I mentioned already that BillO the Clown was in prime form on The O'Reilly Factor last night. Once again much of the bulk of his ranting was reserved for his newly declared jihad against the New York Times.
O'Reilly: How the far left plans to change America by using illegal immigrants. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo and this is a Paul Revere Alert.
The New York Times actually did me a favor by implying I'm a racist and a white-supremacist guy. The far-left paper attacked me because I understand their agenda, and it has nothing to do with helping poor people. It has everything to do with amassing power and changing the political structure in America by using, using immigrants.
As we reported last night, the Times wants blanket amnesty for illegal aliens already in this country, and the paper wants their extended families to join them in the USA as well. That would swell the voting rolls by tens of millions, the vast majority joining the Democratic Party, because that's where the entitlements are.
... This whole caring-for-the-downtrodden deal is a ruse, a scam, a con. What the New York Times wants for the country is what has happened in California. Forty years ago the Golden State was fertile ground for Republicans and conservatives. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson -- all prospered out there. In fact, in 1968, Nixon beat Humphrey 48 to 45 in California. Last November, Obama beat McCain 61 to 37, a huge landslide. In 1970, nine percent of California's population was foreign-born. Now it is an astounding 28 percent -- and most of the new voters are Democrats. So the Dems control power in California. It is a virtual one-party state, its 55 electoral votes a lock for the Democrats.
New York is almost a one-party state -- that's 31 more electoral votes. Illinois -- completely controlled by Democrats. Another 21 electoral votes. Get the picture?
If blanket amnesty is passed, the Democratic ranks in places like Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and Florida will explode, putting our two-party system in jeopardy. And that is exactly, ladies and gentlemen, what the New York Times envisions.
And guess who's also a big blanket-amnesty guy? Hey there George Soros! The far-left billionaire has donated big money to open-borders groups. And then there's the ACLU -- actively working against many laws that constrain illegal immigration, and opposing strict border enforcement.
So let's add all this up: The Times, Soros, the ACLU -- quite a lineup. If these people succeed in getting blanket amnesty passed for illegals and their families living abroad, the political system in America will change forever.
That's why the Times has branded me a racist, because I have unmasked them. They can't deny it, so they trot out the smear machine. A very troubling situation.
Got that? O'Reilly just asserts -- without even a scintilla of supporting evidence (not to mention a panoply of simply false "facts," such as his assertion that the Times "favors blanket amnesty") -- that the Times is actively seeking to remake America into a one-party Democratic state. (Funny thing -- O'Reilly never seemed to get too worked up when Grover Norquist talked about doing precisely the same thing for conservatism earlier this decade.)
The segment following featured a discussion with everyone's favorite Latino Republican columnist, Ruben Navarette, who is obviously hesitant to agree with O'Reilly's conspiracy theory. O'Reilly proceeds to badger and cajole Navarette until he more or less at least sounds like he agrees.
O'Reilly: But the larger picture is, the fundamental change in the American political system, taking it from a two-party system, taking it from a two-party system to a one-party system. ...
... The dynamic may be happening. But the desire of George Soros, and the New York Times, and the ACLU, is to break the back of the Republican Party and the conservative traditional movement in America. The fastest way to break the back of the Republicans and GOP is to bring in thirty million new voters. The fastest way to do that is to have blanket amnesty, and then everybody's family comes as well.
... I'm telling ya, man, this is huge. This is the biggest thing, bigger than any other illegal immigrant sanctuary city, ah, exploitation -- this fundamentally changes on Obama's watch. And as you rightly pointed out, it may.
Mind you, O'Reilly is making this crap up. The New York Times has declared its desire to see one-party rule as often as it has declared its enmity toward the white male power structure -- which is to say, never. These are all things Bill dreams up while getting a good falafel scrubdown in the morning.
Finally, he wraps it all up later on in the hour when he answers e-mail by finally -- finally! -- addressing the point made by the NYT and nearly everyone else who's discussed O'Reilly's preoccupation with the preservation of the white male Christian hierarchy. Namely, it's hard for him to escape that Crooks and Liars video in which he declares that the New York Times "and the far-left" want "to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have."
O'Reilly finally cops to it in his e-mail segment, but his reply is instructive indeed:
O'Reilly: Well, you know, you copied that correctly off of whatever far-left website you hang out on, sir, and it's a fact -- it's what the Times is trying to do, break down the white male power structure in the country. Senator McCain and I are part of that structure. So what's the beef? I'm speaking the truth, not endorsing the structure, or party, or policy. I'm simply stating a hard fact. For that I'm a racist?
Gosh. I guess we can now be certain that Bill O'Reilly has no flipping idea what a racist is. Otherwise, he might be aware that David Duke and Don Black and most other white supremacists in this country or only slightly more obsessed with preserving the white male power structure in America than he is.
Is it possible to be any more unconvincingly disingenuous? O'Reilly wants us to believe he isn't defending a hierarchy upon which he holds a lofty perch. And the only "hard fact" to be found anywhere on Planet O'Reilly is that O'Reilly's wild and incendiary charges against the Times are delivered with nary a whisker of factual supporting evidence.
But most of all, does he really want us to believe that he doesn't think that breaking down the white male Christian power structure is a bad thing? And does he just not want to understand that his clinging to it so feverishly -- usually by worrying about the negative influence of brown people -- is what creates the impression of racism.
Funny thing is, the NYT editorial in question didn't really even in fact accuse him of racism. Rather, it simply and quite accurately observed that O'Reilly was fond of promoting stories that helped feed old-line nativist immigrant-bashing that has been for many years the purview of white supremacists and racists. But such distinctions matter little when one's hyperinflated ego runs off with your paranoiac obsession.
Poor Bill. Usually these kind of slow, gradual and very public paranoiac breakdowns are painful things to watch. But I'm actually enjoying this.
