|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In March of 2000, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News political pundit, said the 2nd Amendment guaranteed every American the right own and carry guns and that the founding fathers vehemently believed that every American had the right to own guns.
Response: O'Reilly's understanding of history is far from accurate. Moreover, O'Reilly needs to read a history book instead of looking at old John Wayne Hollywood movies which misrepresent America's early usage of guns. The facts are that most Americans in early America, 1790 to 1830, did not own a gun because they were to expensive for average Americans. Most guns were owned by the affluent, wealthy Americans who owned property. Many Americans did not start carrying guns until the late 1800s when guns became cheaper. Another fact is that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to carry guns. The Supreme Court decided this in 1939. Keep in mind that this was an extremely conservative court. It ruled that state militias, such as the national guards and coast guards, had that right. Moreover, even the founding fathers did not believe everybody had the right to own guns. Contained within early federal and state laws passed by the founding fathers after the constitution was written are provisions that exclude certain groups from owning guns: Catholics, Jews, Blacks, and property-less whites. The founding fathers had no intentions of allowing the average citizen the right to own guns because they did not trust the common man {read the Federalist Papers}. If the government were to pass a law that stated no American could own a gun, they would not be violating citizens' constitutional rights. The right to own guns is a privilege, not a right.
|
|
|
|
|
In May of 2000, Bill O'Reilly made the following comment, "The United States Justice Departments' raid on the Miami house to free Elian Gonzalez has damaged America's moral standing in the world. From now on, other countries will not look towards America for moral guidance."
Response: First of all, any country that looks toward America for moral guidance knows little about America's history. Secondly, this is a prime example of how the media uses their power to brainwash the masses. America has never had a moral standing in the world (remember slavery, denying women the right to vote, broken treaties with the Indians, denying people of color full access to vote until 1965, and the list goes on and on). Those in the media are constantly trying to instill in the masses that our nation is the moral leader of the rest of world even though there is clear evidence to the contrary. If other nations want to point to America's poor human rights record, they don't have to use the raid on the Miami house to free Elian as an example. They could use more recent incidents, such as the case in New York City where a black man was raped in a police station by four police officers or they could point to Los Angeles where cops have been found guilty of abusing their powers against minorities. It is truly a shame when someone is willing to over look several egregious acts of immorality to point to one that satisfies a historical and political agenda. Sadly, in eyes of the news media, the more egregious acts are simply unfortunate mishaps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In May of 2000, O'Reilly said that the FBI's dislike for Bill Clinton was well deserved and warranted, since Bill Clinton lied under oath and that more Americans should take the same stance towards the President.
Response: Not only is the FBI's dislike toward Bill Clinton undeserving and unwarranted, it is hypocritical and misguided like O'Reilly's biased opinion. Let me try to understand O'Reilly's logic. It's alright for the employee's of the FBI to dislike Clinton, but it's expectable for the same employees to praise a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a homo phoebe, and hypocrite like J. Edgar Hoover. No matter what Clinton has done, at least he didn't try to destroy the civil rights movement and discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. like that hypocrite Hoover attempted. Remember, Hoover was supposed to uphold the law and protect the citizens of the USA, even if they were black. Instead of praising the FBI's contempt towards Clinton, why don't you condemn those who allow J. Edgar Hoover's name to appear on a Federal Building? If I was Clinton, I would welcome their dislike. The greater shame is not that Bill Clinton lied about his sex life, but that the FBI still has that racist's name on their building. O'Reilly, you need to focus on issues that are truly important, instead of focusing on how you are going to get your kicks by belittling the President for the same mistakes other presidents have committed.
|
|
|
In July of 2000, Bill O'Reilly made the comment that Bill Clinton was guilty of economic warfare by pitting one group of Americans against another and that his tax cut proposals only benefit one segment of society, while harming the others. Moreover, O'Reilly went on to say, "Unlike Clinton, the founding fathers trusted the average Americans and were concerned with the economic well-being of all Americans and enacted tax proposals that were beneficial to everybody living in America during colonial times."
