Bill O'Reilly's Throwing a Lynching Party

I'm sick to death of people like FOX News host, Bill O'Reilly, and his ilk thinking that he can use a racial slur against a black woman who could be the next First Lady of the United States, give a half-assed apology and not be taken to task and called on his crap.

This week O'Reilly gave the following response to a caller on his radio show who was making unsubstantiated negative charges against presidential candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama:

"And 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."

What the hell? If it's "legit," you're going to "track it down?" And then what do you plan to do?

How dare this white man with a microphone and the trust of the public think that in 2008, he can still put the words "lynch and party" together in the same sentence with reference to a black woman; in this case, Michelle Obama? I don't care how you "spin it" in the "no spin zone," that statement in and of itself is racist, unacceptable and inappropriate on every level.

O'Reilly claims his comments were taken out of context. Please don't insult my intelligence while you're insulting me. I've read the comments and heard them delivered in O'Reilly's own voice; and there is no right context that exists. So, his insincere apology and "out-of-context" excuse is not going to cut it with me.

And just so we're clear, this has nothing to do with the 2008 presidential election, me being a Democrat, him claiming to be Independent while talking Republican, the liberal media or a conservative point of view. To the contrary, this is about crossing a line in the sand that needs to be drawn based on history, dignity, taste and truth.

Bill, I'm not sure of where you come from, but let me tell you what the phrase "lynching party" conjures up to me, a black woman born in North Carolina. Those words depict the image of a group of white men who are angry with the state of the own lives getting together, drinking more than they need to drink, lamenting how some black person has moved forward (usually ahead of them in stature or dignity), and had the audacity to think that they are equal. These same men for years, instead of looking at what changes, should and could make in their own lives that might remove that bitterness born of perceived privilege, these white men take all of that resentment and anger and decide to get together and drag the closest black person near them to their death by hanging them from a tree -- usually after violent beating, torturing and violating their human dignity. Check your history books, because you don't need a masters or a law degree from Harvard to know that is what constitutes a "lynching party."

Imagine, Michelle and Barack Obama having the audacity to think that they have the right to the American dream, hopes, and ideals. O'Reilly must think to himself: how dare they have the arrogance to think they can stand in a front of this nation, challenge the status quo and express the frustration of millions? When this happens, the first thing that comes to mind for O'Reilly and people like him is: "it's time for a party."

Not so fast...don't order the rope just yet.

Would O'Reilly ever in a million years use this phrase with reference to Elizabeth Edwards, Cindy McCain or Judi Nathan? I mean, in all of the statements and criticisms that were made about Judi Nathan, the one-time mistress turned missus, of former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, I never heard any talk of forming a lynch party because of something she said or did.

So why is it that when you're referring to someone who's African-American you must dig to a historical place of pain, agony and death to symbolize your feelings? Lynching is not a joke to off-handedly throw around and it is not a metaphor that has a place in political commentary; provocative or otherwise. I admit that I come from a place of personal outrage here having buried my 90 year-old grandfather last year. This proud, amazing African-American man raised his family and lived through the time when he had to use separate water fountains, ride in the back of a bus, take his wife on a date to the "colored section" of a movie theater, and avert his eyes when a white woman walked down the street for fear of what a white man and his cronies might do if they felt the urge to "party"; don't tell me that the phrase you chose, Mr. O'Reilly, was taken out of context.

To add insult to injury, O'Reilly tried to "clarify" his statements, by using the excuse that his comments were reminiscent of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' use of the term "high-tech lynching" during his confirmation hearing. I reject that analogy. You see Justice Thomas did mean to bring up the image of lynching in its racist context. He was saying that politics and the media were using a new technology to do to him what had been done to black men for many years -- hang him. Regardless of if you agreed with Justice Thomas' premise or not, if in fact -- Bill O'Reilly was referencing it -- the context becomes even clearer.

