O'Reilly for The Hill

Oprah Can Have the Nomination, with Some Help From Obama

2018-01-09T00:19:00Z

Oprah Winfrey’s speech at the Golden Globe Awards Sunday signaled her entry into the 2020 presidential sweepstakes. If Oprah wants the Democratic nomination, it is hers to lose. That’s because Barack Obama is her mentor.

First, Oprah’s play last night. She skillfully mobilized American women, who feel marginalized, by hammering home outrage over male “misconduct.” In this day that is easy to do, and Oprah played it perfectly.

Then she pivoted into telling the world that the U.S. media is acting heroically; instead of being purveyors of fake news, the press is really acting as the guardians of the realm. That’s a much tougher sell but has no downside for Oprah; shortly after her speech, NBC tweeted congratulations on her upcoming presidency.

Behind the curtain are Barack and Michelle Obama, close personal friends of Ms. Winfrey. The three are simpatico on world view and share a loathing for Donald Trump and his deplorable followers. Make no mistake, the former president is furious that his policies, especially ObamaCare, are being dismantled. Oprah Winfrey is his ticket back.

It is inconceivable that a Winfrey campaign would not include major input from the Obamas. And what a campaign that would be!

I mean, how can any politician attack Oprah, a feminine icon, human rights hero, civil rights champion and beloved human being? Can you imagine Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York going after her? Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? The strategy would have to be, “Oprah’s great but I’m good too.”

Not a winner.

Donald Trump is probably the only politician in the country who would be willing to disparage Oprah, but she’s not the unlikable Hillary Clinton. Broadsides against Ms. Winfrey would consolidate her considerable base. She would most likely float above President Trump’s bombast — coming across as positive and reasonable. Barack Obama would make sure of that.

Not that Oprah would need much guidance. The media would actively work for her election; she could raise billions of dollars and mobilize tens of millions of volunteers. Has there ever been an American more perfectly positioned to achieve ultimate power?

The answer is no. Then you stir in Barack and Michelle. Somebody up there likes Oprah!

So, that’s what is coming down the pike for America, if Oprah Winfrey wants to be the most powerful woman on earth.

Come to think of it, she already is.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Politics Helped Kill Kate Steinle, Zarate Just Pulled the Trigger

2017-12-01T22:35:00Z

The acquittal of Kate Steinle’s killer on second degree murder charges is a blot on the legacy of America. The California jury apparently gave illegal immigrant Jose Zarate, a man who had been deported five times after being convicted of multiple felonies, the benefit of every doubt.

In fact, the jury did not even know about Zarate’s criminal past because it did not directly pertain to the actual killing of the 32-year-old woman thus was not allowed into evidence.

Since I was not in the courtroom, it would be unfair of me to condemn the jury’s decision. But Kate’s father, Jim Steinle, as honest a man as I’ve ever met, was in the courtroom. He said: “Justice was rendered, but it was not served.”

Two and a half years ago, I began covering the Steinle murder case and quickly came to the conclusion that politics had killed Kate along with the bullet.

First, the city and county of San Francisco refused to turn the criminal Zarate over to ICE after the feds asked for him to be detained. The sheriff of the county allowed him to be released from jail knowing he had a long rap sheet and five deportations. Citing San Francisco’s Sanctuary policy, the sheriff and most other SF politicians were unrepentant even after Kate was shot by Zarate. Outrageous doesn’t even begin to describe that.

Almost immediately, I asked Congress to pass new legislation that I designed called “Kate’s Law.” That would mandate federal prison time for any foreign convicted criminal who returns to America after being deported.

Republican Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Ted Cruz (Texas), among others, supported the proposed law and I even spoke with Democratic Senator Charles Schumer (N.Y.) about it at the Al Smith dinner in New York City. Schumer told me he would “take a look at it.”

But Kate’s Law quickly ran into trouble courtesy of former Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who as the majority leader prevented a vote. The gutless Reid would not take questions about his action but did put forth that he thought Kate’s Law demonized immigrants.

After Reid retired, Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could have put forth Kate’s Law for a stand alone vote but refused even though President Trump called for it. So why did McConnell take no action? He won’t say. Great.

At this point, the only justice possible in this terrible situation is to resurrect Kate’s Law, and prosecute Jose Zarate on felonious violations of immigration law. I expect Attorney General Sessions will do the latter.

As for Congress passing a law that harshly punishes foreign felons who defy deportation, I just don’t know.

We the people need a champion to make Kate’s Law a reality. For the Steinle family’s sake, I pray someone emerges.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Killing Columbus and Never Learning Your History

2017-10-09T17:45:00Z

In Los Angeles County, the holiday of Columbus Day will soon vanish. The Board of Supervisors has replaced it with "Indigenous People's Day."

The reason: Christopher Columbus was "oppressive."

Kind of like the traffic in LA.

The hate-Columbus movement is led by a woman named Sheila Kuehl who once upon a time played Zelda Gilroy in the classic 1960's sitcom Dobie Gillis. It is hard to imagine Zelda, Dobie, and their pal Maynard G. Krebs protesting the great explorer back then but, hey, who knows?

One thing is for sure, the wave of political correctness that has taken root in America is way beyond "oppressive" but that's another column for another time.

Right now we have to deal with places like Los Angeles County, New York City, Denver, and Albuquerque, N.M., disrespecting old Chris and, by extension, many Italian Americans who celebrate Columbus Day as an ethnic holiday because the explorer was born in Genoa in 1451.

For those who admire Christopher Columbus there is a feeling that the PC nitwits know little about him and that is most likely the case.

First of all, "Indigenous People's Day" might sound good on the campus of UC Berkeley but it may be troublesome. Yes, some native tribes were enlightened societies but many were not. After inter-indigenous battles, torture and enslavement were often on the menu for the losers.