Response: Like most journalists, it is quite obvious that O'Reilly has never picked up a historical document and read it. More importantly, it is quite obvious that O'Reilly is trying to present an imagine of the founding fathers as being fair and just in its dealings with the masses, which is a total distortion of history. The purpose of this distortion on the part of O'Reilly and others in the news media is to instill in Americans the belief that their nation began on the principles of democracy and justice for all. Journalists like O'Reilly look at history from an emotional point of view, which causes them to focus less on the facts. A major problem with the news media is that they allow patriotic sentiments to direct their reporting. The facts are that the founding fathers were far less trusting of average Americans and enacted policies that solely benefited the propertied class. In many ways, the founders were no different than King George III. If one were to actually read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution of the United States, one will easily ascertain that the founding fathers were not interested in the economic well-being of the average American. For example, the founding fathers enslaved millions of African-Americans, denying them the right to earn a decent living, and told millions of women in the country that they would not be allowed to vote. It is quite obvious that slavery and the disenfranchisement of women were systems in which one group benefited at the expense of another group. Well, I guess in the mind of O'Reilly Blacks and women were not average Americans. Moreover, it must be understood that the founding fathers did not even care about the economic well-being of property-less white men. Keep in mind, their rights were limited as well. During the constitutional convention, one of the founding fathers, Gouverneur Morris, express the true sentiments of the elitist class when he said, "There never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy....Give the votes to people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich who will be able to buy them....Voting should be restricted to property owners."
There are countless examples of the founding fathers enacting policies to keep the masses of property-less white males powerless, while they (elitist class) reaped the benefits of a limited government. The establishment of the electoral college is another prime example of the founding fathers trying to consume power at the expense of the masses. They simply did not trust the judgment of the average American citizen and they needed a system to override any mistakes made by the masses who might elect someone from their class. The only acceptable president or vice-president was one that came from the property-class and the electoral college system was their insurance of this outcome.
The historical evidence clearly shows that the founders of this nation were distrustful of the masses and were far from being high minded men who put the needs of the entire nation before their own. Compared to its European counterparts, the United States government was unique only in theory, not practice. The writings and the actions of the founding fathers show that they were extremely concerned about maintaining their economic dominance over the middle and lower-classes like most European rulers. James Madison put it best when he said, "If elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place....our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation....they [interest of the wealthy] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." Journalists like O'Reilly need to stop spinning history and accept the facts.
|
|
In November of 2001, a guest on the Bill O'Reilly show was criticizing former President Bill Clinton for a speech made over terrorism. In a speech at George Washington University, Clinton said that all nations had been guilty of terrorism in the past, including the United States. O'Reilly and his guest criticized the former president for being irresponsible and for not recognizing America's unending traditional commitment to democracy. O'Reilly and his guest also concurred with each other that Clinton failed to realize that the United States as a country as been far more progressive and democratic than any other nation in regards to human rights.
Response: The U.S. News media, which is heavily influenced by the United States government, has always tried to portray the United States as the leaders in democratic values and human rights. The historical record clearly shows that other countries have been far more progressives on a wide range of issues. In most cases, the United States has followed the lead of other countries, as oppose to taking the lead. In regards to human rights for people of color, women rights, health care, education, and labor laws, America has never been willing to take the lead. O'Reilly and others in the news business understand this fact quite well, but their loyalty to the United States government will not allow them to report the truth.
From the time this country was founded to the present, the race issue has always been a major obstacle in America's ability to live up to its democratic values. In the late 18th century, the founders of this country had a golden opportunity to create a country based on true democratic principles, but squandered the opportunity by placing their personal greed above the human rights of others. Instead of manumitting slavery and the slave trade, they aloud the particular institution to fester. In 1792, it was Denmark, not the United States, that became first nation to abolish the slave trade. In 1814, at Congress of Vienna, it was Great Britain exerted its influence to encourage other nations to stop the slave trade. In 1838 and 1848, Britain and France emancipated their slave respectively, while the United States held on to its slave until 1865. The United States did not even take lead in its own backyard. Mexico and Chile freed its slaves in 1823; the United Provinces of Central America emancipated its slaves in 1824; internal forces led Uruguay in 1842, Bolivia and Colombia in 1851, Ecuador in 1852, Argentina in 1853, and Peru and Venezuela in 1854 to terminate the institution of slavery. Even in modern era, African-Americans who visited other countries, such as France, during the 1930s, 1940, 1950s, and 1960s, reported that they were treated more like human beings than in America.
