Far Left Attacks Charity for Accepting Help from Bill O’Reilly – UPDATED!
Posted by iusbvision on March 10, 2009
UPDATE – VIDEO: O’Reilly punches back at the far left, whose hatred has really gone to an entirely new low with this one. Pay special attention to the reporting in this video. NBC News and John Podesta, who is a communications strategist for President Obama, helped to coordinate the attacks against Alexa.
Johnny Dollar has a great post today showing just how unhinged the far left has become.
It is no secret that Bill O’Reilly does a lot of charity work. Much of the proceeds from his books and other merchandise go to charity. One of the charities that Bill O’Reilly is a supporter of is the Alexa Foundation. Alexa is a charity that helps rape victims. O’Reilly is appearing at a fund raiser for Alexa free of charge. Normal people can appreciate such charity work, but to the unhinged left Alexa has become another channel for their hatred.
Alexa is under attack from the far left with phone calls and emails and the nutty zealot Keith Olberman (whose ratings are pathetic) at MSNBC has declared O’Reilly a “worst person in the world” for four nights in a row on his show that almost nobody watches.
Johnny Dollar has the following:
The newshounds seem to have adopted a new slogan: we parrot Keith Olbermann’s attacks so you don’t have to. As Olby vilified Bill O’Reilly four nights in a row (for pro bono speaking at an Alexa Foundation fundraiser), the mongrels dutifully put up four articles–one for each Olbermann tirade. And when it became apparent the foundation was not going to cave to pressure, the anti-Fox terriers took aim at the Alexa Foundation itself:
It may be a case of “who you know”. Sitting on the advisory board of the Foundation is one Wendy Murphy, who has frequently appeared on the Factor and appears to be somewhat of a buddy of O’Reilly’s (O’Reilly wrote the foreword to Murphy’s book And Justice for Some, and snide comments have been made about her “sleeping on a cot in his office”). Murphy is O’Reilly’s partner-in-crime when it comes to blaming those eeevul liberals for the ills of the world…
Smearing a member of Alexa’s board. Nice. Oh, and the liberal-hating Wendy Murphy supported Joe Biden. A smear based on a falsehood. Classy, very classy.
Kennel commenters also joined in the offensive against Alexa. It got so bad that the hounds had to do an about-face and issue a bold-faced admonishment that they didn’t want commenters to go after the foundation. But the damage had already been done. Unable to stop O’Reilly, some denizens of the dog pound instead turned their guns on a charity that supports rape victims. And newshound moderators approved each salvo:
- Maybe this is a Republican foundation, run by Republicans, for Republicans, and we all know their sad views on life.
- Connections, connections: a lady who’s had the dubious honour of appearing on O’Reilly’s show is on the board of that foundation…. He might even have “paid” the organization to enhance his image and bonafides.
- Go after the director and board of the foundation.
- This is a raw move for money…. Bad foundation. No donation.
- Alexa is as much to blame if not more until they do what is right.
- I have to conclude that the people operating the “foundation” are more concerned with glorifying a rightwinger than aiding rape victims…. It makes me wonder what the purpose of the foundation really is – screw their “mission statement” – and who in the foundation is getting rich. Follow the money.
- Any organization like Alexa that would have O’Reilly as a speaker needs to have its raison d’etre put under the cold light of analysis…. Someone is not doing his/her homework and that gives me cause for concern about the persons in their care.
- Perhaps someone might want to look into this groups finances and find out how much of it actually goes to help rape victims, since they think it’s fine to have an admitted “stalker” give a speech at one of their events, eh? Just a “front group” perhaps, eh?
- They’re in it for the money, not to help victims.
Our take – people do not leave high school this nutty. Why is the elite media not covering this story (I know why, its just fun to ask the question)?
The IUSB Vision Weblog 
C said
This looks like a case of “Johnny Dollar does the dirty work so we don’t have to”. Dollar (Mark Koldys) has had an obsession with Newshounds since its inception, and likewise is obsessed with Olbermann. To him it doesn’t matter whether or not they have a valid point – all it matters is that he opposes them no matter what.
