NEWSMAX: Bill O’Reilly’s Accuser Arrested for False Allegation of Crime

Sorry to have to post this article but it is necessary to expose the evil that is in play in this country. I’m not going to say “I told you so”, but it did predict this. The Reagan Conservative is always right!


A 2015 arrest by Detroit police of a key accuser of Bill O’Reilly for giving a false report of a crime has raised serious doubts as to her credibility.

In April, O’Reilly was fired from Fox News shortly after Perquita Burgess claimed the host made sexually suggestive comments to her, including calling her “hot chocolate.”

Burgess worked at Fox News for several weeks in 2008 as a clerical temp.

Shortly after an April 1st New York Times report detailed sexual harassment allegations by several women against O’Reilly, Burgess called a 21st Century Fox hotline claiming alleged workplace misconduct by O’Reilly. 21st Century is the parent company of Fox News.

At the time her charges emerged, O’Reilly’s program, “The O’Reilly Factor,” was already in the throes of an advertiser-boycott campaign being pushed by several liberal organizations.

All of the allegations included in the Times report were more than a decade old.
Burgess’s more recent allegations, however, played a significant role in O’Reilly’s termination at the network, a source close to Fox News told Newsmax.

This article originally appeared on Newsmax. Read the full article here.

Advertisements

At What Point Does the Mainstreaming of Conspiracy Lunatics Become Dangerous to America?

I have to admit that I have a fascination with conspiracy theorists. It’s not a fascination with their theories which are mostly illogical nonsense resulting from the application of a strong cocktail of conjecture and insanity to cherry picked facts. The fascination comes from trying to figure out how people who otherwise manage to be functional members of society can and do sometimes believe this malarkey.

I look at how figures like Alex Jones have been all but mainstreamed in recent years and wonder at what point does this garbage become dangerous for our country.

Given some of Alex Jones’ antics it is easy for a rational person to believe what his lawyers told a judge during a custody battle over his children. They said that Jones is only playing a role. He’s an actor portraying a character. They clearly hoped to convince the court that Jones isn’t the paranoid lunatic he appears to be whenever he’s in front of a camera or behind a microphone. Was it just a legal maneuver telling the judge what they thought he wanted to hear or an admission to being a total fraud? It didn’t resonate as the latter. Jones is still out there acting as if he is authoritative and floating crackpot theories that are being gobbled up by his fans.

Many of his fans are certainly just listening for the entertainment value. Jones is a spectacle like professional wrestling. A lot of people who know it’s fake still have fun watching, but there are some who buy Jones’ take on politics. I’ve been politically involved long enough and I routinely see people sharing and seriously discussing Jones’ claims as if he is really on to something.

Often the same people whose knees jerk to “fake news” at the mention of anything reported on CNN will tell me that Jones might be a little crazy but he reports a lot of legitimate news stories. How they can differentiate the fact from the fiction in one case while rejecting the content of an entire network in another is something worth examining. In the end I think it comes down to who they perceive as being loyal to Trump.

The crazy fringe of Trump loyalists often dismiss any news outlet except for Breitbart, Infowars, and Sean Hannity as leftist propaganda which is, by any objective measure, completely nuts. Meanwhile they will share or retweet conspiracy paranoia as if it were legitimate reporting. It’s not the content, it’s the loyalty.

There are usually nuts that fomenting anger against me for not carrying water for Trump or his Fox News surrogates (aka Sean Hannity (who I absolutely despise) and Fox & Friends). Call it a tribe or a cult, but there is a seemingly increasing number of people who decide what statements are true based entirely on whether it makes their favorite politician look good or bad.

Mentality is no longer unique to the rank and file. People who were formerly thought to be mainstream conservative commentators who appeared to know that holding politicians accountable was a good thing have joined the ranks of the people who place feelings and fealty ahead of facts.

Yesterday, Jones told his listeners that President Trump’s Diet Cokes are being drugged without his knowledge. (Somehow Alex Jones knows this while no one in the White House loyal to Trump—including Trump himself—has caught on.)

“It’s known that most presidents end up getting drugged. Small dosages of sedatives till they build it up. Trump’s such a bull he hasn’t fully understood it yet, but I’ve talked to people, multiple ones, and they believe that they are putting a slow sedative that they’re building up that’s also addictive in his Diet Cokes and in his iced tea and that the president by 6 or 7 at night is basically slurring his words and is drugged.”- Alex Jones (of course citing no evidence to his ludicrous claim)

Jones says presidents are drugged by “the power structure” in order to make them “puppets.” Is this how Jones is trying to process Trump’s sudden camaraderie with leftists Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi? You can see the video below. Jones puts on a great show and tells his listeners that his very life is in danger for bringing them this information.