What annoys me more than anything is that I get the feeling that one of the reasons Bill O'Reilly made this statement, thinking he could get away with it in the first place, and then followed it up with a lame apology in a half-hearted attempt to smooth any ruffled feathers, is because he doesn't think that black women will come out and go after him when he goes after us. Well, he's dead wrong. Be clear Bill O'Reilly: there will be no lynch party for that black woman. And this black woman assures you that if you come for her, you come for all of us.

Comments

[shinybear]

And yet the Obama's ignored it. Why let idiots like O'Reilly dictate the argument or distract and divide us?

The Obama's have their eyes on the big picture and what really matters.

[realpolitic]

O'Reilly feels free to challenge the patriotism of others, even by using racially charged language. Yet, it was he just a few weeks ago denying there were homeless vets in America. He said that he would help them if he met any and then denied a handful of homeless vets who wanted to accept his offer entrance to his office building.

If a former serviceman is critical of the war effort in Iraq, O'Reilly would be first to accuse him of helping the enemy, despite any medals on his chest.

Dissent is a basic American value and O'Reilly always tries to portray war dissenters as fringe nuts or far-left kooks.

O'Reilly's real patriotism is a slavish devotion to an authoritarian government, represented by George Bush.

[timothe]

Correction: O'Reilly didn't say there were no homeless vets. He said the homeless vets were homeless because they chose to be homeless. Help is and remains available to them.

Further, he went on to say that the homeless vets weren't caused by the economy, but by mental illness.

If you want to argue these points, fine. But get your fact straight, please.

[RushLimbaughsPutz]

The help that is available is crappy, ans insufficient. But to admit that would be UN-AMERICAN, right tim? I say that as an ex-VA employee

[SeriousBlack]

Those were followup comments by him once he was challenged. His original assertion was that there weren't any homeless vets living under bridges. Quote: "We’re still looking for all the vets under the bridges, so if you find one, let me know." Yes this is not saying "there were no homeless vets" as you say, mr. timothe. However, O'Reilly came close when he later said, quote: "[Homeless] vets may be out there, but there's not many out there,". Not many? How many is that? Is that supposed to mean just a few thousand or something, as opposed to the government's own figure of 200,000? Why don't you try getting YOUR facts straight? BTW, it sounds like your position is the demented right-wing position that all homeless vets are mentally ill and homeless by choice. IS that your position, little tim? If so, HOW was the mental illness caused? (Too much in-depth analysis for you to handle?) Might it be that the vast majority of the mental illness is PTSD-related because of their service? Or is your claim that they are all simply mental defectives who would be homeless and refusing help if they had never even served in the military? Enlighten us, mr. get your fact (maybe there should be an "s" on the end of fact, hmmm?) straight timothe.

[realpolitic]

This comment is just more O'reilly spin. He is on tape telling his interview subject there were not that many (200,000) homeless vets, and saying if there are then produce them. It is right on tape. Should we believe our lying ears or O'Reilly and you?

[realpolitic]

How do you think the mental illness and problems with substance abuse among vets was caused? Likely, through seeing horrors of combat they the average person will never see. Thus, soldiers come back and can not adjust. O'Reilly never said anything originally about substance abuse problems, anyway. He later said that remark to cover his ignorance. You drink whatever kool aid O'Reilly serves and he serves gallons of it.

[KarenSL]

My comment keeps being held and will not be posted until approved. I dare say, who approved Star Jones' Blog Post in order for that to have been posted.

Give me a break!!

[KarenSL]

Star Jones, you have made me feel ashamed to be a woman today. I couldn't even bring myself to finish the 1st sentence of your article. Lynch and Noose are words which all people can say and use. I don't think they are owned by the black race alone! Thinking like that, should Jews be allowed to protest the manufacture and use of barbed wire/razor wire so frequently found around people's homes these days to protect against outside intruders?! I am so sick and tired of black people just sitting around and waiting for a white person to dare say a word which black people feel only black people are allowed to say. Sounds like discrimination against the white man to me!