Sorry, Zelda.

And then there is Columbus himself. I am almost certain that the LA Board of Supervisors do not know that Chris never set foot on what is now mainland USA. Nope, the closest Columbus got was Cuba.

For the record, Columbus made four voyages across the Atlantic between 1492 and 1504. He was looking for a route to Asia so he could buy spices at a discount or something.

But Chris kept running into various Caribbean islands, also the formidable obstacles of South and Central America. There was no passage to the Far East, only an endless drifting around.

Along the way, Columbus ran into some Indian tribes, most notably the Caribes. They did not like Chris and his malodorous European crews. Strife broke out and some bad stuff went down on both sides.

On the Island of Hispaniola, present day Haiti and the Dominican Republic, Columbus did establish slavery to support various laborious enterprises. Not good. Slave labor was common at the time the world over but that's no excuse.

However, that was a minor part of the "Columbus business," as Hollywood would have put it if they were wooing him for a three picture deal. Mostly, Columbus was a brilliant navigator who opened up the world for travel. No small achievement.

We now live in a time where severely misguided people with little frame of reference are dictating how history should be told and what Americans have a right to see and hear. And if you disagree with them, then you, yourself, are "oppressive." And they'll cover up your statue.

Christopher Columbus was not a villain and does not deserve the vilification the PC police are heaping upon him. Every person on the planet has done bad things but it is the totality of a human being that should be the litmus test.

Soon, the loons will come for the slaveholders George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. In fact, the Dallas, Texas School Board is now debating their diminishment right now.

The legacy of America is in big trouble.

Happy Columbus Day.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

With Trump, Tillerson coverage, the media takes us all for 'morons'

2017-10-05T16:17:00Z

The utter disintegration of journalism in America is a huge, untold story. The case of Rex Tillerson demonstrates this perfectly.

This week, NBC News, using the now very common anonymous sourcing, reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson threatened to resign and called President Trump a "moron."

Instantly, the anti-Trump press decided the anonymous allegation was true. On CNN, news anchor Kate Bolduan, among others, proclaimed the accuracy of the report even though Tillerson himself denied any resignation threat and refused to even address the moron thing.

Later his spokeswoman, Heather Nauert, did deny that Tillerson used the term.

But apparently Ms. Bolduan and other newspeople know the truth. Although how they would know that is a mystery.

Here's how bizarre this is. On Fox News, a writer from Politico said that he believes the report because he knows the NBC reporters and that's that.

Well, that's very loyal to his pals.

But the NBC reporters did not hear Secretary Tillerson threaten to resign nor did they hear the alleged moron remark. Someone apparently told them. Was any verification supplied by the anonymous person to back up the allegation? If so, it did not show up in the NBC report.

There is little doubt in my mind that someone did tell the NBC reporters the Tillerson story. But that doesn't make the allegations true. Does the anonymous source have a political agenda? Does the source have a personal beef against Tillerson or Trump?

We don't know. And many so-called journalists don't care. If the allegation is sensational, it gets reported — verification and perspective be damned.

So this is where we are as far as "journalism" is concerned: All allegations against politicians or famous people, who have a very high bar if they want to sue, are broadcast or printed. They then become talk-show facts, discussed as if the anonymous accusations are absolutely accurate.

Am I the only one who sees the danger here?

There is no question that most media organizations want to get President Trump out of office. A recent study by the Pew organization says that, during his first three 60 days in office, only 5 percent of press coverage of Mr. Trump was positive (During Trump's first 100 days, 11% of press coverage was positive).

Genghis Khan got better press.

But, again, this is all by design — get Trump!

Finally, it is certainly true that Rex Tillerson or anyone else working for an unpredictable boss could have become frustrated. That's human nature. But a blind allegation is not a fact.

The press used to have an obligation to provide facts and fairness.

In America, that is no longer the case. The media is taking all of us for morons.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Thankfully, most Americans have more sense than NFL protesters

2017-10-02T17:41:00Z

"Power to the people, right on!" It's a distant memory but that cliche echoed throughout the country during the very divisive Vietnam War years.

And, indeed, those Americans against that war had a profound effect on it's outcome. They forced President Lyndon Johnson from office and had his successor, Richard Nixon, constantly on the defensive until he signed a peace treaty he knew would not hold. Fifty years ago, the "people" began exercising their inherent power in a remarkable way.

Today, Americans are again demonstrating visible power. According to most polls, about 65 percent of adults believe NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem are misguided in their actions. At stadiums, boos reign down on the protesters and anger at the situation is loud and clear.

The National Football League knows the protests are trouble. So, this weekend, their partners, the TV networks, played down the controversy. In London, a few Miami Dolphin players knelt. They were not shown on camera.

In some other games, the Anthem was not broadcast at all, covered by commercials or in studio commentary.

It's all about money, of course. No industry wants the majority of customers angry with it.

The team owners themselves are caught in tight spots. They don't want politics on the field or in the locker room, but they are also loath to alienate dissenting star players.

So, the owners have devised various contortions to foster "unity." Some teams link arms during the anthem, others kneel before the singing begins then rise.

For team owners, this entire deal is bad for business and a huge distraction. When the word "boycott" surfaces, businesspeople cower.

My hunch is the protests will diminish quickly even though the far left media loves insulting the flag and country. On the leftist websites, the dissenting athletes are lauded as heroes, fighting the "oppression" that America embraces.

But many folks see this rank propaganda for what it is — an exaggeration of social ills in order to push a political agenda.

Are some folks "oppressed" in the USA? Of course, that is the situation in every country. No system is perfect.

But if you want to see true oppression, visit Cuba or China or Saudi Arabia.

Is there a design in America to keep minorities down? No, there is not. Vast improvements in "equality" have and continue to be made.