Alex Jones’ pro-Trump audience members likely won’t cry “fake news” about the claim that Trump is a doped up puppet, because it’s being delivered by a loyalist. However, if CNN reported that the President appeared to be under the influence of drugs, they would almost certainly unleash hell. It would be the same story but they would judge its veracity differently depending on who delivers it. The validity of anonymous sources seems to be judged similarly.

Given that Trump has granted interviews to Alex Jones and has spoken approvingly of him in the past, someone in the White House should stomp on this latest fever dream Jones is peddling. There are some in America who are in a literal frenzy over politics.

Jones has every right to spout his nonsense but there comes a point where grown ups need to call it what it is before someone does something stupid. Is now that time?

Hillary’s New Book

Hillary Clinton’s new book is being scrutinized, as it should be.
Initial reports from the liberal press say the book assigns blame for her presidential loss to James Comey, Bernie Sanders, and herself among others.
She also says she was the victim of sexism which is total bull and disqualifies the book from my reading list. But it all seriousness, I probably wasn’t going to read it anyway.
Enough is enough with the gender, ethnic, and race cards.  It’s boring.
The truth is that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump because voters simply did not trust her.  One of the big stories that was mostly ignored is how Mrs. Clinton used her charitable foundation to benefit herself.  That and dozens of other dubious situations gave voters pause.  Sexism had nothing to do with it.
Apparently, Hillary Clinton writes that she will not run for office again.  Good.  She had her shot.  If the Democrats want to improve this country, they will find candidates who are problem-solvers – not politically correct zealots who seek to demonize and divide.

Anti Antifa, At Last!

There was this astounding headline Monday in the Washington Post:  “Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley.”

Put aside the question of how the Post determined that the demonstrators were “right-wing.”  What makes the headline remarkable is that a major liberal newspaper finally and accurately denounced the thugs.  Antifa may be short for “anti-fascist,” but it is in fact just the opposite.

The Los Angeles Times soon chimed in, decrying “violence by far-left protesters.”  And on MSNBC, of all places, Joe Scarborough blasted the antifa goons as “fascists in their behavior.”

A few far-left politicians have also joined the anti-antifa chorus.  Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, who actually applauded the mob that shut down Milo Yiannopoulos in February, now wants antifa officially classified as a gang.  “They come dressed in uniforms,” he observed, “and they have weapons, almost like a militia.”  Hey, Mayor Arreguin, good of you to finally notice.

And the most stunning turnaround came Tuesday, when Democrat Nancy Pelosi issued a statement condemning the “people calling themselves antifa.”  She added that they “deserve unequivocal condemnation.”

What makes all this notable is that just over a week ago Reuters referred to the antifa agitators as “peace activists,” while Democrats refused to say anything mean about the masked warriors.  So what happened to turn the tide?  Let us put forth some educated speculation.

First, professor and philosopher Noam Chomsky openly questioned antifa’s goals and tactics.  Chomsky, always anti-capitalist and often anti-American, has been the guru of the radical left for decades.  When he speaks, progressives listen.

Two weeks ago Chomsky described antifa as “a miniscule fringe of the Left,” and called their violence “a major gift to the right.”  The professor also hammered antifa for shutting down speakers with whom it disagrees.

A few days later, professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz, another lion of the left, warned that antifa-like groups are “trying to tear down America.”  He denigrated antifa as “radical, anti-American, anti-free market, socialist, communist, hard left censorial organization.”

All this criticism was pre-Berkeley, which was another black mark against the black clad antifa crew.  Last weekend the left-wing gangsters assaulted a handful of people who gathered in Berkeley to march against Marxism.

The antifa radicals, their faces masked as always, chased and beat down people whom they considered Trump supporters.  It was an especially ugly scene, even by antifa standards, after which more than a dozen radicals were arrested.

If antifa and other self-styled anti-fascist groups occupied the moral high ground after Charlottesville, they surrendered it last weekend in Berkeley.

But perhaps the biggest reason for the recent opinion shift is old-fashioned politics.  Democrats can read polls as well as anyone else, probably better.  They know that most Americans do not are repulsed by masked marauders running wild in the streets.  That could explain Nancy Pelosi’s surprising statement.  She desperately wants a Democratic majority in 2018, and she won’t get it by ignoring or endorsing violence.

In the Senate, the two darlings of the far left – Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders – have yet to call out antifa by name, although Senator Sanders did speak out against lefties who shout down campus speakers.

Antifa will always have supporters, especially on elite campuses.  A Dartmouth lecturer named Mark Bray has become a frequent guest on mainstream networks, where he rationalizes and defends violence.  Dartmouth’s president actually criticized Bray for “supporting violent protest,” a rare show of courage from a university administrator.  Naturally, the left-wing Dartmouth faculty was angry not with Bray, but with the president.