In regards to women rights, once again, the United States has been a follower, as oppose to being a leader. While Americans bitterly opposed franchising women, New Zealand (1893), Australia (1902), Finland (1906), Norway (1913), and Denmark (1915) were among the first nations to grant universal suffrage to women. Moreover, while Americans debate over whether or not a woman is qualified to be president of the United States, other countries have taken the lead and elected qualified women to their countries top position: Israel (Golda Meir), India (Indira Gandhi), Pakistan (Benazir Bhutto), the Philippines (Corazon Aquino), and the United Kingdom (Margaret Thatcher). Every four years qualified women in America are shamefully passed over for the top position, as less qualified men are given consideration because they happen to be males.
As for health and educational issues, the United States is far behind its industrial counterparts. While the United States has exceptional universities and hospitals within its borders, many people in the United States are not fortunate enough to benefit from these facilities because they are not wealthy enough. In many industrialized nations, health care and educational opportunities are available to those who need it, as oppose to those who can just afford it. Nations, such as Canada, have enacted laws to ensure health services to all people regardless of income. As for the United States, millions of people are uninsured and do not qualify for medical treatment in most cases. Universal education is also afforded to citizens of many nations who qualify and wish to further their education. The United States is far from being a leader in regards to providing basic treatment to its citizenry. As a result, America's poor have found it quite difficult to receive adequate health care or a decent education in the land of plenty.
Those in the news media, including O'Reilly, are quite aware of the fact that the United States has not been the most progressive government in the world. Government officials have always tried to convince the general public that their nation is far more advance than most other countries, and, because of the news media's undying loyalty to the United States, they have been willing to advance this outrageous lie. By O'Reilly corroborating with his guest's false statements, he was able to perform his patriotic duty, while further misleading the American public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On November 5, 2001, Bill O'Reilly stated that he and most Americans should care less about what people who wish the United States harm think. He went on to say that these people are "thugs and should be hunted down and killed."
RESPONSE: The response of O'Reilly is narrow minded and ethnocentric. One of the many duties of the American press has always been to give credence to the views of America's white aristocracy, while discrediting any alternative viewpoint that contrasts with the establishment's official position. For the mainstream press, the voices that should be heard and respected are the voices that defend the status quo, and O'Reilly is simply following in this long held tradition. When the mainstream press dismisses the views of America's enemies, they are not practicing fair and balance news reporting, they are practicing biased reporting.
In looking back on American journalism, the biased reporting on the mainstream press becomes quite apparent. When Nat Turner, Denmark Vessey, Gabriel Prosser, Charles Deslondes, and other African slaves led rebellions against their cruel treatment, they were immediately labeled savages by the mainstream press. The news media during that time did not even give a second thought in reporting on why these men would revolt against the dominant culture and even kill white citizens. When the Native Americans righteously defended what was left of their homeland, they were declared barbarous. When women demanded the right to universal suffrage, they were viewed with contempt. At no time was the press willing to understand why these groups acted the way they did. Immediately, they were condemned. Whenever a group outside of the mainstream showed a voracious hunger to be included, to be free, to be understood, they were condemned. But, whenever those who defended the status quo showed a voracious hunger to keep certain groups in their subordinate places, they were seen as just and even exonerated for whatever sins they may have committed in defending their American way of life.
And now, the mainstream press is still willing to show contempt toward those that are not part of mainstream society and defend at all cost those who guard the status quo. This is quite evident in the comments made by O'Reilly. But, O'Reilly and his journalistic counterparts should be willing to understand the anger foreign groups have for the United States. Whether Americans want to recognize it or not, there is a rational explanation for the anger expressed by Arabs. Are many of the Muslim terrorists groups guilty of heinous crimes? The answer is a resounding yes. But, is the United States government guilty of heinous crimes equivalent to the Muslim terrorists? The answer is a resounding yes as well. Long before any Arab nations even thought of terrorizing the west, the western world was terrorizing poor Arab nations. This is why many Arabic nations sponsor terrorist groups today, but the western press will never report this fact.
