Most of you have heard the "shocking and appalling" (sarcastic tone) story about the mother of a 7 year old boy in Virginia allowing her son to dress up as a Klansman for Halloween. Any time someone dares to play with politically-incorrect fire both the mainstream and the "alternative" news outlets race to see who can give their two mites in tribute to the temple of Political Correctness the fastest.
The New Jersey parents that named their children Nazi names like Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation are infamous now simply because they chose to name their kids according to their beliefs. Years back when that story was fresh and all of the news commentators and talk shows were talking about it I called into a national talk radio to defend the right of those parents to name their children as they wished and to teach them their beliefs. That New York host, (and part LIthuanian Jew) Mike Gallagher clearly expressed disdain for my support of the family and sympathy with the parents beliefs. His fan club callers that called in after me turned the focus of their hateful intolerance from the parents and directed it towards me calling me an "animal" and referring to me as "that thing". I said absolutely nothing even remotely close to deserving of their venomous verbal attacks. I simply said that I did not see the problem with the children's names, or the wrong in the parents having Racial beliefs, or having swastikas decorating their home (I had, and still do, have swastikas as decoration in mine.
The issuing, or bestowing, of a name is a deeply personal and intimate act that parents do for their children. We all can have our opinions but in the end our opinions should not be Legal Policy enFORCEd by a State. Regularly Muslim parents name their kids Muhammad and Christian parents choose Bible names for theirs. A Negro mother in Tennessee named her kid "Messiah" -which I find mildly offensive as a Christian, but I don't want a State Court judge telling anyone what they can or can't name their offspring.
In the Tennessee case (it actually became a Legal issue, which is bizarre to me) one judge decided that being as "Messiah" (which is the Hebrew version of the Greek "Christ") is a title and that only one person has ever deserve it ruled that she must change the name. Another judge later overturned the asinine ruling. You see, I being a Christian, believe the opinion of the first judge is 100% correct and actually a fact. Yet that judge is not some "messiah" himself, and therefor who is he to tell a parent what they can't name their baby. She used a Hebrew word/term/title for a name, so what? Hispanic (Mexicans mostly) are well known for naming their kids "Jesús" [pronounced: hay-soos]. Of course it can be argued that "Jesus" (no matter what language it is spelled and spoken in) is not a title, but an actual name, which would be correct. Yet I can also point out that there is only ONE true "judge". Behold James 4:12...
"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?"
But does the above Bible verse keep that (first) Tennessee judge from allowing people to call him "judge" and "your honor"? Of course not. Does that same judge also seek to keep others from using other Biblical titles?
Titles the Bible clearly says are not be applied to mortal men such as "Father", "Master", "Teacher" and even "Reverend" ....I bet no "judge" of state would enforce THAT Biblical precept concerning titles.
Those of you reading this are familiar with the fact that I am a Christian AND an Anarchist, AND, a Racist. And you also know that I have absolutely NO desire to make people believe as I do, live as I do, of even to agree with me. I believe in the true power of influence, example and culture, not in Policies made up by a cabal of men within a corporate body called a "Government". I am not a control freak in-other-words. I don't want a Statist System making people live, or believe, or do -God gives us Freedom to choose what we will do, we must base our choices on what our conscience tells us and our own judgment leads us to decide.
I know of a mother years ago that gave her two children the names of Gizzmo and Dayday. I have met women named Cinnamon, Summer, Raine, April and no, none of them were hookers or strippers. Parents name their babies all kinds of names you, or I , or someone else may find, strange, odd, or even offensive, but so what? Parents also teach their children all kinds of things other people find offensive, incorrect or even "abusive". I raised a boy (a step-son) from age 2 years old to adult. I not only taught him my beliefs I had him read a large chunk of the Bible, a chapter out of Mein Kampf, the fiction novel The Turner Diaries and many other assorted articles and writings. He grew up in a house with loaded guns always siting out, as well as knives and other sorts of weapons all over the home. He shot those firearms with me, and he and I trained in hand-to-hand combat regularly. I also put him through 3 years of Ju Jitsu. He was raised in a Survivalist ("Prepper") home as well. He also was raised hearing my anti-Government rants. I took him with me to see Heavy Metal bands play, he grew up going to Gun & Knife shows and the vendors watched him as grew from a elementary school age to a young adult. He sold racist and anti-Government merchandise with me at flea markets. He went to many Ku Klux Klan and other racist rallies with me. I let him say terms like "fuck" and "shit" and listen to Cannibal Corpse and other Death Metal bands that I personally am not a big fan of. He also went to work with me many a time during the Summer months and I let him hear adult conversations and humor and observe the behavior, good or bad, of other adults. He and I read the Bible together, trained in self-defense together, hung out with many politically-incorrect adults together, we talked about life, and we were always honest with each other.