The leftists will tell you that the guy who started the protests, the anti-American quarterback Colin Kaepernick, has been blackballed by the NFL.

That may be true. But is this oppression? Would you hire an individual who wears socks depicting police officers as pigs?

Would you?

The vast majority of Americans are blessed with common sense. They do not believe their country promotes oppression and are proud of a history that freed slaves in a bloody war, freed billions from fascism and communism, and generally gives more people more opportunity to succeed than any other country on earth.

Protests that insult America are permissible under our banner of freedom. But so is a response that says you are wrong for denigrating your country.

Power to the people — right on!

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: NFL owners run businesses, not political debate clubs

2017-09-25T15:50:00Z

So now the protests against the National Anthem by some NFL players have morphed into an anti-Trump exposition. The story was always interesting but this weekend it exploded in a way that may hurt the country. In this case there are rights, but also what is right.

As you know, former San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick started a political protest last season by failing to stand during the National Anthem before games. Soon, a few other players followed his lead, some even giving the black power salute.

Mr. Kaepernick is now unemployed even though his skill set is high enough to play in the National Football League. The problem for the quarterback is that teams believe he is not good enough to start, and apparently do not feel a public relations nightmare is worth it for a backup.

Overwhelmingly, Americans do not want the anthem and flag disrespected by anyone. You can imagine how our military people feel about the situation while watching NFL games in war zones.

Kaepernick and some other athletes say they are protesting because they believe that the country is basically unfair to African Americans and other minorities and they want to draw attention to their point-of-view.

They, of course, have a right to that opinion.

However, professional athletes work for individual teams, and if the owners of those teams believe the protests are hurting business, they have a perfect right to lay down some ground rules.

Dallas Cowboy owner Jerry Jones, for example, has clearly stated that he does not want political protests on the football field. So far, his players have honored his wishes.

But now things have taken a turn for the worse. In Alabama, President Trump told a cheering audience that he'd like to see players who refuse to stand for the anthem fired. Also, the president opined that fans might want to leave the stadiums if anti-anthem displays persist.

As with the protesters and Jerry Jones, Mr. Trump has a right to his opinion even though it inflamed the situation, leading to wider player protests on Sunday. It is clear that many black players do not like the president one bit.

Shortly after Mr. Trump's initial statement, the head of the NFL, Roger Goodell, issued a press release saying the president's words disrespected the protesting players and the league. Mr. Goodell went on to cite all the good things the NFL is doing for the country.

Fine, but not relevant to the issue at hand.

So what's the answer here? Assuming we all would like to solve the problem, here's what I would do if I owned an NFL team.

First, I would address my players, telling them that I respect honest protest and the First Amendment right to state grievances.

Second, I would explain that professional sports is a business and that alienating customers who pay a lot of money to see football games is simply not good for business. The forum is wrong. The football field is not a political place.

Therefore, if players on my team do not want to respect the president, the National Anthem, and the American flag, they must stay inside the locker room until the pregame exposition is over. That is a new rule that I, as the owner, have a right to make.

By the way, the Pittsburgh Steelers did just that Sunday.

I would, however, give each player the opportunity to speak with the press about anything after practice. I would even provide a special room where the interviews could take place apart from the practice field.

It is interesting to note that the National Football League does not allow personal messages to be written on uniforms. Years ago, former Chicago Bear quarterback Jim McMahon got into major trouble for doing that. The league came down hard on him.

But now the NFL apparently believes that political messaging on the field is okay. Does that make any sense to you?

Summing up, the owners are entitled to make behavioral rules, President Trump and everyone else is entitled to criticize the protests, but the dissenters should be allowed their say in an appropriate setting.

Fair?

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: Trump's UN speech finally puts 'rocket man' on notice

2017-09-21T07:00:00Z

Elton John was center stage at the United Nations this week as President Trump branded the North Korean dictator, Kim Jung Un, "rocket man" for his hobby of firing missiles all over the North Pacific region.

Mr. John, of course, had a hit song called "Rocket Man" in 1972.

Almost immediately after the rocket-man reference, the anti-Trump brigades feigned outrage. How dare the leader of the free world call a cruel despot "rocket man?" The newspaper Newsday said Mr. Trump was "taunting" Kim and the words were "startling."

No word yet from Kim, whom I assume is a big Elton guy. I may be wrong.

Anyway, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley told the press that the president used the pop-song reference to bring attention to the North Korean situation.

If that's really why he did it -- it worked. And considering what Mr. Trump has called other people, from crooked Hillary to Little Marco, "rocket man" doesn't really sound all that bad.

But what really irked the left-wing forces was the president's threat to "totally destroy" North Korea if it attacks the USA or its allies.

Hillary Clinton called Trump's speech "very dark, dangerous."

In response, Donald Trump tweeted: "After allowing North Korea to research and build nukes while Secretary of State, crooked Hillary criticizes."

Boy, if we could ever get these two together on "Dancing with the Stars," the ratings would go higher than Kim's rockets.

The truth is that Barack Obama did next to nothing about North Korea for eight years and Hillary Clinton was a part of that inaction. I mean, the most damaging thing the Obama administration did to Kim was allow Dennis Rodman to visit him.

President Obama's general solution to problems abroad was to take a long lunch. Kim knew it, the Iranian Mullahs knew it, and so did the ISIS savages.

Now, the new American president is telling the world that aggression will be met with aggression and there will be nothing passive about it.

To the Yoko Ono give-peace-a-chance crowd, that policy is horrifying. To the anti-Trump press, it's just another example of bad policy. Incredibly, ABC News correspondent Terry Moran said this: "The words 'totally destroying' a nation of 25 million people, that borders on the threat of committing a war crime."