But college professors aside, antifa may have overplayed its ugly hand with all the recent violence and vitriol.  Pay close attention the next time there are masked antifa protesters fomenting violence and pelting cops with urine.

Law enforcement, which once looked the other way, might step in to quickly stop the madness.  And Democrats, who were once acquiescent, might rise up in unison to denounce antifa.

That may be wishful thinking, but it would be a very welcome sign in extremely troubled times.

Clemson Professor Must Apologize Or Resign After Defaming All Republicans As Racists

This past week an Assistant Professor of Human-Centered Computing at Clemson University, Bart Knijnenburg, took to social media to attack all Republicans as racists deserving of violence and scorn.

Mr. Knijnenburg wrote that “All Trump supporters, nay, all Republicans, are racist scum” on his social media account, comments which have prompted passionate debate. In response to a dissenting comment on his post, he went further writing that “All Republicans, yes, your complacency made this happen. Pick a side: denounce your affiliation, or admit that you’re a racist.” The professor’s comments are derogatory and defamatory to the majority of South Carolina voters and millions of Americans who are supporters of the Republican Party.

I denounce this sort of hate-filled rhetoric directed at Republicans. As you are well aware, the South Carolina Republican Party helped elect our state’s first-ever female, Indian-American Governor in our friend Nikki Haley. U.S. Senator Tim Scott, one of conservative champions of the United States Senate, is the first African American U.S. Senator from South Carolina and he is a member of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is diverse, young, and growing, and it is not exclusive to any one race, ethnicity, or gender. An attack on all Republicans as racist because of the actions of alt-right fanatics in Charlottesville is absurd. The so-called “alt-right” isn’t right, and they certainly do not speak for conservatives like me.

President Clements issued a well-worded response, but did not call on Assistant Professor Knijnenburg to apologize for his hateful rhetoric. While I appreciate Dr. Clements’s response, it still constitutes a double standard. If Mr. Knijnenburg was a Republican, and he had defamed the Democrats, he would have been escorted off campus by security. It is time that all Americans, regardless of our political party or principles, treat one another with dignity and respect. The hateful rhetoric surrounding race, ideology, and party affiliation has reached a fever-pitch not known since the 1960s, and this tenor is untenable. I do hope that Clemson University President Clements asks Mr. Knijnenburg to apologize, and for his resignation if he does not. Mr. Knijnenburg was also involved with Clemson’s Black Lives Matter spin-off “See the Stripes”. In response to Milo Yiannopoulos’ speaking event (that was scheduled for October 18th, 2016) at Clemson University a group of Left-leaning students and their respective organizations formed the “Anti-Milo Event Committee” to protest against the conservative speaker. The Clemson chapters of Students for a Democratic Society (whose motto is “crush the right”) and “See the Stripes” are the primary instigators of the protest committee. Here, you can listen to an audio recording of one of their meetings, trying to stop people’s right to the first amendment:

dad176a714f04cc498bec86685cd8baf

In these difficult times for our country, we certainly cannot afford to have academic leaders using their platforms at public universities to fan the flames of division. I hope that Clemson President James Clements can appreciate this fact.

My Thoughts on Charlottesville

First of all, racism is wrong. And disgusting. And evil. Secondly, what we saw in Charlottesville was racism. In fact, it was terrorism. They can dress it up in their fancy alt-right excuses. They can say it was about free speech, or “putting America first”, or monuments, or the Confederacy, or (some how that I don’t understand) Christianity (should we tell them that Jesus was Jewish?).

These idiots knew it wasn’t supposed to be about any of those things. It wasn’t supposed to be patriotic, Christian, or conservative. This was about losers that crawled out of their mom’s basement in the first time in ten years to have a massive white supremacy rally.

Third, these people are not conservatives. They’re not patriots and they’re not constitutionalists and they don’t represent the American right. These are the guys who peaked in middle school and are still mad about that their frosted tips that they got in sixth grade did not lead them to a life of success. Nobody likes them.

So fourthly, to some of you on the left who are saddling up on high horses: spare me your judgement. We really don’t need your self-righteous condemnation about this being “our people.” I don’t think you want to go there. Because correct me if I’m wrong but, I haven’t heard too many who call out the violence of the anti-fascists by name. I don’t remember you taking the fall for the cops that were killed in Dallas last year and I don’t remember you blaming the left for James Hodgkinson (the congressional baseball practice shooter).

That’s because these anti-fascists, cop killers, and the Hodgkinsons don’t represent the left. Just like these racist bigots don’t represent the right.

Fifth, Donald Trump has not said enough, neither did Obama during his presidency. But the shortcomings of both of them don’t make either one better. Leaders especially need to be able to call out evil in this country by name.

