Bill O'Reilly has been blaming media bias for portraying the mass murderer from Norway, Anders Breivik a Christian. David wrote a great piece yesterday on it with ample justification for the man actually being a Christian. And let's face it: It's not the first time an extreme right wing Christian zealot took matters into their own hands. Anyway, truth is fiction and facts are inconveniences for O'Reilly on this story, which is awfully strange. He continued his denials of said facts and even brought on Queen of the Village, Sally Quinn, to defend his assertions. She pretty much trounced him.

If the tragedy wasn't so terrible I would say that BIllO's claims are absurdly hysterical for their blatant disregard for the facts. After Quinn reads quotes from Anders Breivik's own writings in which he proclaims he's a Christian, Bill O's only real defense was to constantly yell that "Mussolini" was not a Christian too. Huh?

A C&L reader sent over an archived picture of Breivik's Facebook page in which he clearly labels himself as a Christian and a Conservative. Some on the right will never admit the truth on this subject and it looks like Bill O'Reilly is championing their cause.

enlarge

Salon's Alex Parene has even more details:

Breivik chose to be baptized at age 15. He self-identified as "Christian" on his Facebook page. He thought "Christianity should recombine under the banner of a reconstituted and traditionalist Catholic Church" or, later, under a new (traditionalist) European Church.

Breivik is not an American-style evangelical Christian. He is not a "fundamentalist" in that sense. Though he does identify with American cultural Christian conservatives. And he considers himself to be fighting in the name of "our Christian cultural heritage." He supports a reconstituted Knights Templar devoted to winning a war against Islam in the name of Christianity.

All of this says "Christian terrorist." His goals -- the restoration of a pure Christian world in its "traditional" home -- were analogous to the stated of goals of al-Qaida.

Does he go to church? Does he believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ? Is he a biblical literalist? I have no idea. There's plenty about him that would lead a devout Christian to consider Breivik "not a 'real' Christian." Here's the thing about that: The same is true of all self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of terrorism.

Terry Krepel at Media Matters has more.

Sally Quinn's column got the axe over her idiotic column, but she has no regrets.

Sally Quinn, whose first novel was titled “Regrets Only,” doesn’t have any second thoughts about writing of her “dysfunctional family” drama in The Washington Post last week.

“I have absolutely no regrets at all,” Quinn told POLITICO.

While Quinn isn’t sorry about writing it, others — from family members to online critics to the paper’s top editor — are.

Quinn said Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli told her that if he’d seen it first, he wouldn’t have run the column explaining the “dueling weddings” of her son and stepson’s daughter and squabbles among family members. And now Brauchli has decided “The Party” — her irregularly appearing print column launched in November — is over.

But Quinn says she’s glad, because it was never intended to be a permanent column but, rather, to focus on holiday entertaining and “generosity of spirit” — the sort of spiritually inspired get-together that would also work in “On Faith,” the WashingtonPost.com site she co-moderates with Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham.

OK, sure. I'm sure nobody will miss it.

Well, well, well. The putrid Sally Quinn column called "The Party" might be cancelled.

Couldn't happen to a nicer Village elitist.

DOWNLOADS: (1336)

PLAYS: (2321)

Embed

Jamison Foser writes a brilliant article that exposes the Queen of the Village, Sally Quinn.

You cannot caricature Sally Quinn. Don't even try. It simply can't be done. No matter how hard you try to exaggerate her preening self-regard and utter frivolity, she comes right along and shows herself to be worse than you could possibly imagine...read on

Read it all to get a better understanding of the Village mindset. Quinn uses the movie "Avatar" as some sort of analogy, but Digby writes that Quinn reminds her of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. Hey, when the movie fits....

The Villagers are giving this "Party Crashers" story the Anna Nicole Smith-type coverage, and it's been led by none other than the Washington Post's Sally Quinn. They seem to be the only people outraged over it, and good old Sally wants heads to roll. When Sally got on board with the story it was very predictable that she would finally come out and demand a human sacrifice at her Beltway altar, because D.C. is her hallowed grounds and to think some undesirables crashed "her" party is just too much for her to bear.

Sally was very upset when Hillary was the first lady because she was ignored and Sally will not be ignored.

Michelle Obama is now in Quinn's crosshairs and is being asked to pay a price to appease the Beltway Village Gods. Desirée Rogers is a close friend of Michelle's and so she must be taught a lesson by the Villagers.

Digby predicted this was coming too.