My goal was to raise him to be tough, rugged and self-reliant, but not to be some uncivilized, unthinking, uncaring, selfish, self-centered brute beast as many his of generation seem to of become. I always told him to be humble and meek towards his Maker & God, but to take no shit off of any one in this society. I tried to be a good parent, father figure, to him the best I knew how. I wanted him to learn and appreciate discipline, but I also told him to never fear questioning people and their claims, even me, and to think for himself. I also encouraged him regularly to explore his interests and to be his own person and not to suppress his own creativity or own thoughts about things.
Parents have to balance their natural desire to share and pass on their beliefs, values, traditions and the such with the appreciation of the fact that a child is a separate person who has to grow into their beliefs and interests on their own. Parents must find that delicate balance between sharing and shoving their beliefs. Shove a belief down someone's throat and sooner or later they WILL choke on it and regurgitate it. Share a belief and if that person embraces it it will be truly their own belief and they will feel the belief and not just think it out of the affect of mental conditioning (brainwashing). He is an adult now, with a job, and has become a decent young man. He is tough, and can fight, yet not macho. He is kind and respectful, but not naive. He is simple, realistic, not self-righteous or materialistic. He told me when he became 18 that he wished I was his real dad. Those words still bring a swell of tears to my eyes. Tears, not of pride, but of pure humility.
...But, according to Bill O'Reilly I was guilty of "Child Abuse", because of some of the things I did in raising him.
Last night (Tuesday, November 5, 2013) on the The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly had, on his "Is It Legal" segment a 3 minute discussion with two former Prosecutors about the "Legality" of the mother in Virginia allowing her 7 year old to wear a Klan-like robe and hood as a Halloween costume.
The two female former prosecutors turned Fox News "Legal Analysts", who were obviously hired (like most of the female Fox News commentators and "contributors") for their eye candy value, exposed their air-headedness when they obediently agreed with the almighty O'Reilly when he labeled the boy's mother on national television an "idiot". The one Legal Analyst is Kimberly Guifoyle, the same Kimberly Guifoyle on the panel of the Fox news commentary show "The Five". Yep, the one that is always wearing a skirt and always strategically placed to sit where she is always showing her legs.
Kimberly is, no doubt a very beautiful woman, and I am sure she is a sweetheart of a person in real life. But, she is simply an erotic set-piece for Fox "News" and she, NO doubt, knows it. Her intellect is no greater, her insight no deeper, than anyone else. She just looks good, that's it.
The other "Legal Analyst" (what a joke of a title for anyone to have) is the also very pretty Lis Wiehl. She is not as "hot" as Kimberly maybe, but she is still a pretty White woman and fulfills the role of erotic prop for Fox just the same.
Together these two former Prosecutors cum-erotic-set-pieces, for Fox's mostly male (middle-aged, CON-servative) audience to mentally masturbate over, make up O'Reilly's team of so-called "Legal Experts", for his "Is It Legal?" segments.
Now, I am not sure if either, or both, of the two ladies are mothers, but the bullshit they pulled last night on O'Reilly's show demonstrates their lack of respect of other mothers who may have different beliefs and parenting styles than theirs.
Jessica Black (pictured above and below) is a mother who has a Right to share her beliefs with her child. But, once again, news commentators use their bully pulpits to attack parents publicly just so they can make money from their ignorant opinions about things they don't understand. If Weihl and Guifoyle are mothers then surly they would of felt some sort of mother solidarity with Black and not said the crap they did to O'Reilly last night.
I expect O'Reilly to be the dumbass he is, he is a jackass after all and you can't expect an ass to be a horse, it can only be a ass. Yet he is a father and it would seem he also would have some parental solidarity with the mother of the little boy. To attack some minor child's parents in the local or national media for how they parent opens you up to judgment yourself. And that is exactly what I am going to do to O'Reilly in this article. I am going to judge him with the same judgment he met Jessica Black with, so keep reading.
O'Reilly, the oh-so-holy-one, began his discussion of the boy wearing a Klan-like outfit for Halloween by saying he had a "terrible story" to share and how he was "sorry to have to bring it" to the viewers. First off it was a story, but it was not a "terrible" one O'Reilly, it was just a story. Second, you did not "have" to bring it to anyone,the snide creep. Talk about being full of your own self-importance. He then reminded his viewers that, oh my, there are, quote, "crazy parents" out in the world.
Now keep in mind this is the same O'Reilly that, back in 2009 I believe it was, interviewed a teenager and his mother because the high schooler wore a Nazi uniform costume for Halloween to class.