Fortunately, many Americans now know that negative overstatements about the president are meaningless and generally mean-spirited. Incisive analysis about the Trump administration is harder to find than a Porterhouse steak in North Korea.

When thinking about the very real threat from North Korea, people the world over should fully understand how brutal the Kim Jung Un regime really is. They should also understand that this danger has been in play for decades.

Mr. Trump's UN speech announced to the world that the "tough action will be taken" card belongs on the table.

And that's where it is right now.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: Senior 'stoners' tune out our self-absorbed society

2017-09-12T19:12:00Z

One of the consequences of hateful politics and a polarized federal government is distress. Many folks are disenchanted, morose, sometimes even openly agitated.

Then there is the social media culture, a place of chaos and narcissism that is so pervasive it smacks us in the face every day. So, the quest to escape is growing. The solution for some: self-medication.

Thanks to politicians, that situation is becoming much easier. Thirty states have now legalized medical marijuana, one of the greatest cons in history. While millions of Americans do achieve pain relief from cannabis, many others without ailments simply stroll over to some "clinic" and the party is on.

A few years ago, we investigated a number of medical marijuana concerns that were advertising in a Los Angeles weekly newspaper. The process was a snap. You walk into a dingy storefront and tell "Dr. Jim" you get migraines.

You then give "Dr. Jim" a hundred bucks for a "diagnosis." Quickly, the good doctor hands you a "prescription" that you, in turn, show to "Seth" who sells you some weed.

Have a nice day.

The farce is played out all over the U.S., sometimes causing anti-social behavior. In San Francisco and other places, some hardcore drug addicts sell medical marijuana on the street to support their addiction. Kids are the key demographic for that.

Eight states and Washington, D.C., have now legalized pot for recreational use, creating a $6 billion-a-year industry. By the year 2026, analysts believe that legal pot could bring in $50 billion each year.

Cheech and Chong are more delirious than usual.

And it's not just Jeff Spicolli and his friends at Ridgemont High who are getting wasted. Nope, there is another crew that is becoming deeply invested in the THC culture: seniors!

That's correct. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, between the years 2002 to 2014, pot use among Americans 65 or older increased an astonishing 950 percent! For the demographic 50 to 64, the rise was 210 percent.

That gives a whole new perspective to the TV show "Golden Girls." Betty White and pals did look a bit glazed from time to time, did they not?

Also, this senior stoner trend could be the end of bingo: So many letters, I just can't remember ... .

My theory is that many seniors have simply had enough. To them, all the texting, general ignorance about the world and PC madness have taken a huge toll.

With just a few years left, older Americans are bailing. When faced with a choice between Rachel Maddow or a voyage to the land of giggles, they are increasingly choosing the good ship Lollipot.

American senior citizens were raised and came of age in a much different world — one that has been obliterated by forces beyond their control.

Older folks know the past and they know the present. For some, one toke over the line is the only way to cope with what our society has become.

Can you blame them?

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: Harvey, Sandy, Katrina - A tale of three superstorms

2017-09-06T00:19:00Z

In every ongoing major news story there are "arcs" that the media develops to frame what is happening. These story lines make it easier for news organizations to spin various theories to their readers or listeners. It's a clever way to supplement hard news coverage.

Back in late August 2005, Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans with a stunning ferocity. Levees that held back the Mississippi River were breached and a catastrophe developed, leading to 1,836 deaths and more than $100 billion in property damage from the storm.

President George W. Bush did not publicly show a sense of urgency even as pictures of the Katrina disaster were shocking Americans. Thus, President Bush became a target of the press as the vicious hurricane became politicized.

The media also latched onto the racial angle. A city populated by many poor African Americans, New Orleans was unable to help folks trapped in the low-lying wards. Many displaced persons eventually found shelter in the Superdome but that situation quickly collapsed into violence and anarchy. Authorities in Louisiana were overwhelmed, leading to media charges that blacks were intentionally harmed by a system that does not care about them.

The images of Katrina did great harm to America.

Then, in 2012, Superstorm Sandy blasted the Northeast coast, including the center of media power: New York City. I and many other members of the press were directly affected by infrastructure damage, and the mood was dark. The storm flooded parts of Manhattan, devastated the Jersey Shore as well as parts of Long Island, and racked up $73 billion in overall damage; 233 people died, directly or indirectly, from Sandy.

President Obama, learning from the Bush situation, got on the ground fast, strolling a beach with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in a rather bizarre photo op.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, however, refused to play the political game and even asked President Obama not to come to the city because he would distract from clean-up efforts. The president honored the mayor's request.

The press generally loves Barack Obama, so the political angle concerning Sandy was played down. With cocktails and expense account lunches disrupted, the New York-based media chieftains generally concentrated on video of destruction and kept a close eye on the status of their vacation homes in the Hamptons.

With the arrival of Hurricane Harvey late last month, storm politics came roaring back. The primary story was unprecedented flooding but that was too mundane for the activist national media that has ramped up "point of view" news coverage since Donald Trump became president.

While hard-working correspondents told stories of rescue and heartbreak, mostly left-wing commentators went to town on President Trump from their dry, air-conditioned studios.

Even though the president and First Lady Melania Trump visited East Texas quickly, the hate-Trump brigade criticized his lack of "empathy" and, in their eyes, his concern only for his supporters.

Also, incredibly, the brigades opened fire on Mrs. Trump's shoes. Apparently, the heels were too high to tour a flood zone or something.

Thus, in many cases, the coverage of Harvey descended into the bizarre. At one point, CNN morning guy Chris Cuomo began hectoring Kellyanne Conway about climate change — Mr. Cuomo seemingly convinced the epic flooding was tied into global warming.

Ms. Conway deftly shot back that the debate over acts of nature could wait a few days until people up to their chests in flood water might be helped.