Why you gotta go there Star, playing that race card. What action can us white people take against blacks when we are called HONKY, CRACKER, WHITE TRASH, CONCHY-JOE, etc. etc. - NONE, RIGHT? Sounds like discrimination against the white man to me!

Not sure if you know it but here in the Country where I live they still hang inmates on Death Row, and they are BLACK inmates. I think the last hangings we had here was back in 1998 and I am sure they were at the hands of another black person, 2 black men hanged at the same time - does that cause you concern? Do you take offence to that? No, but I bet you would if the hangings were at the hands of a white person!

Also here in the Country where I live we, after about 35 years, now have a white Deputy Prime Minister and please be assured that when our Black Prime Minister chose our white Deputy Prime Minister - the Roots saga began to play on our T.V. sets. In fact prior to 1992 every election year we could be sure re-runs of the Roots saga would be televised on the Government run T.V. station - why do you think that is, Star Jones? Black people love to play the race card and run re-runs of Roots when they feel they have slighted by a white person, and for what - in the name of POLITICS! To cause DIVISION in a Country for political purposes as if the Leader of the Oppostion were a white man when in fact he is a black man, very much loved and respected by the majority of people here.

Your article causes me grave concern now about the almost certain prospect of the first black American Man to be President of the United States of America come November 2008! Will he in fact be, or be allowed to be by his fellow black Americans, a President for ALL Americans or just black Americans.

P.S. Seems like I am being tested almost on a daily basis, especially over the past year or so, to hold on to my strong belief that ALL men are created equal! Gotta say though, that some day I'll reach the point where I have to stand up for my own race too, like black people do, and perhaps that point is today!

[realpolitic]

Are you from South Africa, sounds like you have a lot of lingering racial resentment? Starr Jones is not the one playing the race card, O'Reilly was.

[KarenSL]

I tried to post my comment reply to you but I guess it was not approved - too long as well. The country where I live is a stone's throw from the south eastern United States - guess again

[dairyair]

I would say both are playing the race card! And she thinks its ok for the black to play the race card but not a white. And what Karen is trying to say, is end racism for all or racism will never go away.

[umen]

KarenSL, apparently you didn't hear, or disagree with, President Bush's comments just a week or two ago stating that there is no place in American politics or media for use of the word "lynch" or a noose, since they are so negatively, racially charged. Perhaps you should think about what your president has said. In today's society, racism needs to be discouraged, not encouraged.

[KarenSL]

I agree with you 100% racism by ALL needs to be discouraged. That is the point of my posts (the last of which has not yet been posted). How does the USofA, and the World for that matter, get over it when, like in this case and countless other recent cases, a big issue is always made over words spoken from the mouth of a white person towards a black person - RACISM is screamed from the highest Mountain - resulting in a divide among people, a bunch of wasted time and energy and sometimes even riots and deaths. Look at the last paragraph of Star Jones' Post ".....Well­, he's dead wrong. Be clear Bill O'Reilly: there will be no lynch party for that black woman. And this black woman assures you that if you come for her, you come for all of us." What is that inciting? Unity?

My how things have changed, white people can't say the "L" word, the "N" word, the other "N" word and the other "N" word because it would be disrespectful to black people, but it is acceptable now to SCREAM ALOUD the "F" word - even in church. Life is getting too difficult and so confusing these days!

P.S. President Bush said what? I thought he was the worse President in American History! Kudos to him!!!!!!

[wmfor]

"Thinking like that, should Jews be allowed to protest the manufacture and use of barbed wire/razor wire so frequently found around people's homes these days to protect against outside intruders?"

How about this, "Well, Sen. Lieberman has been criticized for his stand on the war, but I'm no going to throw him into the gas chamber without some hard evidence." Would that be acceptable to any Jews you know?