To address a couple of points:
The petition, which has close to 900 signatures and comments so far, shows little (and possibly no, having not read every last comment) sign of having been signed by “left wing zealots”. On the contrary, most comments are quite restrained and many are from rape victims who are horrified that O’Reilly would be asked to speak at such a public function after making comments that imply that kidnapped sexual abuse victim Shawn Hornbeck, and raped and murdered Jennifer Moore, weere in some way complicit in or responsible for having been attacked. I find it interesting that even Mark Koldys, in discussion on the ICN site, was unable to stand over those comments.
Wendy Murphy has indeed blamed liberals, at least when it comes to issues regarding sexual assault. She has claimed, on O’Reily’s show, that the ACLU “don’t want any laws on the books … that make it a crime for a child to be abused by an adult,” – an outright lie – and that the Boston Globe “didn’t cover” the case of a man who was given a one-year jail sentence for the repeated rape of a 9-year-old girl due to the “classic LIBERAL LEFT ideology” of the media, saying of them,”It’s always bad to lock somebody up. Punishment is bad.” The Globe did, in fact, cover the story. The fact that she may have supported Biden does not mitigate the fact that she has gone on to O’Reilly’s show and used lies to bash liberals.
As far as Newshounds comments are concerned, they may have been approved for publication but that does NOT mean that they reflect the opinions of the Newshounds bloggers and moderators. How interesting that you failed to include a rather lengthy submission by a regular Dollar contributor calling authors Alex and Priscilla “coy” and “unethical”, or another one accusing the Newshounds of supporting opposition to Jessica’s Law. But that would have knocked your argument flat, wouldn’t it?
Finally: neither you nor Dollar have paid the slightest bit of attention to the commentary at the end of Alex and Priscilla’s March 6th post where they strongly emphasize that the Newshounds are NOT attacking the foundation:
That looks pretty reasonable to me.
I came here to tell the truth since you didn’t bother to.
[Bull, what you are trying to do is hurt Bill O’Reilly through a perfectly nice charity. Trying to rationalize it in your own mind is not going to help you. Say you aren’t attacking them, and then attacking them is the height of self delusion. Fool yourself if you want to, we are not fooled. You dare to call Bill O’Reilly hateful when laughable hate speech is all over your site. Spare me. – Editor]
C said
“Bull” etc:
One, it is not my site. I comment there occasionally and that’s it. Two, you respond with ad hominem attacks because you have nothing else. I challenge you to go research the facts I posted about O’Reilly and Murphy, and the comments and posts I refer to on the Newshound site and on ICN and prove me wrong. Everything I stated is factual.
[Dear Anonymous:
The reason why this editor did not give you a long, drawn out response the first time you posted your hate is because it was so obviously silly that it did not merit a serious response or serious refutation. They way you and that site presents its “facts” does more to undermine your credibility then I ever could….
….but for fun I am going to indulge you.
We know all about the things that smear site alleges, it amounts to nothing but mischaracterizations, deceptions and incomplete narratives presented with an attitude to generate the false light it wishes to present. It uses Media Matters of all places for a source, that site never fails to mischaratcerize the statements of others and pull things royally out of context. Media Matters tactics are so well known and so well verified that it has pushed its lack of credibility to the point of being self evident. This editor wrote a report once where someone else was asked to randomly pick five articles on Media Matters and I fact checked them to see if they represented verifiable and contextual truth. Media Matters ended up scoring zero for five.
For your benefit I will respond to some of what the allegations your site is claiming –
1 – The sexual harassment claim against O’Reilly went no where. Does that site mention the evidence that Mackris’ allegation had serious credibility issues because she had just left the employ of Tom Daschle and begged Bill O’Reilly for a job when O’Reilly’s reporting was largely responsible for Tom Daschle’s defeat? The site links to Mackris’ unsubstantiated allegation but where is the link to O’Reilly’s response? Answer, it is no where on that site because that site is out to smear anyone at Fox News. The site makes their mission to smear anyone at Fox News and does not attempt to hide that fact.
Also sexual harassment is almost always accompanied by a pattern of behavior, there is no proven pattern of behavior with Bill O’Reilly.
2 – The simple truth is that we looked into those accusations against O’Reilly and knew far more about them shortly after they happened then you know now.
3 – The site attempts to paint O’Reilly and other people at Fox News as two dimensional neanderthalls. That site claims that Bill O’Reilly hates crime victims. I know for a fact that is nonsense because I have seen him stand up for crime victims time and time again over the years.