Interesting TV moment.

The non-stop Harvey coverage on cable quickly devolved into whatever anti-Trump angle could be found. Half-heartedly, some pundits on Fox tried to defend the president but they looked exhausted.

Lost in the political "arc" is the fact that Texas authorities and the feds performed much better fighting Harvey than the system did with Katrina and Sandy. That's a pretty big story, if you ask me.

But don't count on much press analysis of the storm-response improvement. With Donald Trump now the primary person in charge of the country, positive stories of government performance don't really fit into the media agenda.

Do they?

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: Trump's real failure is not understanding the evils of Nazism

2017-08-21T17:19:00Z

Lost in the intense debate over Charlottesville is a very important lesson that all Americans should learn. It has nothing to do with American politics or ideology. It has everything to do with history.

I have written three books about World War II and am currently researching a fourth. I can tell you with certainty that most people on this planet have no clue as to how German Nazis went about their lethal business and that includes President Trump and many other politicians both present and past.

Exceptions are the Jewish people who directly experienced genocide at the hands of The Third Reich. In most Jewish homes around the world, the gruesome German atrocities are discussed and children are taught what happened in detail.

But in many American public schools, World War II and Nazism is barely mentioned. Adolph Hitler has become a caricature of evil, a distant monster.

He should be as vivid as today's sunrise.

The historical context of the Charlottesville reaction is that mass murder was carried out by ordinary Germans while the vast majority of that population looked away out of self-interest and fear. And these folks weren't from another planet. Did you know that German-Americans comprise the largest ethnic group in this country?

The crimes of Hitler's regime and the population that allowed it were so terrible that words cannot come close to description. Yet words are all we have.

So to hear and see Americans embrace Nazi hatred, even though their numbers are small, is catastrophic to people who understand Hitler's evil.

That's why no other discussion can take place when Nazis are being analyzed. They must stand alone in any vilification even though Stalin, Mao, Tojo and others also committed premeditated mass murder on a staggering scale.

President Trump did not understand that and it has hurt him. He was trying to make other points in the midst of the revulsion of white supremacists marching in Charlottesville.

Mr. Trump saw violence by some counter-protesters and pointed it out. But when a young woman is killed by an alleged Nazi sympathizer, that point must wait to be made.

The President also said that some who do not want the Charlottesville statue of Robert E. Lee removed are "good people." That's certainly true but the proximity of white supremacists to the situation obscures the point, and makes Mr. Trump seem insensitive to the danger these loons pose, and to the horrors of slavery.

The result of the President's remarks has been to give his legions of enemies license to brand him, his staff, and his supporters "Nazi sympathizers."

That is not true but truth is always the first casualty of hysteria.

If Donald Trump and millions of others had really studied the evil of The Third Reich, the Charlottesville political debacle might have been avoided in the sense that zero tolerance for the supremacists could have actually united the country.

Instead, we have our leadership under sustained, vicious attack and even more ideological strife on our hands.

But if Americans finally begin to learn about and truly understand the past, then something positive might emerge from this awful situation.

We can only hope.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: On Charlottesville, media is the megaphone of the Trump-loathing left

2017-08-16T17:21:00Z

So I'm sitting there watching the CBS Evening News report on President Trump's continuing Charlottesville narrative and the coverage seems very one-sided. Usually, CBS runs the most factually disciplined news broadcast among the big three but this one departs from that.

One CBS taped story features a man who was once a white supremacist but now exposes them. The man says on camera that activist racist white people are "all around us." He is not challenged by the CBS reporter.

I have covered the news for 42 years traveling to all 50 states. I have never encountered a white supremacist outside of my job as a reporter. Not once. So if they are all around me, they are disguising themselves very well.

After that report, CBS News brought on Rev. Calvin Butts who basically said that the President is acting as the defacto leader of the supremacist movement.

Rev. Butts is an intelligent man. But he despises Mr. Trump and that was not referenced by CBS. Nor did the broadcast provide a counter opinion to that of the Reverend.

Now, we expect that kind of presentation from the Trump-hating cable networks where shortly after the CBS broadcast ended, CNN put on a four person panel to work the President over. No pro-Trump folks allowed.

Historian Douglas Brinkley, a panelist, said the President has lost all "moral authority" and is now a "bedfellow" to David Duke.

This second all out media assault on Donald Trump began yesterday after he put forth that radical left fanatics played a role in the Charlottesville violence, and that banishing statues of Confederates like Robert E. Lee might not be a good idea.

Predictably, those opinions jump-started another round of "Trump is a racist" invective.

President Trump made the mistake of injecting different opinions into a story where only one point of view is tolerated by the media: Nazi thugs are totally responsible for everything that happened in Charlottesville. Period. If you dissent then you are a Nazi sympathizer.

To understand why the President is elongating the controversy, you have to realize the depth of his resentment towards the activist left. From the beginning of his foray into politics, the hard left has demonized him in vicious ways. Entire news organizations are working to destroy him.

Donald Trump is very, very angry about that and so are millions of his supporters.

So the President vents by attacking "fake news" and highlighting the sins of the left every chance he gets. For him, this is fair payback for what he has endured. He sees his opponents as dishonest, deserving of constant disparagement.

That's what is happening in the Charlottesville situation. Mr. Trump knows that Nazi sympathizers are bad people but to him they are few in number and have little significance.

The organized left, however, has a huge microphone and is causing the President major trouble. Also, he knows his supporters despise that crew and believes every time he attacks the left, he scores points with his base.

The truth is that white supremacists showed up in Charlottesville hoping for the violence that occurred. But it is also true that some radical leftist counter protesters wanted the same thing, knowing they would likely get a press pass for their violent actions.

