Bill O’Reilly Was Just Hit With Intense Allegations That Could Get Him In Trouble

The liberal website Gawker reports a “source” told the outlet that Fox News Media personality Bill O’Reilly physically abused his wife in 2011. O’Reilly has responded through his attorney that the allegation is “100 percent false.”

O’Reilly and his former wife, Maureen McPhilmy, completed a three year custody battle three weeks ago regarding the two children from their 15 year marriage, which ended in 2011.

Gawker reports:

According to a source familiar with the facts of the case, a court-appointed forensic examiner testified at a closed hearing that O’Reilly’s daughter claimed to have witnessed her father dragging McPhilmy down a staircase by her neck, apparently unaware that the daughter was watching. The precise date of the alleged incident is unclear, but appears to have occurred before the couple separated in 2010. The same source indicated that the daughter, who is 16 years old, told the forensic examiner about the incident within the past year.

O’Reilly issued this categorical denial through his attorney: “All allegations against me in these circumstances are 100% false. I am going to respect the court-mandated confidentiality put in place to protect my children and will not comment any further.”

According to Politico, McPhilmy won custody of their two children.

O’Reilly is often the target of liberal media attacks, and so far the only “evidence” regarding the veracity of the claim comes from Gawker. There is apparently no police record or other current evidence to further substantiate the alleged incident happened.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

No, The Pope Didn’t Call Mahmoud Abbas An Angel Of Peace

On Saturday, a report made the waves that Pope Francis had called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas “An angel of peace” during a meeting at the Vatican in Rome. News agencies all over the world presented the Pope’s words as breaking news, among them Reuters, Associated Press and AFP.

Here’s, for example, the BBC report on the news:

“The BBC’s David Willey in Rome says that after 20 minutes of private talks, Pope Francis gave Mr. Abbas the medallion depicting an angel of peace adding: “It is appropriate because you are an angel of peace.”

Here’s what NBC wrote:

“Pope Francis praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as an “angel of peace” during a meeting Saturday at the Vatican that underscored the Holy See’s warm relations with the Palestinians.

Francis made the compliment during the traditional exchange of gifts at the end of an official audience in the Apostolic Palace. He presented Abbas with a medallion and explained that it represented the “angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war.”

And here is The New York Times:

“Pope Francis praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as an “angel of peace” during a meeting Saturday at the Vatican that underscored the Holy See’s warm relations with the Palestinians as it prepares to canonize two 19th century nuns from the region.

Francis made the compliment during the traditional exchange of gifts at the end of an official audience in the Apostolic Palace. He presented Abbas with a medallion and explained that it represented the “angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war.”

Francis said he thought the gift was appropriate since “you are an angel of peace.” During his 2014 visit to Israel and the West Bank, Francis called both Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres men of peace.”

There is just one problem with these reports: the Pope never called Abbas an angel of peace.

According to La Stampa and other Italian news sites that quoted the official Vatican statement the Pope actually said this: “ lei possa essere un angelo della pace,” (May you be an angel of peace).

Here’s the translation of the account by La Stampa’s Vatican reporter:

As is tradition with heads of State or of government, Francis presented a gift to the Palestinian leader, commenting: “May the angel of peace destroy the evil spirit of war. I thought of you: May you be an angel of peace.”

The Pontiff added that he wanted to express the wish that “direct negotiations between the parties might resume to find a just and lasting solution to the conflict.”

In Italian : “si è parlato del processo di pace con Israele, esprimendo l’auspicio che si possano riprendere i negoziati diretti tra le Parti per trovare una soluzione giusta e duratura al conflitto.

From this statement, it becomes clear that the Pope prefers a negotiated solution to the conflict and seems not to support Palestinian unilateralism.

This was the second time in a week the media got it wrong on news concerning relations between the Vatican and the Palestinian Authority. Last Wednesday mainstream media reported that the Vatican had now recognized the State of Palestine, as if it was breaking news.

But Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi later said: “We have recognized the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook.”

The Israeli news site Ynet noted that the Vatican has been referring unofficially to the state of Palestine for at least a year. During Pope Francis’ 2014 visit to the Holy Land, the Vatican’s official program referred to Abbas as the president of the “state of Palestine.”

In fact on November 30, 2012 the Vatican decided to support the recognition of Palestine at the UN. The Vatican “called for full recognition of Palestinian sovereignty as necessary for peace in the region.”

So there was nothing new in the Vatican’s recognition of a Palestinian State.