[realpolitic]

Whenever O'Reilly has a segment on blacks he usually casts them in the pejorative. He will speak of the evils of rappers or criminality in the black community. He does not seem to realize that only a small segment of the black community are actually rappers. He should occasionally do pieces showing blacks making progress in the arts and sciences. It would "balance" his reportage somewhat. But like all of O'Reilly's pieces, there must always be a convenient bad guy or someone to blame at the ready. He always casts society in terms of good vs. evil. White upper-middle class norms represent the good, usually. Draw your own conclusions as to what is representative of the bad.

[TheHunt]

all that aside, michelle can't allow haters who want to murder her because she is a black woman (o'reilly) to get the best of her.
she has to keep on being the brilliant, intellectual, affectionate, heroic black woman she is.

[timothe]

Boy, there sure are a lot of you who are offended by what you think O'Reilly said. I have one question for you.

How many of you were actually listening to his radio show when the "incident" occured? I mean really...h­ow many of you were actually personally offended in real time?

This is third article on Huffington Post about O'Reilly. I haven't seen it anywhere else. Are you going to claim that CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are all racist, too, because they didn't run a story about it? Puhlease!!!

It's about time we as a nation turned the other cheek once in a while. But you won't in this case because it's O'Reilly. Which really means that it's not a racial issue at all. You don't like BOR's ideology, therefore you search for the needles in the haystack trying to pull the old "gotcha".

And then you all wonder why these college kids get so angry that they shoot up colleges. They get angry because the hatred...j­ust...won'­t...stop.

[realpolitic]

If we did not hear O'Reilly say what he said in real time we forfeit the opportunity to be offended? That is real Bill O'Reilly logic.

"CBS and the others are not racist because they did not mention the incident," perhaps they simply do not consider O'Reilly important?

BOR now has his own acronym. He has landed.

I thought hate speech led to violence, for example, when one calls for another to be lynched. I did not know an adverse reaction to hate speech led to violence.

You have been listening to O'Reilly much to long. All your "logic" is upside-down and topsy-turvy. It is a living example of a thorough O'Reilly brainwashing. Get the de-programmers. Hurry!

[YogiBarrister]

What makes this even worse is the timing. Just last month a golf commentator got suspended for using the L word, then the editor of a golf magazine lost his job when he put a noose on the cover of the issue that reported about the incident.
I'm not sure why Star Jones is feeding the troll here, even if I do understand her disdain for O'Reilly, or anyone else who casually throws around a phrase like lynching party.

[gulopartisan]

By "feeding the troll" do you mean "stirring up trouble"? I hope not, but to those who are asking that question, the answer is that O'Reilly and his hate-mongering colleagues have gotten away with this kind of crap too long, and it's time to say, as vehemently and as often as possible, "Enough of this!" He gets no slack. Coulter gets no slack. They give no quarter, and they will get none. When the dogs reach them, fleeing through the woods, let that be justice served. I won't whistle them away.

[YogiBarrister]

Gulopartisan, Bill O'Reilly is the troll, he feeds off of the negative reaction he elicits from the likes of Star Jones.

[ScandalousCandice]

He should be fired because this not the first time he has used racial slurs or made ignorant remarks about African Americans. His recent Harlem remarks just prove that this guy is a racist and he slipped on on the air twice now. At least as far as I know it's been two times.

However, where do we draw the line of free speech? It's hate talk most definitely. But people should be allowed to say what they want as well people are allowed to be outraged. I am more scared of the PC mafia than am of some dumb ignorant loser like Bill O'Reilly.

Don't get me wrong I am more on the side of human rights and civil liberties. But free speech means we got to accept the good and the bad. What do you purpose we do about free speech Mrs. Reynolds?

[gulopartisan]

"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee a high profile job editorializing and lying to the public. O'Reilly can stand on any street corner in America and spew his venom. But nobody guaranteed him the right to get rich doing it.

[Collielady]

Star Jones, your question to Bill O'Reilly:

"So why is it that when you're referring to someone who's African-American you must dig to a historical place of pain, agony and death to symbolize your feelings?"

