Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly of the O’Reilly Factor Has Been Fired

Fox News hot commodity Bill O’Reilly has been pink-slipped. This was effective April 19.

According to Atlanta Black Star, O’Reilly was terminated on the grounds that he “sexually harassed” an African-American temp employee.

Here’s the Atlanta Black Star’s account of what transpired:

Then the news site reported the following:

More to come in the days ahead.

Real Time with Bill Maher Host Bill Maher and Judge Andrew Napolitano on Donald Trump’s Running Mate Mike Pence

HBO‘s Real Time with Bill Maher host Bill Maher and his panel on the July 15, 2016 show, in which Maher, actor and interviewed guest Viggo Mortensen, conservative Republican S.E. Cupp, former Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY), and New Yorker staff writer Jelani Cobb discuss Donald Trump‘s veep pick 50th Indiana Republican Governor Mike Pence.

On Reason.TV’s YouTube channel, Fox News‘ senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano calls Pence a “conservative statist.”

Reason.TV Host Nick Gillespie: Mike Pence, as Donald Trump’s VP, is Mike Pence the type of person America needs at this time to reign in “constitutional chaos,” as you’ve called it?

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Probably not, but he will help Donald Trump with, uh, credibility amongst, uh, mainstream conservative Republicans, and, if they’re elected, they’ll help Donald Trump with his dealings with the, uh, with the elected Congress. This is…

Gillespie: So…[about to interrupt]

Napolitano: This is another example of “let’s-not-preserve-protect-and-defend-the-Constitution.” Let’s find ways around it to achieve our ends.

Gillespie: So…Mike Pence is a conservative statist as I understood it.

Napolitano: [Interrupting Nick] Yes, absolutely, as almost all conservatives are.

There you have it, folks! Mike Pence is described by both Judge Napolitano and Reason‘s Nick Gillespie as a “conservative statist.”

Fox News’ On The Record Talking Head Greta Van Susteren on Your World with Neil Cavuto Complaining About The New Yorker Magazine and Reason Magazine Photos of 2016 GOP Candidates

[Taken from my Facebook wall]

On the Fox News show Your World with Neil Cavuto, On The Record host Greta Van Susteren complained about the cover of New Yorker Magazine, irately objecting to its showcasing of the GOP presidential field. She saw it in her mailbox, and it pissed her off.

Her bitch is that, on the cover, it shows a slate of undeclared candidates who aren’t running and has left out Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina who are running.

Then she bitched about the latest issue of Reason Magazine, complaining that they did the same thing with a couple of exceptions: one, that the cover is different from the New Yorker largely because Hillary Clinton is on Reason’s cover and not the New Yorker’s and Mike Huckabee is not seen on the Reason cover but only the New Yorker’s, and that, unlike the New Yorker (which is a limousine liberal periodical), Reason is a libertarian rag. Get it now?

This is the bitch who’s a Scientologist and a Fox News talking head? What a laugh!

Here’s the New Yorker photo in question:


And here’s the Reason photo in question:



Conservative Republican Hit Woman – Ahem, Author and Pundit – Ann Coulter Tells Fox Business’s John Stossel That She Wants “to Drown Him” Over His Support for Libertarian “Spoilers” in General Elections

Conservative Republican hit woman – ahem, author and pundit – Ann Coulter recently appeared on Fox Business‘s Stossel to attack show host John Stossel and other libertarians like him for supporting and voting for Libertarian candidates and voting against Republicans in the mid-term election this year because of Republicans’ refusal to radically shrink the cost, size, and scope of the State. Not surprised, right? After all, mouthpieces for the big GOP establishment like Coulter are nothing new in the world of GOP politics, except that her knee-jerk reactionary ideology gets the best of her when she makes ludicrous statements in print as well as on television, especially Fox News and Fox Business. It’s even worse – and funnier might I add – when you see her cobwebbed conservative Republican face on Real Time with Bill Maher every now and then. It’s worse for her to make a fool of herself on paper and on the airwaves.

Stossel’s reference to Coulter wanting to drown libertarians like him is due to a piece that Coulter wrote in her nationally-syndicated column, specifically a September 17th piece entitled “Your ‘To Do’ List to Save America,” in which, at the end of her article, she writes:

The biggest current danger for Republicans is that idiots will vote for Libertarian candidates in do-or-die Senate elections, including Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and Colorado. (That’s in addition to the ‘Independent’ in Kansas who’s a Democrat.) Democratic candidates don’t have to put up with this crap — they’re even trying to dump the official Democrat in Kansas to give the stealth Democrat a better shot.

When we’re all dying from lack of health care across the United States of Mexico, we’ll be deeply impressed with your integrity, libertarians.

What an arrogant, pompous idiot she is, considering that she supports establishment Republicans who want to grow the cost, size, and scope of the State as much as the Democrats do, just only a bit slower might I say.

And then here’s the grand finale to her non-sequitor argument against libertarians voting for capital (L) Libertarians:

Which brings me to my final assignment this week: If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.

