take charge of the state political Parties. Only when the professional politicians are pushed aside may we begin to consider the restoration of the Constitution and the rebuilding of America rather than merely rebuilding the Republican Party. We need to take the Party over, or replace it. It’s not doing America any good the way it is. In the ideal situation, candidates would run on principle rather than Party platforms; but that may be too much to hope for.
The President must be put on defense and kept there; impeachment action should commence, even if it cannot be successful. The charges and the arguments should be made, as publicly as possible, repeatedly. When an attempt does not succeed, modify it and do it again.
Obamacare and other Obamanations need to be totally repealed, with no talk of correcting or modifying. In Blessed Polarization we laid out the clear relationship between specific elements in the Communist Manifesto and the Democrat Party agenda. The whole of the Democrat agenda is Marxist and opposed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. That’s just crystal clear. The march of Marxism through American law has been going on for more decades than any of us have been alive, and Obama has bumped the anti and gone all in, in what looks to be a push to destroy all that America is.
Beyond legislating, executing and adjudicating law, the Constitution lays out three major responsibilities of the federal government:
Article 1 Section 8 nowhere identifies doctors, nurses or medical insurance agents as government agents, employees or functionaries. Medicine is not the business of the federal government, and neither is insurance, of any kind. The whole thing needs to be repealed, with no thought of any replacement bill or any modification. It must be killed.
Legislation, execution and adjudication of law should ideally operate to break or weaken any legal linkage between employer mandated insurance for employees and health care providers. Ideally, such insurance should not even exist. There is nothing whatsoever that health insurance does for health care other than to radically increase the cost and the complexity and the timeliness of the delivery of it, and the payment for it. Medical care at all levels would be incredibly cheaper if there were not insurance middlemen between patients and doctors. Doctors would have major reductions in staff, records, computers and cose if not for insurance bill coding requirements. These codes are for bills, and payment, and not health care. The insurance industry should not be directing, regulating or restricting the health care industry or the business of any health care provider.
Look at all the monstrous government departments and tell me where they are enumerated in our Constitution. OSHA. EPA. HUD. HHS. The list is nearly endless. If these functions are truly necessary, then they belong in the private sector or at lower levels of government; they have no business even being addressed at the federal level. All they do is divert and squander our attention, our national treasure, our perception of our own government, and restrict busness. They strangle private enterprise with restrictive regulation; that is their real but hidden purpose. Note that medicine is not one of the government responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution, and that all that the CDC every brought us was periodic panics over non-existent pandemics, and the HIV=AIDS=DEATH government hoax.
Despite Bill O’Reilly’s pompous assininity, America needs a more developed pure ideology in favor of America’s founding and constituting documents, as exemplified by the likes of Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell. It is quite impossible to be “too far to the Right” in support of that pure ideology. We don’t need the federal government to tell us when to get on or off the pot, or to interfere with every mundane aspect of our private lives.
The most productive political arguments between political positions should most properly be addressing how to get rid of these monstrous federal departments; whether by chopping them off suddenly, or destroying them as they were created by the Marxocrats, which is to say, one little nibble at a time over many decades. Personally, I favor the chopping block.
Comrade Obama may prove to be America’s best blessing, if he does not prove to be America’s greatest curse and destroyer. He, more than anyone else, raised these issues in the American consciousness and brought about the great Tea Party awakening. If America survives Obama, she will be stronger than ever.
And now I’m going to go and get myself a big, fat, juicy grease-burger, all smothered in melted cheese or cheese-product, with a side of hot, salt-encrusted French fries, and maybe another side of deep fried spam balls. And I sincerely hope the Obamas don’t like it.
Respond to this article at the link below :
This article and comments may be found on the web site at the link below:
Visit Vic Biorseth on FaceBook at the link below:
|Back to Back Issues Page|