Finding Bill O'Reilly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQm_jIUSjo

After Fox got rid of Roger Ailes, it then fired Bill O'Reilly. It is now suffering the consequences as its number drop, and the ridiculous Rachel Maddow is now at the top.  That's beyond me, but it happens. In fact, without a conservative source of news, conservatives like me have just turned off the TV news, so we can't hear all the Trump bashing unless someone else is dissecting the latest leak.  I was never a fan of the O'Reilly show, not because he didn't have interesting stuff, but because of his style of interrupting his guests. Bob watched every night, so from my office I could hear what was happening.  This pod cast (YouTube) Bill discusses the life and firing of Roger Ailes and the so-called news (leaks) of the week. So Bill still has his website, and it offering a podcast.  Not sure I'll stay tuned, however, with no guests to interrupt, it's actually better than his Fox show!

Bill O'Reilly to leave Fox

The broadcast media were silent about the DoJ charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala for performing female genital mutilation (FGM) on young girls in Michigan. The 18 U.S.C. 116 criminalizes FGM. But I'm guessing ABC, NBC and CBS will be all over Bill O'Reilly on the "news" for their own political gain because of sexual harassment charges against him. Leftist organizations who are silent about treatment of women and gays in Islamic nations have no trouble strong arming advertisers or inflating female victim hood in the U.S. Some things are so transparent.

Bill O’Reilly on the current witch hunt on campuses

I don’t care much for Bill O’Reilly—he constantly interrupts his guests and experts.  However, the witch hunt piece is spot on.  A black female professor  at Vanderbilt is currently a victim of such a witch hunt—her crime?  She’s a conservative Christian, and has suspicious thoughts. Accusing a fellow student or professor of a racial slur is an easy way to get rid of someone you don’t like. Social media has exacerbated the problem.  No evidence is needed; just the charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV0JtMwU1yU

Noah and Jesus

I heard two reviews from committed Christians of the movie Noah at church this morning: one said it was awful, a terrible waste of money and didn't follow scripture; the other said it was fantastic, stayed very close to scripture and only embellished where there is no story, and was completely satisfied with using the word "creator" instead of "God," because Noah wasn't Christian and wasn't Jewish and millions of cultures don't use our word. The first said, don't see it, the other said, see it and let's talk about it.

I would never expect a movie to recreate any stories in Genesis, because of the 90 minute format. However, one young seminary student in our Sunday School class suggested it is like a "midrash" in Jewish tradition or a story from scripture that is embellished and used for moral or ethical teaching. I've always been surprised when I see children's books from the Bible how many aspects are not included in the original, to make them more interesting. Talking animals, friends, stars, angels.

Speaking of Noah, The Killing of Jesus a book by Bill O'Reilly sounds like a travesty. No, I haven't read it, only heard him talk about it in interviews. For some reason he thinks Josephus is an authoritative source for history, but not Luke. Luke used primary sources, like interviewing Mary, who obviously was not only present at the birth, but also the miracles, the crucifixion, and the empty tomb. Primary always trumps secondary, which Josephus used. Virtually all the New Testament is quoted in the early church fathers even before it was canon. O'Reilly decided through his research that no one was near enough to the cross to hear Jesus' words. So that would make John's account fiction? And he doesn't cover miracles because he can't prove them.

The oldest copy we have of Josephus is 11th century--for the New Testament there are thousands of extant copies of various parts dating to second century sources. He seems to think that by reading history (his version) people will read the real thing? Really O'Reilly? Also, I don't like O'Reilly. He's rude to his guests and is arrogant. Supposedly he's a Catholic and conservative, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence of that. Dennis Miller, whom he has on his show regularly, is work watching.

All this fuss over forgiveness

Brit Hume has come under attack for making a suggestion about Tiger Woods spiritual needs.

"He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn your faith—turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'"

I've seen every imaginable lurid and ridiculous comment about his promiscuity, adultery and disease spreading behavior--even a 12 month calendar featuring his mistresses, but leave it to a Christian offering comfort and help to really upset the left. Story here. Oprah is a much bigger name than Hume and she talks up her faith all the time--that warm, fuzzy, new agey stuff--they don't complain about her, nor do her supporters, fans and sponsors.

HT Helen.

New York Times Lies

Today I've been going back through my blog edit page de-duping. I'm not sure how the duplicates accumulate, but they do, and hang around as "drafts." Anyway, I found one I wrote in December 2008 about lies the NY Times told about Clinton and Bush and Fannie Mae, which seems unfinished, but wasn't a dup. It wasn't clear when I read the draft if all the material was original, or if it needed to be cited and linked. So I cut the phrase "New York Times lies" and popped it into Google, and got 26,300,000 matches. My goodness. That's more research than I wanted. I looked through about 300 of them, most of which were about lies found in the NYT, but some were reports in the NYT about lies (not their own). And I came across this interesting video from 2007 by Bill O'Reilly and lies about the ratings of his show. Interesting. Don't mess with Bill. Isn't that the name of a pop tune?



The phrase may be a case of "google bombing." It took Google 4 years to stop the google bombing of George W. Bush, (if you type in a particularly negative phrase it will bring up a GWB page) and about 4 days to stop it on Barack Obama after he became president. I think that's what I heard on the radio. Maybe Obama is just more senstive about criticism. Ya Think?