The New York Times, however, thought it was big news and wrote that the agreement is an emotional blow to the Israeli people, no less.

“ For Israelis, it was an emotional blow since Francis has deep relationships with Jews dating back decades, and Christians are critical backers of their enterprise.”

NYT also thought that by signing a treaty with the PA “the Vatican was lending significant symbolic weight to an intensifying Palestinian push for international support for sovereignty that bypasses the paralyzed negotiations with Israel”.

As we learned from Pope Francis’ statement on this issue, the Vatican is promoting a negotiated settlement and not unilateral moves that will harm Israel’s position. So the New York Times was not reporting news but made an effort to rehabilitate Abbas and set up the Vatican as anti-Israel.

Remains the question why the Vatican decided to sign the treaty with the Palestinian Authority at this point?

The answer seems to be that the Vatican is driven by ‘realpolitik’ The Catholic Church is simply protecting its interests in “Palestine”.

Paragraph three in the joint statement of the Bilateral Commission of the Vatican and the State of Palestine at the end of the Plenary Meeting makes this clear:

“The discussions took place in a cordial and constructive atmosphere. Taking up the issues already examined at an informal level, the Commission noted with great satisfaction the progress achieved in formulating the text of the Agreement, which deals with essential aspects of the life and activity of the Catholic Church in Palestine.”

The Roman Catholic Church sees what’s going on with Christian communities in the Middle East and wanted to protect its interests in the Holy Land now that more and more countries are signaling that they support unilateral moves to create a Palestinian State. By signing this treaty,  the Vatican has chosen the State of Palestine as her interlocutor for protecting Christian communities and real estate of the church in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East that has a growing Christian community, is left out of this discussion.

 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

How The Liberal Media Work With Jihadists

It’s strange that the liberals in the media who always complain about Joe McCarthy once having a list of communists in government are so quick to cite the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of so-called right-wing extremists or “haters.”

With the help of the media, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is setting people up for terrorist attacks inside the United States. Pamela Geller is the latest on the list of the SPLC that has now been targeted for death by the jihadists. ISIS says “…we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”

ISIS is angry that Geller, an opponent of jihad, has defended the First Amendment right of free speech against Islamic Sharia law.

In response, ISIS tried to massacre people at Geller’s Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas on Sunday. Two terrorists were killed and an unarmed security guard protecting the event was shot in the leg.

It’s an open secret that ISIS can get locations for its targets from the SPLC website. That’s how homosexual militant Floyd Corkins discovered the location of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., and showed up at its headquarters, opening fire on a security guard. He had hoped to conduct a massacre of FRC staff.

Indeed, Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible” and smear the 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches he was carrying in the victims’ faces. Chick-fil-A had been in the news because its CEO had defended traditional marriage.

As we noted in a previous column, “The SPLC targets its critics by name…labeling them ‘hate groups’ and running photographs of officers and employees so they can more easily be identified.”

The SPLC sends its “intelligence reports” around the country, listing people and groups by name with their locations. This puts the leaders of these groups and their families at risk of terrorist attack.

Rather than express disgust with this tactic, the media regard the SPLC as somehow a credible source of information.

This brings a human face to the slogan, “if it bleeds, it leads,” and makes the media complicit in the planned jihad on American soil and its victims.

The SPLC exercises what journalist James Simpson calls “partisan tolerance,” which means conservatives and Christians must be demonized and destroyed. On the other hand, anyone on the left is acceptable. That’s why the SPLC hailed the “educational” work of Weather Underground terrorist bomber Bill Ayers.

As the leading spear-carrier in the cultural Marxist war on America, the SPLC is one of the most despicable groups on the political scene these days, and yet it is accepted by the media as somehow authoritative and respectable.

No matter how many times the group is exposed for sloppy research and money-making scams, it is still considered a source of legitimate information by some in the media.

That’s why its apparent role in the targeting for death of Pamela Geller has to be highlighted and exposed. News organizations are helping terrorist groups by giving the SPLC unwarranted sympathy and publicity.

ISIS has figured out that all it has to do in order to identify their critics is go to the SPLC website and search its “hate map” and various “lists” of so-called extremists. The SPLC makes it easy for terrorists to wage jihad on American soil.

Yet, for a time, the Obama/Holder Justice Department and its FBI openly collaborated with the SPLC. For example, Judicial Watch discovered that SPLC head Morris Dees had appeared as the featured speaker at a “Diversity Training Event” on July 31, 2012, at the Department of Justice. The FBI has even listed the SPLC as a credible source of information on “hate crimes.”