As you well know, such statements are designed to create fear, and to make this poor excuse for a human feel powerful. If O'Reilly went into therapy and faced himself he would find a powerless, frightened, incompetent little boy.

As a 57 year old white woman, I've been intimidated by white men like O'Reilly all my life. While he wouldn't lynch me, his type hasn't hesitated to wield their power and put me in my place in other ways. I've come very close to endangerment for standing up to the good old boys.

So, Star Jones, if O'Reilly does go after Michelle Obama, or any other woman - black OR white - you can count me in. He comes after ALL of us.

[realpolitic]

Well said!! Like any bully, O'Reilly is a frightened little boy at heart intimidated by a changing world that he has no control over.

He does not want to lose his status position of authority as a white male and fights to block changes in society.

[DoninJoisey]

Where did you get "man with a microphone and the trust of the public"
Trust of the public? He only appeals to republican nut jobs - the KKK party.
Why is the South all republican? Because the democrats brought about civil rights.
O'Liely, Rove, Limaugh, Coulter, .. should all go back under the rocks they came from.

[skycontrol]

Hey out there!

Let's say a middle-aged man dropped his suitcase while running across an intersection. And out popped sex magazines and paraphernalia of every description.

How many Americans would be shocked to discover that the man was Bill Clinton?

I am tired of the tawdry, the soap opera and the personal issues that are part of the Hillary and "Bill in a China Shop" show.

Remember when certain sexual acts were not acceptable subjects when talking to strangers?

Remember when alone actually meant alone?

The trashing of the English language, the increasing coarseness of public discourse are all part of the Billary legacy.

When I see Barack and Michelle together, the love and respect is palpable.

When I see Hillary and "Bill in the China Shop" together I really do not know what I am seeing - what is palpable is the feeling of revulsion.

Please God or whoever is out there, deliver us from the Clintons, once and for all!

[paulcrawford]

If there's one person I dislike more than Bill O'Reilly, it's Star Jones.

[makatak]

Chris Matthews has a daily segment on his show, Hardball, in which he gives the big number of the day. So many times in the last year have we heard someone say the bigoted words that are hidden in their hearts. How many times have we then heard them say "I apologize to anyone who might have been offended?"
First they never actually apologized for the specific misdeed. Second, as in the case of the use of the word "lynch", everyone should be offended not just "anyone who might be."
Bill O'Reilly is not apologetic by any means. He's actually been defiant suggesting that he was defending Mrs. Obama. How can he be sorry when there has been no reprimand, when there has been no punitive action suggested or considered? The non-apology is substantiated by virtue of the fact that his management defended his comments. Since when has a "lynch mob or lynch party" ever been a means of protection or defense for a black man or woman?
Equally important to this conversation is the question, who among "U.S.", American to American , can determine the patriotism of another. Is there a patriot meter, X-ray, or blood test that determines patriotism? Mrs. Obama’s actual statement included the word "really" which says first, she is proud of the country; second, she is heartily connected to the shared pride of the country; and third, she is excited that so many of “U.S.” are choosing to proudly participate in one of the fundamental elements of the country … the privileged right to VOTE!
As for the big number (we’ll just consider the last 45 days) … at least six (Chris Matthews himself has had to self-correct twice, David Shuster has just returned to public airwaves following a two-week suspension). Three of these politically correct apologies have been for the use of the word lynch - Kelly Tilghman (“lynch him [Tiger Woods] in a back alley.”), George W. Bush ("The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history... and lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest."), and now, Bill O’Reilly (And 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.").

[nhcracker]

I'm a white woman who grew up outside of NYC, and I conjure the same images as black, southern Jones' "a group of white men who are angry with the state of their own lives..."
For at least the past 58 years (my age), we have known that lynching is inexcuseable.
Unless WE do something about it, why would it end?
Rev Jackson is right in asking why the FCC has noy yet stepped in.