In that interview O'Reilly asks the teen if he was wearing the costume just to be "a provocateur, being somebody who comes in to get attention, some good some bad". This coming from a well paid professional entertainer mind you.
He went on to tell the teen about "sensitivity" and how he should be mindful not to offend Jews. The teen went to a (in O'Reilly's words) "very Jewish high school" called Leon Goldstein, in Brooklyn, New York. O'Reilly also spoke to the teen about how it is important not to offend "African Americans" and "Native Americans", you know the standard MultiCULT dribble based on the White Guilt doctrine.
There have been other kids that have worn Nazi uniforms for Halloween such as the 11 year old (pictured above) who lives near Birmingham, England did this year. Of course that incident didn't happen here in America and O'Reilly had a more local, and thus convenient, incident to pontificate over.
Speaking of pontificating I would like to point out that dear O'Reilly is a proud Catholic. Perhaps it would of been more appropriate to O'Reilly if kids dressed as Catholic priests for Halloween. Perhaps the costume shown below would be more to O'Reilly's liking, it certianly is very accurate after all. I mean child rapists and a large and very rich corporation that protects them is much more scary than Nazis and Klansmen, I would think.
Halloween, or "All Saints Day" as Catholics (like O'Reilly) know it, is in essence a Pagan holiday so I personally don't celebrate it. I haven't since I was a young teenager that is. When I became an adult I began to learn more about religions and their histories and began to make up my own mind about things, including the celebration of certain holidays. I don't judge those who do celebrate Halloween, that is a personal choice of conscience, I simply choose to not. I being a person who finds Halloween to be contrary to my own personal religious beliefs am perfectly willing to let people do what they will according to their own beliefs and convictions as long as it don't infringe on me or anyone else. O'Reilly on the other hand would like people arrested and punished for having beliefs contrary to his -or at least for daring to share those beliefs with their children. He is a Statist control freak after all.
I understand that the modern observance of Halloween is, to those who celebrate it, generally about costumes and candy with no direct religious connotations. That in spite of it's purely Heathen (Nature worship) origins Halloween today is simply a secular, and very commercialized (just like Christ-MASS and "Easter"/Ishtar) holiday. And even though the racial Jew and Satanist High Priest Anton Lavey said in his book "The Satanic Bible" that Halloween was a very important holiday to modern day "Satanists" most people who observe Halloween have no desire to directly worship Lucifer or partake in overt evil behavior.
Yet, I find it odd that a man (O'Reilly) who said the Holy Spirit led him to write a book about the life and death of Jesus Christ would not do a segment condemning parents who allow their children to dress up as offensive characters such as the Devil, as demons, as murderous villains, as vampires, and as witches. Oh, that's right, people that find that stuff offensive don't matter to O'Reilly.
After O'Reilly arrogantly warned his viewers what a "terrible story" he was having to bring them was going to be(as if stories he CHOOSES to "bring" up on HIS show are a service he gives to the people) a very short sound bite of the mother was played as an intro.
The boy's mother was shown saying the following:
"White with White, Black with Black, man with woman.
That is what the K K K stands for"
I, as a former active member of a Klan group totally konkur. The Ku Klux Klan was founded as a secret (underground) militia society which later became more of a patriot fraternal order. The Klan was originally purposed as a resistance network to protect the freedoms and cultures of local communities. Later it developed more into a fraternal society which then became more focused on Statist political agendas instead of local self-defense. But the original intent and spirit of the Ku Klux is still alive in men and women who only want to protect their local communities and have no desire to engage in political shenanigans. The Klan, contrary to the mass misconception is not about robes or lighting crosses, it is about having a clanish bound among local community members. And, also contrary to media propaganda, the Ku Klux was born out of a genuine love of one's own people, folk, and not focused on hatred of Negros or the oppressive Government. I don't expect non-members to understand, nor believe me, but I tell you, as a man who loves the ideals, purpose and original spirit of the Order of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, that it is about self-defense and self-preservation, and celebrating White Christian heritage and culture, not conquering and oppressing.
After the clip of the boy's mom was played O'Reilly arrogantly says "Ah, you're an idiot". WHAT, did she say (see quote above) that would make her an "idiot"??
Anyway, his two Fox foxes (erotica props, complete with tight titty tops) quickly agreed, in total obligatory submissive manner, with Master O'Reilly, that the boy's mom was an "idiot".
O'Reilly then said the most irresponsible thing of the whole segment:
"I think this might be a child abuse beef here"
One of the sets of tits said: "I agree with you that she's an idiot, but as far as the law goes it is not child abuse under Virginia law. " And then: "Her conduct [was not] abhorrent [but] nor criminal".
Well golly gee whiz counselor, thank ya for that bit of deep legal insight.