Really, Coulter? You really want to go down there? Have you forgotten that you came to the Libertarian Party of Connecticut in 1999 because you wanted to run for Congress under my party’s banner? Must I also point out that the Connecticut Libertarians turned you down – and rightfully so! – because they discovered that your real reason for running for office was to take away votes from then-Republican congressman Chris Shays as an act to punish him for not voting to impeach then-President Bill Clinton over his politicized and sexualized affair with Monica Lewinsky? Of course, your pathetically preposterous social conservative views had a great deal to do with it, considering you think we Libertarians “obsess” over drug legalization (a la ending the War on Drugs) that you’ve been spoon-feeding your bullshit socially and politically conservative views on that matter and other private matters to the American electorate and viewers for far so long? How about that, Ann? Or have we already forgotten about that? Selective memory you must have, right?

After all, in your September 25, 2000 syndicated article “I’d Burn My Neighbor’s House Down” explains in full detail about the fact that you were trying to run a “sham campaign” – in other words, a fraudulent congressional campaign race – against Shays (once again I say this because he was a Republican congressman!) at the time because he refused to vote for Clinton’s impeachment, and your “campaign” was only contrived and orchestrated to put a Democrat in Shay’s seat.

Here’s the entire piece for everyone to read about what you did in 1999:


I’d burn down my neighbor’s house

Ann Coulter

9/25/2000 12:00:00 AM – Ann Coulter
I did everything I could, and it’s not my fault. As a legal resident of the noble Fourth District of Connecticut — once represented by glamorous, brilliant, smart aleck Claire Booth Luce, and currently represented by a phony, ponderous, hand-wringing pantywaist — I tried to take out the pantywaist. For those of you who don’t have Irish Alzheimer’s (we forget everything but our grudges), Rep. Chris Shays was one of only five Republicans to vote against the impeachment of a lying, felonious, contemptible president; one of only two Republicans to go on a whirlwind grandstanding campaign against the impeachment of the lying, felonious, contemptible president; and the only Republican called on by Rep. John Conyers on the day of the vote to argue against impeachment of a lying, felonious, contemptible president. I didn’t run in the primary against Shays because, as a writer, I’d have to give up my livelihood to do so. If I were a dentist, I could continue to remove molars while campaigning against Shays; as a writer, I’d have to abandon my career the moment I announce. I’ll give up a month or two for a grudge match, but not six, seven or eight.

Moreover, an excellent Connecticut Republican, Jim Campbell, did step up to the plate to oppose the pantywaist, offering Nutmeggers the enticing prospect not only of being a Republican, but also of representing the district rather than The New York Times. No one had ever heard of Campbell. He emerged from nowhere, and the principleless Connecticut Republican Party establishment was dead-set against him. (If Joseph Stalin called himself a Republican and ran for office in Connecticut, he’d have the full backing of the state party apparatchiks.) Still, Campbell took about 40 percent of the vote from Shays. Though I wasn’t willing to sacrifice my profession (and life) for the absolute minimum six months it would have required to run in a primary, I was willing to forsake my profession (and life) for about six weeks simply to achieve the greater glory of causing Shays to lose. My idea was that I’d run a total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign for one month before the election, and hope for enough votes to cause the (official) Democrat to win. I just needed to find a third party that would have me. Since I hate the government, and the Libertarians hate the government, I figured — that’s my party. Except the thing is, the Libertarians’ opposition to government is narrowly focused on only one small aspect of government: the drug laws. Until several weeks of negotiations with the Connecticut Libertarian Party over its pro-drug legalization stance, my position on drugs was to refuse even to discuss drug legalization until I don’t have to pay for the food, housing, transportation and medical care of people who want to stay home all day shooting up heroin. It’s not as if we live in the perfect Libertarian state of nature, with the tiny exception of those pesky drug laws. We live in a Nanny State that takes care of us from cradle to grave and steals half our income. I kept suggesting to them that we might want to keep our eye on the ball here. (The Libertarians’ other big issue is privatizing Yosemite. Seriously.) In theory, our areas of agreement should have included, among other things: eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax. Our sole area of disagreement was whether to abolish the drug laws before or after completing the above tasks. That wasn’t enough. I was deemed not a “true Libertarian” because my position was to defer the drug legalization issue until we had made a little more headway in dismantling the Nanny State. There’s a joke about a Frenchman, an Englishman and a Russian who are told they have only one day until the end of the world. The Frenchman says he will spend his last day with a bottle of Bordeaux and a beautiful woman. The Englishman says he will take his favorite sheepdog for a walk across the moors. The Russian says he will burn down his neighbor’s house. I’m with the Russian. Consequently, I have moved from being completely uninterested in drug legalization to being virulently, passionately opposed to it. So I’m initiating a periodic series of articles on the stupidity of drug legalization — it’s my newest Irish Alzheimer’s.

Here’s Coulter’s appearance on Stossel. You’ll see how fruity this bitch really is!

Ann Coulter, go jump off a cliff! We don’t need your moronic lectures, the world doesn’t need you, and nobody needs you. You are the problem, not the solution. What part of that will you not get at all? A blonde statist like you really lives up to the “dumb blonde” stereotype very well, not to mention the fact that you are a soulless political cash whore with an axe to grind against us Libertarians. You are definitely more like a typical Democrat (with very few minute differences) than you will ever concede to being and admit. You are Lady Liberty’s worst enemy, not her best ally. Remember that, bitch!

I rest my frickin’ case if everyone doesn’t mind me saying so!