And that's exactly what happened. For the Trump-hating left it worked out great. They confronted and exposed the vile Nazis, while also managing to bait the President into a controversy that has hurt him.

In America there is, indeed, a civil war underway. And the President along with his supporters will lose that war unless they fight it smarter. Anytime Nazis are involved you condemn them and walk away. That's all.

There will be time to expose the hard left fanatics down the road. It's all about picking your spots. It's all about an effective wartime strategy.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: Yes, 'many sides' are ripping Charlottesville, America apart

2017-08-14T16:13:00Z

Lost in the political debate over whether President Trump's condemnation of the violence in Charlottesville was strong enough, are the facts of the matter. So let's put agendas aside and get to them.

A group that believes white Americans are being marginalized petitioned to publicly demonstrate their disenchantment in Charlottesville, Virginia. They chose that town, which houses the University of Virginia, because a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee is being removed.

An examination of the protesting group shows a consistent and hateful bias towards minorities. The leaders of the demonstration are generally destructive people who certainly do not want the equal pursuit of happiness for all citizens in our country.

In addition, these protesters, labeled white nationalists by some, were seeking to provoke not enlighten. Many of the marchers carried weapons. They were looking for trouble.

And they quickly found it because some counter-demonstrators brought weapons as well. Local authorities, foolish in their planning, did not separate the two groups effectively. Trouble was inevitable.

President Trump condemned the violence "on many sides." That quickly drew the ire of the far left as well as the media which generally despise everything the President does. The cry of false moral equivalency almost immediately filled the cable news airwaves, and the pages of liberal newspapers.

In cases where Americans are fighting other Americans, clarity is desperately needed. Mr. Trump would have been wise to articulate his anger with "many sides" in very specific terms.

First, there are the fire-lighters; the white protesters. After defeating fascist Germany in World War II at great cost, no American should ever support any race-based movement whether it's led by David Duke or Louis Farrakhan. The destruction and persecution of minorities in modern times is proof enough that racial and ethnic hatred is unacceptable even if constitutionally protected.

Donald Trump could have performed a service to Americans if he had urged them to study the Holocaust and the Jim Crow era. Any movement that seeks to harm or denigrate minority citizens is unAmerican and dangerous.

So, too, is the anarchy crew. How many times have we seen harm and destruction caused by radicals using "equality" as a reason to violently attack social order? Pardon my cynicism but when was the last time we saw a panel talking about that on CNN?

Some people deeply embedded in the grievance culture believe they have a right to demonize the police, brand political opponents racist, and even destroy private property - all in the name of social justice.

President Trump was obviously referring to those people in his "many sides" comments. But, again, he should have used his platform to define the ongoing radical left political agitation that has caused violence in a precise way - not lump it in with those who started the Charlottesville fiasco.

The hard truth is that hatred is on the march in America and extremism is the reason. Social media makes it easy for troubled loons to band together and provoke confrontations. Irresponsible, agenda-driven media stokes the hate even further.

This is not an uplifting time for the USA. If we are ever to make American great again we have to realize that love of country means a rejection of hate, and an acceptance of all law abiding citizens.

Our leaders have a responsibility to call out all the haters, specifically define them, and demand that they cease and desist.

Sadly, few in the corridors of power are willing to do that.

Bill O'Reilly does a daily podcast on BillOReilly.com. His new book Killing England will be released on September 19.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: A Media Lynch-Mob is Trying to Take Down Trump

2017-07-31T17:34:00Z

Reince Priebus learned a hard lesson over the past six months and Americans should pay attention to it. After leaving his job as White House Chief of Staff last week, Priebus told Sean Hannity that the national press is flat-out "dishonest."

"What I find to be amazing is how narratives are set and a lot of it is not true. ... The most breathtaking thing for me has been the difference between what the truth is and what often gets reported."

Priebus was referring to story lines that have taken deep root in the anti-Trump media.

The most prominent one is that Russia and the Trump campaign worked together to sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidential run. Hundreds of stories have run bolstering that theory; many of them driven by rank speculation and the use of anonymous sources that are clearly opposed to Trump.

The second story line embraced by the hate-Trump forces is that the president is unfit to hold the office. Under this banner, almost everything the man says or does is reported as a negative. Day after day, the media themes of corruption and incompetence are hammered home with few solid facts to back up the negative expositions. It must be said, however, that Trump's lack of discipline in replying to the attacks is greatly aiding his opposition.

It is certainly true that every American has the right and perhaps civic duty to form an educated opinion about their leader. But those opinions should be based on facts that demonstrate truth — not contrived narratives designed by partisan ideologues.

And it's not just the left that is hating Trump. A good number of conservatives are participating in the lynch mob. If you think there wasn't a dose of personal animus in John McCain's vote to keep ObamaCare intact, you're living in the Land of Oz. Senator McCain despises Donald Trump, perhaps with justification, and fully understands how his vote has damaged the president.

Thinking about the John McCain vote that saved Obamacare. Did the Senator stick it to President Trump for personal reasons?
— Bill O'Reilly (@billoreilly) July 28, 2017

Another conservative, pundit Peggy Noonan, recently launched a vicious personal attack on Trump's manhood. Ms. Noonan basically ignored the unprecedented battering the president has taken in the media as a reason that he might respond to criticism inappropriately at times. She is smart enough to know the media score but not honest enough to provide perspective while denigrating Trump.

By the way, that's what seeking the truth is all about, providing some honest perspective even if you don't like someone.

Reince Priebus witnessed the hostile media onslaught up close and personal. At this point in our history, few reporters are actively seeking the truth. Almost all allegations against Trump and his supporters are treated as facts. Conclusions are drawn, narratives spun.

In short, Americans are being barraged with story lines designed to make it impossible for Donald Trump to govern.