The SPLC tends to focus its critical attention on opponents of radical Islam and critics of the homosexual agenda.

The media’s reliance on this organization was disclosed publicly by the hapless Bob Schieffer on a recent “Face the Nation” episode when he interviewed Tony Perkins of the FRC and began by noting, “You and your group have been so strong in coming out…against gay marriage that the Southern Poverty Law Center has branded the Family Research Council an anti-gay hate group. We have been inundated by people who say we should not even let you appear because they, in their view, quote, ‘You don’t speak for Christians.’ Do you think you have taken this too far?”

This comment proves that Schieffer has lost it as a newsman. Did he even bother to investigate the SPLC? Was he aware of the terrorist attack on the FRC offices inspired by the SPLC?

Simply because the homosexuals inundated the CBS switchboard, Schieffer felt compelled to take their objections seriously. This is not the usual way journalism is done. But it’s the way liberals in the media operate. Their ignorance is astounding.

Geller understands what is happening and frames the issue this way: “Truth is the new hate speech.”

The media need to educate themselves quickly about how they are playing into the hands of not only the SPLC but the terrorists who are targeting enemies on American soil.

This assumes, of course, that the media do not want to inspire more violence in America.

Typically, the liberal media describe the SPLC as a “civil rights organization.”

For those in the media who want to avoid violence and report the facts, for a change, Jim Simpson’s recent talk on “cultural Marxism” is required viewing.

In a report, Simpson defines partisan tolerance as expressing “partisan hatred for everything non-leftist,” noting that it “seeks to actively muzzle the views of the majority.” This lies behind the labeling of conservatives and Christians as extremists or “haters.”

He notes that the concept of partisan tolerance is associated with cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse and is based on “an extreme arrogance that assumes they are infallible in their utopian fantasies, and have the right to impose their will on us no matter what we think.” The notion that all positions incompatible with leftist designs can and must be suppressed is at “the heart” of their worldview, Simpson points out.

He adds, “The idea was further developed in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, especially rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Alinsky popularized the tactic, but Marcuse invented the concept.”

In the ISIS message targeting Geller for death, the group said, “The next six months will be interesting…May Allah send his peace and blessings upon our prophet Muhammad and all those who follow until the last Day.”

It’s time for the media to stop encouraging the bloodshed.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Here’s Why Baltimore Burned…

Liberals have been the biggest losers in the Baltimore Blame Game.

For a week, they’ve been saying a lot of stupid things about the cause of the riots in Baltimore.

— They said the wild night of rioting, looting, and burning by young black men was caused by Freddie Gray’s death, which was supposedly yet another example of our country’s racist policing methods–even though three of the six cops indicted were black.

— They said the rioting in Baltimore was caused by the inner-city’s bad economy or the shortage of jobs that’ll pay high school dropouts with no skills $15 an hour.

— They said the rioting was caused by the mass incarceration of black men, the growing wage gap between rich and poor, Republican cuts in social spending, underfunded schools, and the legacy of slavery.

Whatever.

Every knee-jerk liberal in America blamed the lawlessness that went on in Baltimore on something dead wrong. I bet some college professor on an NPR panel show blamed the riots on fracking.

Except for Juan Williams on Fox, I’ve not heard one liberal even hint that he understood the underlying cause of those riots in Baltimore.

It’s the dysfunctional black family, stupids.

I didn’t hear one liberal pundit point out that most of the young men who did the torching and rock-throwing in Baltimore had no fathers present in their homes or even in their lives.

Everyone cheered that tough Baltimore mother, Toya Graham, when she slapped her 16-year-old son upside the head after she caught him wearing a mask and throwing rocks during the “protests.”

She became everyone’s “Mother of the Year” — for about 20 hours.

Then the jobless single mother of six was called a child abuser by liberals. She was even accused of justifying police brutality by Salon’s resident logician, Joan Walsh.

Yes, Toya Graham did the right thing. And she accidentally did it on camera for the rest of the world to see and applaud.

But her actions should have begged some important questions in the liberal media, like, “Where the heck were all the other mothers in Baltimore’s black community?”

Or, more important, “Where were the damn fathers?”

Why weren’t a few older guys seen on TV protecting store fronts or swatting their rock-throwing sons and pulling them home by their collars?

They’re permanently AWOL, that’s why. And that’s why so many young boys seek their male role models in drug gangs.

Too many American kids of all colors — about 20 million — are growing up without fathers in their homes.