Just as Travelgate was about Hillary Clinton failing to respect the social pecking order by installing old Arkansas friends in a job in which the press had a personal stake, (Ryan's comments about "overshadowing" notwithstanding) I'm pretty sure this is about Michele and "her pal" somehow not respecting the pecking order and failing to understand just how sacrosanct are the invitation lists to the White House. (You'll recall that Michelle had a press avail the day of the state dinner and mentioned that she regretted not being able to invite everyone, which I thought was rather odd at the time.)

The lesson has long been clear. You do not mess with the Village tabbies. They have far more power than you might think.

Well guess what? The Queen Tabby made her move today:

Many in Washington wondered why the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, did not resign over the state dinner security breach. At least Sullivan testified before Congress on the subject. White House social secretary Desirée Rogers came under fire after the Salahi scandal erupted. From the start, Rogers was an unlikely choice for social secretary. She was not of Washington, considered by many too high-powered for the job and more interested in being a public figure (and thus upstaging the first lady) than in doing the gritty, behind-the-scenes work inherent in that position. That Rogers stayed and that the White House refused to allow her to testify before Congress reflected badly on the president. He, not a member of his staff, ended up looking incompetent. Although it has emerged that a State Department protocol error is to blame for the presence of a third uninvited guest, both Rogers and Sullivan should step down.

The administration's problem extends beyond these failings. When White House counsel Greg Craig was fired over disagreements about the timing and publicity of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, many Obama supporters were troubled. Craig was one of the most admired and trusted men in Washington. His firing was a turning point for a lot of people, who began to question the president's judgment.Whether or not the Craig decision was the president's idea, somebody else should have taken the hit for it... Emanuel, the most political animal in this town, also should understand that keeping Rogers on as social secretary reflects upon the president's judgment.

Obviously, the Obamas have made a Big Social Mistake somewhere along the line and it's time for those who really run things to assert themselves. She put it in terms of "protecting" the president, but if you read the whole thing, it's quite clear that it's actually a threat: unless they straighten up and understand who's really in charge, right quick, this could get ugly. Sally says heads must roll ... or else.

Let the games begin.

I imagine Quinn will be appearing with Bill O'Reilly soon to demand that a sacrifice be carried out.

DOWNLOADS: (1262)

PLAYS: (2254)

Embed

The meme had been brewing for a few days among some of the Fox News guests -- particularly Michelle Malkin -- brought on to talk about the Fort Hood shootings, but it was Bill Sammon, during the broadcast of the memorial for the slain soldiers, who apparently made it official at Fox: The Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack -- comparable to 9/11 and Oklahoma City -- by a radical Islamist engaged in Muslim "jihad."

Now, it's not only the conventional wisdom at Fox News, it's one of their major attack points -- they're claiming that because President Obama and the rest of the media aren't adopting their presumptuous and hysterical meme, they're being "soft" on terrorism.

The meme gained momentum when Glenn picked up Sammon's ball and ran with it the next day, declaring: "If you don't call [Hasan] a terrorist, it clears a path for ... an extremist terrorist plan." That night, Sean Hannity explored the question at length with Michelle Malkin, as you can see from the video atop this post.

For Malkin and Hannity, "political correctness" -- which they blame for the military's failure to stop Hasan -- is actually code for "the refusal to engage in ethnic and religious profiling". Because such profiling, it's clear, is what they think the military (and the government generally) should do to prevent future such shootings.

The worst offender, though, has been Bill O'Reilly, who -- as you can see below -- not only harangued Sally Quinn for her reluctance to declare Nidal Hasan a "terrorist," but then devoted his leadoff Talking Points Memo segment last night to chastising the president and the rest of the media for their reluctance to embrace the meme.

DOWNLOADS: (483)

PLAYS: (1409)

Embed

This exchange with Quinn was especially revealing:

O'Reilly: But you have a hard time saying the words "Muslim terrorist," and so does Obama. He has a hard time saying it. I don't know why you guys aren't saying it. You know, why, why?

Quinn: Well, I think, first of all, there are different kinds of terrorists. As I said, Timothy McVeigh --

O'Reilly: He's a Muslim terrorist! What do you mean, different kinds of terrorist? He killed people under the banner of jihad! That's who he is! What do you -- look, what do you want, him to come to your house with a strap-on bomb? The guy did it for jihadist reasons! "Allah Akbar!" That's the slogan! He mails Al Qaeda! Miss Quinn, you're a brilliant woman, and I'm not saying that facetiously. You are. A third-grader gets this, and you're resisting it! I wanna know why!