This is right out of the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" playbook. Isolate a political target, and hammer the person ceaselessly with whatever you can think of. The truth be damned. Demonize and marginalize your opposition in order to destroy them.

As Sharyl Attkisson's new book "The Smear" chronicles with facts, the anti-Trump, anti-conservative movement has now become an organized industry in the U.S. with millions of dollars supporting it. More than a few national press people are part of that industry as they print or broadcast unproven accusations using the word "reportedly" to justify spreading unverified information.

It is very possible that the White House does not fully understand the powerful forces arrayed against it. Priebus seems shocked by what he calls "press dishonesty." But it has been on display for many years.

The difference now is Donald Trump. He is so despised by the progressive movement, and by some conservatives as well, that old rules of fairness and truth-seeking no longer apply. It is obviously wrong for the press to insinuate and then promote conclusions based upon biased conjecture, but in some media precincts the "get Trump" end justifies the means.

Presidential tweets and charges of fake news are not going to be enough to blunt the media corruption that has so horrified Reince Priebus.

Only a full, methodical exposure of it to the American people may provide some balance.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: How Trump will Win his War Against the Media

2017-07-05T19:51:00Z

The lords of the press can dish it out, but when it comes to taking criticism, well, they have a major problem with that equation, don't they?

Over the Independence Day weekend, there were dozens of press displays lamenting President Trump’s attacks on media people who he believes don't treat him fairly.

While there is no question that Trump is hammering his detractors in very personal ways, why is anyone surprised? As a presidential candidate, he routinely denigrated his opposition by using schoolyard descriptions, and ultimately he vanquished them.

So why would he change his maverick style now?

On live TV during the campaign, Donald Trump told me I should see a psychiatrist because I was too “negative.” So what? I continued to cover him fairly and retained access, even though I criticized him when I felt it necessary. But I based my analysis on facts, did not cheap-shot him, and did not quote anonymous sources that made him look bad.

I was straight with Trump and, in return, he was straight with me.

Early in the campaign, I told candidate Trump on camera that the national press would eventually attack him in very personal ways. I don’t think he believed me because, at the time, he was getting an amazing amount of television news coverage due to the fact that his presence brought ratings. Back then, he and the CNN crew were almost buddies.

In fact, the coverage of Trump was so overwhelming, that some Republican candidates like Ohio Gov. John Kasich were almost ignored.

While ratings drove the “all Trump, all the time” TV exposure, there was also a wish fulfillment factor. Some leftist journalists wanted Trump to win the nomination, figuring Hillary Clinton would wipe him out in the general election, and the country would then keep the policies of the media-beloved Barack Obama in place.

When Donald Trump shocked the world, media bitterness quickly set in and the “resistance” began.

There are two levels to the hate-Trump media movement. First, the national press corps largely believes he is not qualified to run the country and his flamboyant personal style offends the media elite who consider him to be a vulgarian.

The second level is pure ideology. Under President Obama, the United States lurched left in a dramatic way. Political correctness became the order of the day, and conservative thinkers were branded racists and bigots simply for opposing liberal policies. The press encouraged that massive deception, and the demonization of selective conservative individuals became acceptable. Groups funded by people like George Soros have actually organized into propaganda hit squads using a sympathetic media to spread their vicious invective.

It soon became apparent to some Americans that the national media had stopped searching for truth, instead using their vast power to promote leftist thought and policy.

Once Donald Trump took office, that media strategy went into overdrive. The more MSNBC, for example, bashed the president, the higher its ratings climbed. Day after day, the liberal TV media spun anti-Trump conspiracy theories designed to portray him as a corrupt incompetent unfit to hold office. The Trump-hating segment of the public couldn’t get enough of that narrative.

Working in conjunction with Democratic Party interests, the national media has run wild with the destroy-Trump strategy and the president knows it. So, he’s striking back in ways designed to whip up his base. The war is on.

There are two more observations. There is intense pressure within media companies to conform to the anti-Trump movement. If you dare to wear a “Make America Great Again” hat and are employed at CNN or other liberal news agencies, your career will be over. There is zero tolerance for dissenting political opinions or balanced coverage in much of the national media these days.

Finally, the president obviously does not care about White House protocol in responding to those assaulting him verbally or in print. He is calculating that disparaging the media will actually help him retain power in the long run. He believes that folks are fed up with the press.

He may be right but his scorched earth “fake news” campaign runs the risk of getting tiresome. No one really cares about cable TV morning commentators or what they did on New Year’s Eve. Wasting time on that stuff does little to advance the country’s interests.

So, if Donald Trump really wants to gain a measure of retribution against those persecuting him, he should get into the fact business — an industry largely abandoned by his tormentors.

Tweet facts, Mr. President, not insults. Hammer your opposition with verifiable statements. Do that, and you may ultimately prevail against a press that often abuses its freedom — a media where seeking the truth is becoming obsolete.

That I can tell you.

This column originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: Sandy Hook Families Deserve Better Than Alex Jones

2017-06-19T23:45:00Z

After the fact, the Sandy Hook families were right: NBC should not have aired the interview with Alex Jones.

There simply was not enough news value in the Q&A between the internet bomb thrower and Megyn Kelly to mitigate the pain to families who buried their innocent children, yet had to endure a national circus about it on Father's Day.

I mean, what did we learn? That Jones' preposterous contention that the massacre in Connecticut was faked to whip up anti-gun sentiment is cruel and stupid? Every sane person knows that.

That Jones himself is a callous huckster who could not even remotely hold his own under Kelly's questioning? Yeah, maybe we learned that, but so what? There are millions of people who peddle deceit for money, it's almost a national pastime.

NBC tried to make Jones more relevant by tying him into President Trump. The point that Trump's populist outreach includes fringe people like Alex Jones has some merit, but, again, it doesn't come close to justifying another round of horror for the grieving families.

The interview itself was to the point. As with most high-profile people, Megyn Kelly is being mistreated by the chattering class. Her questions were clear and concise, so viewers unfamiliar with Alex Jones and his Infowars brand would understand the dynamic taking place. Kelly could have been more condemning in her reaction to Jones' dishonest rationalizations but that would have violated her pre-interview promise to Jones that she would not preside over a "hit piece."

Promises made by journalists should be upheld.

The only way NBC News could have legitimized the situation was to spotlight the evil Alex Jones and others are selling and why some Americans are consuming it. Yes, there is blatant evil all over the Internet, and it is eroding our standard of living.

A few years ago, I interviewed the former KKK leader David Duke when he was running for office in Louisiana. I crushed Duke using his own racist and anti-Semitic words. It was easy, but it was also foolish. I gave the guy what he wanted: attention. Nobody learned anything.

At least that interview had no unintended consequences. There were no grieving families involved.

That wasn't the case with a 9/11 truther whom I interviewed a few weeks after the 2001 attack. Even though the guy lost his father in the World Trade Center, he was on a mission to accuse President Bush of actually orchestrating the attack. I hammered the man hard and gained viewer support by doing so. But in reality, I accomplished nothing, and I apologize to the 9/11 families who were exposed to that gibberish.

By the way, Alex Jones also peddled the truther atrocity.

The decline of the American media has been stunning and has coincided with the rise of the Internet where nuts can bloviate all over the place without consequence. Radio and television now must compete with the devices for attention and that is leading to a collapse in well thought-out editorial decision-making.

There is a valid news story surrounding Alex Jones and others like him. The story is about the growing commerce in evil and the failure of many media companies to seek the truth — especially if the truth goes up against ideological mandates.

It's a complicated story populated not only by Alex Jones and his subterranean compatriots, but also by mainstream media chieftains who could not care less about factual fairness and promoting journalistic responsibility.

The victims of Sandy Hook deserve far better from their country than programs that feature sadistic liars. We all know they exist. What we don't know is the true extent of the media decline that is allowing evil to prosper in the marketplace.

That story is sitting there in full view.

Let's see if anyone has the guts to pursue it.

This article originally appeared on TheHill.com

Bill: Kathy Griffin's Distasteful Act Reflects Media's War on Trump

2017-06-01T19:28:00Z

It was not really surprising to see comedian Kathy Griffin put out a video of herself holding the bloody, decapitated head of President Trump. This is not surprising because Ms. Griffin apparently lives in a bubble populated by ideological fanatics, some of whom really do wish violence on the president.

In entertainment circles, it is now commonplace to demean Donald Trump in almost barbaric ways. It's a nasty business and business is good. Stephen Colbert has gone from worst to first in the late night ratings by eviscerating President Trump daily. The cable news programs that also do this have seen their audiences grow as well. Many Trump haters have an addiction and their habits need to be fed. That man standing under the street lamp signaling cars to pull over may be Colbert.

So, Ms. Griffin must have been stunned when outrage came her way. It is clear from the video of her putting together the beheading exposition that she was fully engaged in her presentation and had no qualms about doing it. But almost immediately after she dropped the grotesque image on the net, she began to get hammered on social media. Presto, she had an epiphany. She made a terrible mistake, she said. The video was not funny. She asked for forgiveness.

Shortly after the contrition, CNN fired Kathy Griffin from it's New Year's Eve coverage but gave the story little airtime. Speculation about Russia compromising the Trump campaign drives CNN's news agenda, and there is little room for anything else.

I know Kathy Griffin a little; her mom is a fan of mine, and I signed a few things for her. I sincerely hope Ms. Griffin's career does not sustain more damage. I take her apology to be sincere. The comedian was just pandering to the folks with whom she hangs.

But all Americans should understand that the demonization of Donald Trump by the left-wing national media has desensitized folks like Ms. Griffin to the point where right and wrong is not even considered anymore.

The anti-Trump media is now the mob holding torches while marching up to Frankenstein's castle; it is Steven Spielberg's vicious shark attacking at will.

In my 42 year journalism career, I have never seen anything like it. Compared to Trump, Richard Nixon was treated like Beyoncé.

It all has to do with revenge. The progressive left feels betrayed by the American people who rejected Hillary Clinton and voted Trump into office. So they are going to destroy Trump's presidency and delegitimize him as a human being in full view of the people who like him. He's evil, and if you support him — you're evil too. Thus, the anti-Trump media believes it is justified in bringing harm to the president. It's for the greater good, you know. We need to send a message.

Of course that rationalization is off-the-chart dangerous.

As stated, it is more than likely that Kathy Griffin believed she would be pleasing her audience while bringing attention to herself. I don't believe Ms. Griffin's remake of Peckinpah's "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia" will have any lasting effect or even wise anybody up. But she certainly got the attention.

The brutal truth is that we have become a hateful nation with the media leading the way. There is big money to be made in the destruction industry and few restraints in place. How many news organizations do you think are seeking the truth about President Trump? How many?

The answer may be zero. It is much easier and more profitable to put a cable news panel together and kick the hell out of the man, or run five "Trump is a jerk" op-eds a day in the paper.

Donald Trump may not fully understand the destructive forces arrayed against him but, if he wants to succeed as president, he should listen up. There is blood in the water and truth doesn't matter. The anti-Trump media not only wants Trump's head, but the scalps of those who dare to even give him a fair shake. In many newsrooms, anyone supporting Trump risks unemployment.

So, like a modern day Salome, Kathy Griffin has served up an image that is stark and offensive but also may be prophetic. The president better take heed or risk the symbolic fate of John the Baptist.

There are no boundaries anymore.

This article originally appeared on TheHill.com