4 – The site you are sticking up for starts its “coverage” with the following:
When you have an opening line as silly as that it makes their intentions quite clear.
5 – It is easy to spot a far left smear site because they present every allegation as a fact.
There is no serious attempt to provide any honest and complete review of the objective truth at that site and to take Keith Olberman seriously speaks volumes.
…..”prove you wrong” you said…. it took 30 seconds of applied critical thinking and some previously researched knowledge and your argument is in shambles. – Editor]
C said
You call that “critical thinking”! Dear,oh dear. Do they offer Logic 101 at IUSB? For your sake I hope so. You’ll learn that ad hominem arguments are fallacious, for example. The fact that Newshounds, Media Matters or Olbermann says something does make it false.
You get an “F”.
[Anonymous,
I see that you chose not to respond to each of my substantive points and just decided to attack me while at the same time attack me for being ad hominem (pot meet kettle).
I posted the exact quotes and misrepresentations that Newshounds made and you cannot seem to find the ability to defend them with any genuine substance.
Also, do not apply an argument to me that I never made, you see in logic that is called a straw man argument. I know that because when I took logic in my classses in rhetoric I earned A grades in all of them. I never said that just because Media Matters or Keith Olberman says something it is false just because they said it. What I said, and I was quite clear, is that every time I have examined claims from those sources they proved to be false or misleading. Another term for that would be that what they say is very often not directionally accurate. To avoid having people like myself come to that conclusion, all they have to do is start quoting people in full and in context without the straw man arguments or misrepresentations. – editor]
C said
I dismissed you because I can clearly see there is no point wasting my time here on a site which is a flatliner, run by a rightwing zealot who uses twisted logic. I know your type all too well. Seriously, I can’t be bothered, because no one reads this godforesaken blog anyway. I stumbled across it many, many pages into Google while researching this issue.
Apparently your logic module wasn’t as good as the course I got an A in. Educational standards in Europe, where I studied, are much higher than those in the United States, after all. Rhetoric, indeed. The Sophists would have been proud of you. I prefer Socrates, myself.
[Actually this site gets good traffic. I see you abandoned even the attempt to engage the material on a substantive basis. You did not even bother to attampt to make a factual argument. This is typical behavior of the far left and your post causes me to wonder if there is an original thought in that community.
By the way, the sophists did not use factual evidence that could be verified as we do. Since you brought them up here is a little lecture to aid you.
Sound familiar leftists?
By the way, your newer posts have been deleted and you have been placed on moderation because your newer posts, in the spirit of Socrates no doubt, were hate filled outburts devoid of substance. If you can demonstrate that you are capable of having a substantive conversation without going on a mindless attack spree you will be removed from moderation. – Editor]
Craig Chamberlin said
“You call that “critical thinking”! Dear,oh dear.”
Ad Hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.
“You’ll learn that ad hominem arguments are fallacious, for example.”
Yes… your argument self-destructs.
“I dismissed you because I can clearly see there is no point wasting my time here on a site which is a flatliner, run by a rightwing zealot who uses twisted logic.”
Ad Hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.
Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
Self-destructs again.
“Educational standards in Europe, where I studied, are much higher than those in the United States, after all. Rhetoric, indeed. The Sophists would have been proud of you. I prefer Socrates, myself.”
Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
I present the following definition:
Rudeness (also called impudence or effrontery) is the disrespect and failure to behave within the context of a society or a group of people’s social laws or etiquette.
Given the above definition, one of two conclusions can be drawn:
A: Your arguments are illogical and you are rude OR
B: Your arguments are illogical and the social laws of your society are rude.
I’m predicting the former, because I have met respectful people from Europe.
[Super Craig! – Editor]
Blackflon said
Great to see someone else stand up to News Hounds and their smear tactics. Keep up the good work.
This C person shows just how utterly ignorant and self serving that group happens to be. They itch to get into the big time but keep falling all over their lies and distortions.
boris1421 said
I want to know how much he contributes. Let’s see some figures. Bill Gates gives 25% of his income to charity and he doesn’t showboat every charity he is connected to. Sounds like a circus act. Lets see some figures.
[Boris, O’Reilly didn’t show boat it, the left did when they attacked this charity for taking help from Bill O’Reilly. Take your mindless hate somewhere else. – Editor]