So for all of you alt-right racists, you are irrelevant. I know you’re just being apart of this thing because you want to feel important. But in reality, you’re not. History will remember you as a worthless blob of human fecal matter (in they same way as Hitler and the nazis).

This is America, we are free to disagree, we are free to protest, counter-protest, and fiercely debate. But why would we recklessly waste that freedom for racism and hate? What good is that going to do? What is that going to accomplish? How many lives are going to be lost?

So for those of us who are not on the fringes (on both sides), all we have to do is start a conversation, reach across to the other side, and start listening. We may not ever agree, but as long as we all have the same goal in mind, liberty and justice for all, we’ll figure out a way to get there.


Jesse Watters from Fox News also has some pretty good analysis on this whole Charlottesville situation, you should definitely check it out:

Watters’ Charlottesville Analysis

Why the US Hasn’t Brought “Fire and Fury” to North Korea

As the world ponders the meaning of President Donald Trump’s threat of “fire and fury” on North Korea, it’s worth asking why his predecessors never took those steps to stop its nuclear program. Trump isn’t the first president to threaten North Korea. The others were all bluffing.

When Bill Clinton was confronted with the threat of North Korea’s exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he considered military force. But he ended up going for negotiations in what became known as the Joint Framework Agreement. The North Koreans froze their plutonium program in exchange for fuel shipments and a light water reactor from the U.S. Neither side ever fully delivered.

Then there was George W. Bush. He didn’t like North Korea. He put the nation in the original “axis of evil.” On his watch, the U.S. discovered Pyongyang had a secret uranium enrichment program, in violation of the spirit of Clinton’s deal. Then in 2006, North Korea tested its first nuclear device. By 2007, Bush had lifted crippling sanctions on the regime’s elites and entered into new negotiations. And surprise: The North Koreans backed out of those talks at the end, too.

By the time Barack Obama came into power, the North Koreans were back to building up their program. They perfected missiles, sunk a South Korean ship and shelled a South Korean island. The current tyrant, Kim Jong Un, ascended to power and proceeded to consolidate his position, killing his uncle and later his half brother. All the while, Obama pursued a policy of “strategic patience,” aimed at not rewarding Kim’s regime for its provocations and rogue behavior.

Now Trump has inherited a mess. Not only is Kim testing ballistic missiles at an alarming rate, as the Washington Post reported this week, but also the Defense Intelligence Agency now assesses North Korea can miniaturize a nuclear warhead so that it can fit inside a missile. Game, set, match.

So why didn’t the last three presidents take out North Korea’s nuclear facilities when they had the chance? The answer is Seoul, the thriving capital of South Korea. The North has enough artillery pieces within range of this metropolis to kill hundreds of thousands of people, which could very well begin a world war and throw the global economy into a tailspin.

Past presidents have understandably feared the North would retaliate in this way. But for some today, that fear is fading. John Plumb, a former director of defense policy and strategy for Obama’s National Security Council, told the Atlantic last month: “If I were the Trump administration, I would be looking at the threat to incinerate Seoul and trying to figure out how real it is. Because to me, it’s become such a catchphrase, and it almost — it starts to lose credibility. Attacking Seoul, a civilian population center, is different from attacking a remote military outpost. It’s dicey, there’s no doubt about it.”

Intelligence officials have said in recent months that this threat remains very real. While there are steps the U.S. can take to mitigate the problem, such as dropping cluster munitions on the big guns, it’s an imperfect and high-risk strategy. An attack on North Korea would be unpredictable and could unleash far worse on U.S. forces (which have been stationed in South Korea for more than 60 years), not to mention allies like Japan.

All of this gets back to Trump’s bluster. At this point we as Americans ought to expect more careful words from the president. At the same time, nothing Trump said was that different from the implicit threat against North Korea, or any power that threatens American cities with nuclear destruction.

Don’t get me wrong: There are few people on the planet more deserving of “fire and fury” than Kim Jong Un. But would such a strike even eliminate its nuclear program? How far is Trump willing to go? Will he order an invasion of North Korea to topple the regime? And if he does, would he commit the manpower, capital and time to stabilize the country once the Kim dynasty falls?

According to retired Admiral William Perry, Clinton’s second secretary of defense, the U.S. couldn’t even take out North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure with military strikes, given how much it has expanded in the last 20 years. What’s more, the price paid by South Koreans would be unacceptable. This is what he told a group of journalists this spring at an event sponsored by the Hoover Institution.

It’s possible that Trump is counting on his reputation as an impetuous novice — one who Kim just might fear would roll the dice by attacking North Korea. But Trump’s ultimatum allows the boy-tyrant in Pyongyang to test the president’s mettle. (Already the North Korean state media has threatened Guam.) We can expect more taunts and threats in the coming days, proving Trump’s threat was hollow. As hollow as past presidents’ pledges to do the same.