O'Reilly's Ironic Blunder With Michelle Obama

Did O'Reilly factor in the consequences for this one?

This 1935 photo depicts the lynching of Rubin Stacy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Earlier this month, President Bush said, "The noose is a symbol of gross injustice" and "lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest" Is it possible that Bill O'Reilly's statement about "going on a lynching party against Michelle Obama" is anything but a racist slur? Photo courtesy: Long Island University

(Salem, Ore.) - On Tuesday night's episode of Bill O'Reilly's "The Radio Factor", O'Reilly was quoted using the word lynch in regard to Michelle Obama.

O'Reilly's exact statement was, "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels; that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever; then that's legit. We'll track it down."

The use of the word "lynching" was completely unprovoked by anyone else. He was not repeating a caller's suggestion, or did anyone else make reference to a "lynching party". This is disheartening to anyone who has ever heard this term in it's natural context.

Among other things, a lynching party is a tool for perpetuating white supremacy. Just two weeks ago, President Bush made a plea to all Americans "to not use words like lynch in jest." Surely you shouldn't even need instruction in a matter like this.

O'Reilly seems to have a wealth of blind self-appreciation that prevents his offensiveness from occurring to him. His typical, cookie-cutter defense is that he was taken out of context, and (as always) he did nothing wrong.

The night's conversation that led up to Mr. O'Reilly's metaphorical racial slur was centered around a quote made by Mrs. Obama on 2/18, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country."

Now, this is an obvious launchpad to insinuate that Mrs. Obama hates America. Of course, being the spin-free master, he also stated that it is "possible... probable maybe, that she misspoke because she's not a professional. I am a professional and i misspeak. So I'm being honest.. but I'm going to take a look at her now and I'm gonna see whether shes a secular-progressive or not....Barrack will not get elected if she's S.P."

O'Reilly also pointed out that having Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State in the White House leaves no room for Michelle Obama to feel bad about the state of the union, let alone feel a lack of pride.

He doesn't seem to believe that our economic system and foreign policy need change, or that change as a concept is important or necessary.

As if O'Reilly has ever in his life apologized for the way he feels, his opinion is that "she needs to come out of her hole, or where ever she is, and say something and stand up".

And so the lesson here is- 'If you do not feel particularly proud of your country, definitely lie about it, especially if your husband's running for office.'

It's no secret that Democrats are disappointed in our government. It sounds like O'Reilly is asking Michelle to change her party affiliation. He probably shouldn't hold out for her beliefs to align with his.

"It's insulting.. with all of the Americans who have died, and all the money the tax payers have spent, liberating people around the world, how could she not be proud of her country?"

Bill O'Reilly may really believe that sending our troops to die is something to be proud of, but it can be accurately assumed that the Obama campaign is directed in opposition to what makes Mr. O'Reilly proud.

Listeners of O'Reilly's frequently hear the term "secular-progressive" or SP. Secular-progressive is a term invented by O'Reilly for liberals seeking change. The term comes from his book, "Culture Warrior", in which O'Reilly asserts that the United States is in the midst of a "vicious culture war" between "traditionalists" and "secular-progressives". In coming up with this term, Mr. O'Reilly perhaps did not take into account that a religious government goes against our constitution.

More specifically, O'Reilly says "secular-progressive individuals are those who are not content with the current state of affairs in the United States." He also says, "Secular-progressives wish to mold [America] in the image of Western Europe."

Contrary to being secular and progressive, O'Reilly says that he and everyone that shares his views are "traditionalists". He defines a traditionalist as someone who believes that the United States is, more often than not, a noble country that has made some mistakes. For O'Reilly, traditionalists believe in the family unit and place emphasis on spirituality, selflessness, and charitable causes. He says that traditionalists are not restricted to any one political ideology.

Surprisingly, O'Reilly cites examples of Democrats in history that were traditionalists, including President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But when Dr. King and JFK were alive, their outspoken views were just the opposite of everything a "traditionalist" stands for today. This is why they are remembered.

Likewise, O'Reilly has also said that some far-right groups are not traditionalists, such as some militia groups and the Ku Klux Klan. Funny that he would need to specify that one. Now reading between those lines, it is understood that the far-end of his belief spectrum is the hate-group.

Here is a clip from Countdown with O'Reilly's comment, the President's statements about lynching from February 12th, and political analysis with Keith Olberman and Eugene Robinson, courtesy of YouTube:

To hear the full audio show, follow this link: The Factor, the left-wing media & Michelle Obama

Special Thanks: MatthewGood.org and Wikipedia