During the 1800s and early 1900s, it was European imperialism that plunged large sections of the Middle East into political, social, and economic chaos; People of the Middle East were forced to accept laws enacted by their foreign rulers that served to benefit the foreigners and cripple the natives; the Middle Eastern natives were defenseless to protect their economic interests as the western world grew rich off of their raw materials, while the native populace grew poorer; More humiliating, the natives of the Middle East had to accept the partitioning of their lands by westerners who did not understand the ethnic diversity of the region; It was the United States and its allies in 1949 that overthrew Syria's democratically elected government; in 1953, the United States and Britain overthrew the democratically-elected government in Iran and set up the brutal dictatorship of Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, which lasted until 1979; early 1960s, the United States attempts to assassinate Iraqi leader Abdul Karim Qassim who led a popular revolution supported by the Iraqi masses. It is because of these terroristic acts committed by the West that the victims of past western terrorism are now retaliating. Contrary to the claims of U.S. governmental officials and the mainstream press, there is a logical reason for the Arabs' resentment toward the West.
It has never been in the best interest of the United States government to broadcast the thoughts and feelings of America's enemies. Instead, the enemy is reduced to a despicable monster that acts without rhyme or reasoning. This approach was taken with the African slaves who revolted against their white slave masters, the Native Americans who desperately tried to defend their
homeland, and, now, the terrorists who have waged war against the West. O'Reilly exclaimed that he refuses to report or try to understand the thoughts of terrorists because their reasoning lack logic. This is a lie. O'Reilly and other members of the press refuse to give in depth coverage to the thoughts of terrorists because of their loyalty to their government. O'Reilly's job is to make the U.S. government look pristine in the eyes of the world and, especially, the American public. If the American public was truly given both sides of the argument, then, Americans may not be quick to condemn the actions of the terrorists or other declared enemies of the United States. Moreover, they would definitely come to the realization that our government is just as corrupt and immoral as any other government. In order to prevent this from occurring, the mainstream press obediently follow the wishes of the federal government, while demonizing the thoughts and actions of any group that happens to come in conflict with America. And while presenting their biased reports to the general public, they have the audacity to declare what they do as fare and balanced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After the horrific events of September 11, 2001, Ann Coulter, a conservative news commentator, made the following statements about the inhabitants of the Middle East in the National Review, September 13, 2001:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
Response: The comment made by Ann Coulter displays a person who is willing to dismiss the importance of individuality and a person totally ignorant of past historical events. The comment is designed to make it appear that western governments, through the influence of Christianity, are far more humane and civilized than their Muslim counterparts. Sadly, she and millions of other Americans honestly believe that Christian societies are far more righteous than Muslim societies and that by converting Muslims into Christians, they will shed their barbaric ways. This lack of logical thinking on the part of Coulter and others is unfounded. As Muslims have committed barbarous acts in the past and present, so have Christians. Let us not forget that it was the Christian governments of Western Europe that were responsible for inquisitions, crusades, and witch trials. Christian authorities ordered the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Muslims, Jews, and heretic Christians for simply practicing a different religion. At this same time period when Christians in the West persecuted millions for being different, it was the Muslims and Asians, such as the Chinese, who were far more tolerate of groups of different ethnic and religious backgrounds.
Moreover, let us not forget that it was the British government under Christian leaders in the 1800s and early 1900s that terrorized the people of India and China. It was Christians in America that enslaved and murdered human beings of African descent. It was Christians in America that broke nearly every treaty with the Native Americans and committed genocidal acts against the same natives under the policy of manifest destiny. It was Christian leaders in America that ordered the massive bombings in Vietnam and the dropping of napalm on innocent civilians. More importantly, let us not forget that it has been our Christian leaders who have sponsored many of the terrorists we now wage war against. Yet, millions of westerners are willing to over look their countries' terroristic actions. The facts bear out that every group, whether they be Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Capitalists, or Communists, has blood on their hands. People like Coulter fail to realize that it is the personal makeup of an individual that determines a person's actions, not their affiliation with a group. There are bad Muslims, as well as good Muslims. There are bad Christians, as well as good Christians. And the same can be said for every other group. Like most bigots, the Coulters of the world only want to magnify the faults of others, while over looking the faults of members within their own group. Our Christian leaders are no better than their Muslim counterparts. Ann Coulter's shameless attempt to make it appear that our government led by Christians is more pure and righteous than Muslim governments is just that, shameless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