Quinn: Bill, you're making a very good case. I mean, he's Muslim, and he may well end up being a terrorist. We don't know for sure --

O'Reilly: I know for sure! Ninety percent of the people watching me know for sure! I don't know why you don't know for sure! What else do you need?

Quinn: I mean, you can call the guy who blew up -- you know, who shot up the Holocaust Museum a terrorist --

O'Reilly: Did he yell "Allah Akbar?" If he yelled "Allah Akbar," and he e-mailed Al Qaeda in Yemen, I'd call him that, Miss Quinn!

Quinn: OK, he's a Muslim terrorist.

O'Reilly: Thank you.

O'Reilly seems to have a peculiar idea of what constitutes "terrorism." His definition of the word seems to be "any act of violence by devout Muslims", or something along those lines.

That, of course, is quite a distance from the the legal definition of terrorism (from U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)):

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

This term, in fact, perfectly describes Holocaust Museum shooter James Von Brunn, who was, beyond any serious doubt, a classic right-wing "lone wolf" terrorist.

It is in fact still not clear, however, whether the description fits Nidal Hasan's motives in shooting 13 people to death. It is true that all kinds of evidence is emerging showing that Hasan was increasingly becoming politically radicalized.

What that evidence doesn't establish, though, is that he engaged in this horrendous act on behalf of those radical beliefs, or whether those beliefs simply formed part of the context in which he acted. There certainly haven't been any organizational ties established. We probably won't have any idea until Hasan himself starts talking, or at least his attorneys begin preparing his defense.

It's important to remember what mass-murder profiler Pat Brown told Fox's Brian Kilmeade:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (3896)

PLAYS: (3380)

Embed

Sally Quinn went on The O'Reilly Factor to announce that she and all the other Villagers are just all a-flutter over the Obama White House's puzzling decision to stand up to its an organization that clearly declared war on his administration from its outset, i.e., Fox News.

But first she had to stop and sniff disdainfully in the direction of Alan Grayson for his gauche style of political rhetoric:

O'Reilly: Do you know this guy? He sounds like a loon.

Quinn: I don't know him. But guess what? Here we are talking about him. And I think that's what this is all about -- he's obviously getting the attention she desperately needs.

O'Reilly: OK, there could be something to be said for that. He represents the Orlando area. But he's certainly kind of unhinged. When you hear rhetoric like that -- you know, the Dick Cheney shooting the guy in the face, and this and that -- doesn't it sound a little immature?

Quinn: Well, I think that it's worse than immature. I mean, what he said was so completely over the top that it sounds like -- it reminded me a little bit of Blagojevich, you know. I mean --

O'Reilly: No, that's good. That's a good -- yeah. Kinda unhinged.

Quinn: Yeah, unhinged. It made no sense. So I don't think you can take it seriously. And I also think that if he -- I can't imagine the Democrats feeling good about this. Or the White House feeling good.

O'Reilly: Or his constituents.

Quinn: But you don't want this guy on your team.

Heavens no. We want people like Sally Quinn. The kind of Village maven who would go on 60 Minutes and slag the Clintons:

"If you consider the life of Bill Clinton," she said on "60 Minutes," "whenever he leaves the White House, he's going to get on a plane, and where is he going to go?"

"What do you mean?" a baffled Mike Wallace asked.

"Well, he -- he doesn't even have a home," she sniffed. "I mean, when you think about it, he's homeless. I mean, they've lived in sort of government properties all their lives."

The kind of "social adviser" who would pen long Washington Post op-eds bemoaning the way the Clintons "fouled the nest".

Yeah, we need advice from Sally Quinn, all right.

And that commentary we should take seriously? I guess you just had to tune in three hours beforehand for that.

CorrenteWire: The Beltway aristocracy, in the person of Sally Quinn, are demanding Obama's "references." These are the same people who were impressed by an AWOL/counterfeit cowboy being advised by a group of recycled wingnuts.

theWatchdogBlog: The FDA is hooked on drug money

The Reality-Based Community: The NRA is defending the Second Amendment rights of people on the terrorist watch list

Undercover Black Man: David Horowitz publishes--again--an unrepentant bigot. Anybody surprised?

Intrepid Liberal Journal: A podcast interview with international best-selling author, author Riane Eisler. Eisler is primarily known for her book The Chalice and the Blade. Her most recent book, The Real Wealth of Nations promotes an economic model based on "partnerships" and "caring" and challenging the "hiearchical/domination" model of most countries and corporations.

earthfamilyalpha:Foolish Wise Men