One of the Atits, I mean Attorneys, then clarified that the mom letting her child dress as a Klansman for Halloween did not exhibit "substantial risk" to the child "mentally or physically".
Ya think? And to think those 2 ladies get paid to say intelligent stuff like that.
The mother has told the media that the desire to dress up like a member of the KKK was purely the boy's and that he had gotten the idea after watching the movie Fried Green Tomatoes. O'Reilly didn't make it very clear as to whether he believed she was lying and the costume was all her idea, or that it was the boy's idea but that the mother should of prohibited it. I think it was the boy's idea as at 7 years old the imagination and creativity is already quite alive and active in most kids. I also think he got the idea not just from the movie but from his general home environment, and yes his mother, indirectly. Having raised a boy myself around Klan, and other White Power things, I know that kids find such things, innocently so, quite fascinating, interesting and fun. They aren't focused on "hating" non-Whites either. They simply love all of the symbols, attire, family functions and comradery that does exist within the American White Racist sub-culture. A sub-culture few outsiders (that's Non-Racists) understand or really experience. Like as happens with most sub-cultures (that's NON-mainstream conformist cultures) outsiders only see the negative the Main Stream Media makes a point of pointing out and sensationalizing. Why? Because the Main Stream Media is for the MAIN STREAM masses.
My ministry, and this website, is directed not just towards Whites but it is directed towards the outsiders of Main Stream conformism in general. I have always been a non-main stream person myself and I love the "rejects" of society. Those not rejected because they are bad people, but because they are simply different in their out look, and their outward looks. People that have their own ways of communication and expression. People that aren't "rebellious" just to be "rebels", but people who are often misunderstood to be malcontents simply because they aren't content with the System's status quo.
Bill O'Reilly can "spin" it all he wants but the "factor" of it is he is simply a drone of the Media Machine doing his well-paid part to make sure people toe the status quo. To make the point clear: Bill O'Reilly defends homosexuality, but 50+ years ago he would of been condemning it. Why? Because O'Reilly is a caricature of American society today.
You see I believe the populace dictates what the Media and Entertainment Industries put out; I do not believe the Media and Entertainment Industries tell the people what to believe, the people already believe it, those Industries simply re-enforce those generally accepted beliefs (mainstream beliefs). I believe the Media, and Entertainment, Industry is but a REFLECTION of what the general population believe, value and embrace.
It is said America gets the Government it deserves, and I agree. But, America also gets the News and Movies and Music it desires as well -it is true: "No market, no sale". We can blame the anti-Christian Jews for running the majority of the Porn Industry, but no one is making people buy pornography, yet it is a multi million dollar a year industry.
Bill O'Reilly is a reflection of a large percentage of Americans. He is an image on a t.v. screen projected via the collective matrix of the American mind. He and all of his fellow talking head colleagues are nothing but the mirrored reflections of the American people.
Oh sure, some put him in the "Right" of the Political Paradigm, mostly because he is on the Fox Network, but he is no different that the Left. Same goes for the so-called "Left" of the spectrum on the CNN Network, they are no different than their Right "counterparts". Whether they want to admit it or not the Left and Right are simply two opposite facing sides of a room with walls that close in pushing the occupants of the room into the middle -right where they are wanted. Wanted there by who? Why those who fund BOTH SIDES of the Political Statist Spectrum, that's who.
O'Reilly is simply a court jester, a Fool, a, as he would say, "idiot" or "pinhead". Nancy Grace, who I labeled "Two-Faced" in a previous article, is a female version of the O'Reilly. The two have faced off, as this video clip shows, but it was only to entertain the viewers. For it is the regular viewers of such media commentary shows that desire, crave, such drama. The Media, which is indeed nothing but a branch of the Entertainment Indu$try, is only giving the "news" and commentary shows that the people want.
O'Reilly continued his attack on the boys's mother, Jessica Black, by asking his two Lawyer ladies "So parents in the United States can dress their kids up as little Nazis, little K-K-K, uh little Mao?"
That's right ladies and gentleman, Bill O'Reilly wants there to be laws against mommies and daddies letting their kids dress up as Nazis or Klansmen.
He also asked his Fox foxes in reference to the boy's mom "You can impose the costume on the seven year old?" First notice his very clever use of the word "impose". I would say parents "impose" a lot of things on their children, such as bed time, or veggies on their dinner plates. Second, the mother clearly said it was the boy's idea originally and it was what he wanted to wear.
O'Reilly said of the previously (above) quoted words by Jessica Black:
"This woman is so blatant to go on television and spout this garbage. You gotta feel sorry for that kid"
No, who we really should feel sorry for is anyone that can't see through you, Bill O'Reilly, and your idiotic, pinhead hypocrisy. Now go say some Hail Mary's.