But the black family has suffered most of all, and most of their blood is on the hands of liberal Democrats and big-government bureaucrats. Their do-good social welfare policies have penalized married, two-parent families and subsidized single mothers for five decades.

In 1960, five years before LBJ declared his doomed War on Poverty, one in four black kids was living in a house without their father present. Now, the number is seven in 10.

On top of that, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty rate is still what it was $22 trillion federal dollars ago — 15 percent.

The problems resulting from broken black families are nothing new or unexpected.

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a brainy Democrat social scientist in the LBJ administration who became a U.S. Senator, warned us that the black family was breaking apart for a bunch of serious economic and social reasons.

Unemployment among black males was rising as increasing numbers of black women were going on welfare. He predicted those numbers would only get worse, and they did.

In what became known as “The Moynihan Report,” he warned also that more and more broken black families were going to create serious problems for the black community and its culture, which they did.

Moynihan got lots of grief from his fellow liberals back then. And of course, he was branded a racist and an anti-feminist.

But he saw Toya Graham and her fatherless sons coming 50 years ago. If Moynihan were alive today, he might say they’re a good symbol of why Baltimore went up in flames.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Here’s Why Baltimore Burned…

Liberals have been the biggest losers in the Baltimore Blame Game.

For a week, they’ve been saying a lot of stupid things about the cause of the riots in Baltimore.

— They said the wild night of rioting, looting, and burning by young black men was caused by Freddie Gray’s death, which was supposedly yet another example of our country’s racist policing methods–even though three of the six cops indicted were black.

— They said the rioting in Baltimore was caused by the inner-city’s bad economy or the shortage of jobs that’ll pay high school dropouts with no skills $15 an hour.

— They said the rioting was caused by the mass incarceration of black men, the growing wage gap between rich and poor, Republican cuts in social spending, underfunded schools, and the legacy of slavery.

Whatever.

Every knee-jerk liberal in America blamed the lawlessness that went on in Baltimore on something dead wrong. I bet some college professor on an NPR panel show blamed the riots on fracking.

Except for Juan Williams on Fox, I’ve not heard one liberal even hint that he understood the underlying cause of those riots in Baltimore.

It’s the dysfunctional black family, stupids.

I didn’t hear one liberal pundit point out that most of the young men who did the torching and rock-throwing in Baltimore had no fathers present in their homes or even in their lives.

Everyone cheered that tough Baltimore mother, Toya Graham, when she slapped her 16-year-old son upside the head after she caught him wearing a mask and throwing rocks during the “protests.”

She became everyone’s “Mother of the Year” — for about 20 hours.

Then the jobless single mother of six was called a child abuser by liberals. She was even accused of justifying police brutality by Salon’s resident logician, Joan Walsh.

Yes, Toya Graham did the right thing. And she accidentally did it on camera for the rest of the world to see and applaud.

But her actions should have begged some important questions in the liberal media, like, “Where the heck were all the other mothers in Baltimore’s black community?”

Or, more important, “Where were the damn fathers?”

Why weren’t a few older guys seen on TV protecting store fronts or swatting their rock-throwing sons and pulling them home by their collars?

They’re permanently AWOL, that’s why. And that’s why so many young boys seek their male role models in drug gangs.

Too many American kids of all colors — about 20 million — are growing up without fathers in their homes.

But the black family has suffered most of all, and most of their blood is on the hands of liberal Democrats and big-government bureaucrats. Their do-good social welfare policies have penalized married, two-parent families and subsidized single mothers for five decades.

In 1960, five years before LBJ declared his doomed War on Poverty, one in four black kids was living in a house without their father present. Now, the number is seven in 10.

On top of that, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty rate is still what it was $22 trillion federal dollars ago — 15 percent.

The problems resulting from broken black families are nothing new or unexpected.

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a brainy Democrat social scientist in the LBJ administration who became a U.S. Senator, warned us that the black family was breaking apart for a bunch of serious economic and social reasons.

Unemployment among black males was rising as increasing numbers of black women were going on welfare. He predicted those numbers would only get worse, and they did.

In what became known as “The Moynihan Report,” he warned also that more and more broken black families were going to create serious problems for the black community and its culture, which they did.

Moynihan got lots of grief from his fellow liberals back then. And of course, he was branded a racist and an anti-feminist.

But he saw Toya Graham and her fatherless sons coming 50 years ago. If Moynihan were alive today, he might say they’re a good symbol of why Baltimore went up in flames.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth