Allegations Against Bill O’Reilly Piled Up for Years Before His Demise

As the saying goes, better late than never.  That phrase certainly sums up yesterday's decision by Fox News to fire Bill O'Reilly who has sexually harassed women for years.  It should be lost on no one that just recently Donald Trump, a/k/a Der  Trumpenführer,  another perennial sexual predator, lauded O'Reilly.  Many on the far right and Fox News devotees will likely take the stance that O'Reilly's demise was the result of some sort of liberal conspiracy.  The fact that there is a long list of foul deeds by O'Reilly simply doesn't matter to these people, especially since O'Reilly regularly played to their prejudices and bigotry.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at some of the disgusting behavior of O'Reilly.  It does not make for polite reading and is certainly not what you would want your children to read much less experience.  Here are some article highlights (read the entire piece to understand the depth of O'Reilly's nastiness):

The reign of the most-watched host on the right-wing cable news network is coming to an end after two full decades, brought down by a perfect storm of newly unearthed sexual-harassment accusations, a massive advertiser boycott, and the absence of Roger Ailes, a fellow serial harasser of women, to protect him.

21st Century Fox confirmed the end of O’Reilly’s tenure in a Wednesday statement: “After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel.”

Even though this latest spate of accusations were what led to his on-air demise, O’Reilly has had a long, troubling history with women in both the workplace and at home.

In October 2004, the O’Reilly Factor star was hit with possibly the greatest lawsuit in the history of cable news: then-associate producer Andrea Mackris accused O’Reilly of sexual harassment, quoting the famed gasbag verbatim from phone calls she surreptitiously recorded.

According to the suit, the at-times “tyrannical and menacing” O’Reilly would masturbate while on the phone with Mackris, at other points suggesting she purchase a vibrator; engage in phone sex or a threesome with him; and listen to lurid details of his alleged sexual encounters with a cabana masseuse, airline stewardesses, and Thai sex-show workers.

Perhaps most famously, O’Reilly fantasized to Mackris how he’d like to shower with her and fondle her with a loofah, which he mistakenly called a “falafel thing” later in the call, according to a transcript.

Mackris also alleged that the then-married O’Reilly threatened to make any woman who complains about his behavior “pay so dearly that she’ll wish she’d never been born.” Two weeks later, he settled the case with a payout around $9 million.

Two years earlier O’Reilly settled with a junior producer named Rachel Witlieb Bernstein, according to the New York Times. Bernstein accused him not of sexual harassment but of belligerent, bullying behavior, including storming into the newsroom to scream at her.

At home, O’Reilly’s temper was no less a problem.

According to court documents from his vicious custody battle with ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy, O’Reilly may have engaged in domestic violence. As Gawker reported at the time, the ex-couple’s teenage daughter told a court-appointed forensic examiner that she witnessed O’Reilly “choking her mom” as he “‘dragged her down some stairs’ by the neck.”

Meanwhile, the sexual-harassment allegations from co-workers continued to pour in. As the Times unearthed last month, former Fox Business Network anchor Rebecca Gomez Diamond had also secretly recorded phone calls in which O’Reilly made unwanted advances on her.

O’Reilly has vociferously denied all of the accusations made against him, with his lawyer often issuing overwrought statements about how the volcanic host “has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America.”

But with Ailes gone and the younger sons of News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch asserting greater control of the company, O’Reilly has no one left to protect him.

Bill-O can rest easy, however, knowing he has one defender: President Donald Trump, who said, “I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.”

Good riddance to one foul individual.  Now we need to be rid of his cheerleader in the White House.

Bill O’Reilly’s War Lies Exposed - When Will Fox Suspend Him?

With NBC News' Brian Williams on a 6 month suspension, the hypocrisy one hears from other so-called journalists is stunning.  Moreover, if Williams' suspension is justified - I personally don't believe it is - then that same standard needs to be applied across the broadcast spectrum.  If that occurred, of course, every anchor and reporter at Fox News would need to be suspended immediately given the way in which they lie with abandon and rewrite facts and events.  One of the top blowhards at Fox is Bill O'Reilly.  As Salon reports based on an investigation done by Mother Jones, O'Reilly has lied about his war correspondence experiences for years.  Here are excerpts:

NBC News anchor Brian Williams is no longer the only prominent anchor who faces serious credibility questions for misleading the public about his experiences in war zones. In an extensive new investigation, Mother Jones’ David Corn and Daniel Schulman detail how for decades, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly has told gripping accounts of his own war reporting that don’t mesh with the facts.

O’Reilly’s tall tales concern his experiences as a CBS News reporter covering the 1982 Falklands War between Great Britain and Argentina, as well as his dispatches from El Salvador’s civil war. The conservative commentator has cited his supposed wartime experiences numerous times as evidence of his journalistic gravitas, as Corn and Schulman document.

O’Reilly also related a tale of his harrowing Argentine experience following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, saying on air:

I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I’m looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important.

But Corn and Schulman find crucial inconsistencies between O’Reilly’s stories and the factual record.

[H]his own account of his time in Argentina in his 2001 book, The No Spin Zone, contains no references to O’Reilly experiencing or covering any combat during the Falklands war. . . . .

There is nothing in this memoir indicating that O’Reilly witnessed the fighting between British and Argentine military forces—or that he got anywhere close to the Falkland Islands, which are 300 miles off Argentina’s shore and about 1,200 miles south of Buenos Aires.  

Given the remote location of the war zone—which included the British territory of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, more than 1,400 miles offshore—few reporters were able to witness and report on the combat that claimed the lives of about 900 Argentine and British troops. The government in London only allowed about 30 British journalists to accompany its military forces. 

American reporters were not on the ground in this distant war zone. “Nobody got to the war zone during the Falklands war,” Susan Zirinsky, a longtime CBS News producer who helped manage the network’s coverage of the war from Buenos Aires, tells Mother Jones. She does not remember what O’Reilly did during his time in Argentina. But she notes that the military junta kept US reporters from reaching the islands: “You weren’t allowed on by the Argentinians. No CBS person got there.”

Longtime CBS correspondent Bob Schieffer corroborates those accounts, telling Mother Jones, ”Nobody from CBS got to the Falklands. I came close. We’d been trying to get somebody down there. It was impossible.”

There's more that is worth a read.  Not surprisingly, O'Reilly has condemned NBC's suspension of Williams.   That said, for all those lauding Williams' suspension, they need to be demanding O'Reilly's suspension - and the suspension of every other journalist who has embellished their experiences as Williams is said to have done.  If that were to happen, I suspect that there would be few anchors left, particularly at Fox News.

It’s Conservatives Who Want Christ Out of Christmas

Every year we hear the far right whining about the supposed "War on Christmas" as Christofascists seek to obliterate any respect or consideration of the millions of non-Christian Americans.  It is, as always the case with Christofascists, all about them and to Hell with everyone else.  Besides this selfish nastiness, these same "godly folk" push a political agenda that is the antithesis of the Gospel message that is best known for hate, intolerance and a desire to cast the poor and unfortunate onto the trash heap.  A column in The Daily Beast makes the case that it is the Christofascists who are really waging the war on Christmas.  Here are excerpts:

The War on Christmas is on! This epic battle pits the forces on the right who demand that we say “Merry Christmas” to everyone regardless of their faith—or lack thereof—against those who prefer to say “Happy Holidays.”

How fierce has this so-called “war” become? Well, Sarah Palin is travelling across the country alerting people that “angry atheists” want to “abort Christ from Christmas.” Palin is like a modern day Paul Revere—you know, the guy Palin told us warned the British in 1775 that the British were about to attack the colonists.

Bill O’Reilly, the “Father Christmas” of the War on Christmas, recently clamored that there are dastardly people who want to, “banish any mention of Jesus in the public square.”

But here’s the glaring hypocrisy of the right: they want to keep “Christ in Christmas,” but they don’t want to keep Christ’s teachings in the policies they advocate. It’s as if there are two Jesus Christs.  There’s the one in the Bible who advocates helping people in need, especially the poor. And then there’s the Jesus that conservatives worship, whose philosophy is to callously slash programs that help the less fortunate, from food stamps to health insurance to unemployment benefits.

I’m not a religious scholar, but it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in religious studies to comprehend the basic teachings of Jesus. The New Testament is filled with passages where Jesus implores his followers to care for the poor.
[T]he same people who demand that we keep Christ in Christmas also support cutting programs advance Jesus’s philosophy. We saw that in September when House Republicans voted to slash $40 billion from the food stamps program. If this had become law, it would’ve result in nearly four million Americans being deprived of these desperately needed benefits. So much for the, “I was hungry and you gave me food.”

Despite Jesus words, “I was sick and you took care of me,” conservatives have waged a war to destroy Obamacare which would provide health insurance to millions of Americans who can’t afford coverage. In fact, 20 States with Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures have refused to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, making it more challenging if not impossible for the impoverished residents of these States to afford health insurance coverage.

And what would Jesus do about the 1.3 million Americans whose unemployment benefits will end just a few days after Christmas? Well, conservatives apparently believe Jesus would say “no” to any extension. Indeed, Rep. Kevin Cramer recently cited this passage from the Bible as a reason to slash benefits for the poor: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”

And not only is supporting these social programs consistent with Jesus’ philosophy, they are good public policy.

We rarely hear about the poor in our nation unless they are being demonized by the right as “lazy” or abusing the system. America’s needy are invisible to most of us- including the 16 million children in this country who live in poverty.

Yet the focus of the right’s outrage is when a public school chooses to sing non-religious Christmas songs and opts for more secular ones. Or when a huge nativity scene can’t be constructed on government property. Why isn’t their outrage directed at those who support policies that cause suffering to our most needy fellow Americans? These are the actions that truly contradict Jesus’s teachings.

Those leading the fight to keep Christ in Christmas need to answer this simple question. What do you think Jesus would care about more: feeding the hungry and caring for the sick or requiring that all Americans say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays”? The answer is clear to anyone who has ever read the Bible.

Well said.  The hypocrisy of the godly folk is truly mind numbing and I suspect Christ - if he existed - would be horrified by what is done by his most vocal supposed followers.  The Pharisees were wonderful people compared to today's "godly Christians."

Bill O'Reilly: Telling a Gay Person They're Going to Hell Should Be Illegal

I generally view Billy O'Reilly to be a crazy, mean spirited windbag.  But every now and then he will say something that is dead on target correct.  Such as his statement that telling a gay person "you're going to Hell" should be illegal.   One can just imagine the swoons and flying spittle amongst the Christofascist set at O'Reilly apostasy.   Nothing gives these modern day Pharisees more joy than telling us gays that we are going to Hell, although I suspect that, if there is a Hell, it is mostly peopled by truly horrible people - e.g., Hitler and Stalin - and the modern day Pharisee crowd and conservative religious leaders such as John Paul II.  Towleroad looks at O'Reilly's statement:

[O]n his show last night, the Fox News host expressed a belief that telling a gay person "you're going to Hell" should be illegal--at least, in some instances.

O'Reilly's guest last night was John Stossel--who hosts a weekly show on Fox Business--and the comment came amidst a discussion of American evangelist Tony Miano, who was arrested in London last week after preaching against homosexuality in front of a shopping center in Wimbledon.  According to the Telegraph, Miano was arrested "under the controversial clause of the Public Order Act which bans 'insulting' words or behaviour."

"I think that should be against the law," O'Reilly said of any hypothetical anti-gay preacher who "went up to a homosexual, got in his face and said, 'you're going to hell, you're going to hell.' He’s invading the person’s space. He’s bringing intentional, personal anguish to the person. I think that person should be protected.”

Stossel expressed some agreement with O'Reilly but said that the standard should be based on "fighting words" that were meant to incite violence.

As I said, the Christofascists - think Tony Perkins, Maggie Gallagher, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, et al -  must be livid with O'Reilly since they believe that they can do whatever they want to whoever they want as long as they hide behind the smoke screen of professed "deeply held religious belief."  Here's the video:

Tony Perkins Gets Beat Up Over His Defense Of DOMA

It goes without saying that the Christofascist circles are big time unhappy with the way in which the oral arguments in United States v. Windsor seem to have played out.  Ultimately, the arguments of the supporters of DOMA come down to religious belief and nothing else - a fact that Bill O'Reilly in a moment of candor noted (see the image below).  Indeed, Justice Kagan read from a portion of the Congressional Record covering DOMA's enactment where it flat out stated that the objective was to codify moral disapproval of homosexuals.  Despite this literal, documented historic reality, the Christofascists try to fall back to whining that "children deserve a mother and father" while totally ignoring the millions of children already living in homes headed by same sex couples.  In truth, folks like Tony Perkins don't give a flying f*ck about the children of gays.  A piece at Mediate looks at the beat down Tony Perkins received on MSNBC.  Here are highlights:

NBC News reporter Luke Russert engaged in a thorough grilling of Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Wednesday over his defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. On several occasions, Russert put Perkin’s on the defense and challenged the assertions he made to justify DOMA’s constitutionality. The interview became heated and somewhat hostile when Perkins asked how, if love is the only boundary for marriage, America would be able to prohibit polygamy.

He [Perkins] then claimed that studies show that children fare better when they are raised in a two-parent household with parents of the opposite gender. Russert challenged that assertion:

“There are studies also, especially from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which say that a two-person home, even if it is a same-sex couple, is beneficial for children,” Russert contended. 

Crosstalk ensued as Perkins attempted to refute Russet’s contention. He said that the study Russert cited ignores other research into that topic. Russert fired back that the study Perkins’ cites was dismissed because of the wording of some questions and its having been funded by conservative backers.

“What do you fear the most about a couple being together – a same-sex couple being together over 60 years like we saw in the Windsor case – what do you fear so much about them getting the same federal benefits for their marriage as an opposite-sex couple would?” Russert asked.

“I don’t fear anything,” Perkins replied. “Then why do you oppose,” Russert interjected.

It is refreshing to for a change an anchor challenging Perkins' hate, bigotry and fraudulent claims.  We need to see much more of it - enough where Perkins won't even show his racist, homophobic face on television at all.  Here's the image of O'Reilly summing up the argument of Perkins and those like him:

The Conservative Double Standard on Christian Terrorism

The far right continues to endeavor to depict Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik as "not Christian" even though his "manifesto" and his Templar identity indicate that he viewed himself as defending western Christendom from the Muslim infidel and a multiculturalism that was welcoming to non-whites and non-Christians. It's sadly typical of the far right and the Christianist among them for whom hate and hypocrisy are their principal attributes. When not asking for money to oppose some threat to "religious freedom," they are incessantly pontificating against gays, Muslims, immigrants and other "sinners" in general.
*
These efforts to depict Breivik as "not Christian" also utterly ignore the Old Testament of the Bible where the pillaging and slaughter of those not conforming to the laws of a vengeful God and/or the Jewish religion is writ large. In these recurrent images of violence and destruction, neither women nor children are spared. Breivik's actions were certainly consistent with this violent message. And Breivik certainly displayed the hate, intolerance and bigotry which seem to be the hallmarks of today's conservative Christianity. Amy Sullivan has a piece in Time that looks at this double standard of those trying to disassociate Breivik from Christianity as preached by so many in the professional Christian set who seem to adhere only a violent Old Testament version of Christianity. Here are highlights:
*
Ever since the murderous rampage in Norway last week, Bill O’Reilly and other American conservatives have sought to insist that the alleged Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik is not a Christian. . . . . The belief underlying these denials of Breivik’s professed Christian identity is that news outlets would only label a terrorist “Christian” in order to discredit Christianity.
*
But the Christian designation itself was informed by Breivik’s own voluminous writings, which show a man animated by a very twisted version of Christian thought and history. . . . In fact, the clash-of-civilizations nature of Breivik’s manifesto is not so different from the warped interpretation of Islamic thought and history that motivates some Muslim terrorists.
*
[Bill] O’Reilly remains unchastened by the fact that he routinely rebukes Muslims for distancing their faith from terrorists in the way that he has sought to distance Christianity from Breivik this week. He and other conservatives have focused on their doubts about whether Breivik “practices” Christianity as reason to refrain from labeling him Christian.
*
O’Reilly and others do damage to Christianity by implying that it’s so fragile as to be threatened when one member does something truly vile. As heinous as Breivik’s alleged acts of terror were, Christianity has withstood worse. Islam has withstood the past ten years of turmoil within and criticism without. The best defense against terrorists like Breivik is to show how his interpretation of Christianity is wrong, not to deny that he could have come out of the tradition.

Bill O'Reilly to "Pro-Marriage" Crowd: You've Lost

Although I cannot stand the man and find him to usually be an pompous, arrogant buffoon, it is nonetheless interesting that Bill O'Reilly has a message for Maggie Gallagher and similar homo-haters: they've lost the "war for marriage." While I disagree with his reasoning in significant part, it is noteworthy that a prominent member of the Faux News corps has conceded this defeat. Here are some highlights from O'Reilly's op-ed piece in the Boston Herald:

*

Here’s the thing about homosexual marriage in the United States: It is going to be legal in about half the states. There is no stopping the gay nuptials now, even though most Americans say they are opposed to extending marital law to same-sex couples.

*
Right now, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and Maine allow gays to marry. New Hampshire seems likely to join them soon. Once the legislatures of New York and New Jersey get finished taxing the life out of their citizens, they, too, will most likely pass gay marriage. And even though the folks in California voted down gay nuptials, the Supreme Court there is desperately trying to find a way to nullify the vote.

*

Your humble correspondent doesn’t really care much about gay marriage because I believe it is no danger to the republic and the deity can sort all this stuff out after we’re dead. I take a libertarian position on issues such as gay marriage because I want all Americans to be able to pursue happiness equally.

*

The truth is that pro-gay marriage forces have succeeded in their bigot-branding campaign . . . . So the gay marriage debate is just about over. Conservative states won’t pass it, but liberal states will. There was a time when we truly were united states. No longer.

*

No doubt Ms. Gallagher and other professional Christians will beat the gay marriage horse for as long as possible since once they lose that cash cow they may - God forbid - have to seek out real jobs.

Far Right Extremist Rants do Breed Violence

Back in July, 2008, I commented on the shootings at the at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. The shooter was one Jim D. Adkisson who read far right rant literature such as: "The O'Reilly Factor," by television commentator Bill O'Reilly; "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," by radio personality Michael Savage; and "Let Freedom Ring," by political pundit Sean Hannity. Adkisson pleaded guilty to murdering two church members on Thursday and received a sentence of life without parole. What is particularly chilling, however, is the fact that Adkisson shows no remorse and released a four page manifesto (it can be found here) urging other right wing extremists to engage in violence.

*

I am all for free speech, but at some point the constant message of hate generated by far right commentators and the Christianists becomes an incitement to violence and individuals like Adkisson are induced to embrace that message and engage in violence. The almost weekly stories of violence against gays are a direct product of constant stream of denigration and scapegoating that is put out by those proclaiming that "the gay agenda" and similar rot is "threatening the family" and similar untruths. At some point those like Ann Coulter, O'Reilly, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et. al, need to be held accountable for the trash they put out. Here are highlights from the Knoxville News:

*

“The future looks bleak,” the ex-soldier lamented. “I’m absolutely fed up! So I thought I’d do something good for this country — kill Democrats ‘til (sic) the cops kill me.” With what he believed to be his last pen strokes, Jim David Adkisson urged other suicidal soldiers against the “liberalism that’s destroying America” to leave their own trail of carnage behind. “I’d like to encourage other like-minded people to do what I’ve done,” Adkisson wrote. “If life ain’t worth living anymore, don’t just kill yourself. Do something for your country before you go. Go kill liberals.”

*

He will spend the rest of his life behind bars for killing Greg McKendry, 60, and Linda Lee Kraeger, 61, after opening fire with a sawed-off shotgun inside the church where more than 200 people were gathered to watch a children’s musical. He admitted wounding six others.

*

After lamenting the ills of liberalism and Democrats, Adkisson explains why he specifically targeted TVUUC, which he once attended with his now-ex-wife. “Don’t let the word church mislead you,” he wrote. “This isn’t a church, it’s a cult. They don’t even believe in God. They worship the God of secularism. … The UU church is the fountainhead, the veritable wellspring of anti-American organizations.”

*

In his manifesto, Adkisson deemed his rampage part “political protest” and part “symbolic killing.” “This was a hate crime,” he wrote. “Liberals are a pest like termites, millions of them … the only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is kill them in the streets, kill them where they gather.”

*

No doubt Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson and Don Wildmon are proud of the results of their handiwork.

Nuns In Drag Leave Egg On Archbishop's Face

Somehow I suspect that the Nazi Pope will not be happy about the Archbishop of San Francisco giving communion to members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Personally, as a former Roman Catholic driven from the Church by its anti-gay hate campaign, I find the situation rather humorous. One can be gay, in drag, and still be honest in their faith. Compare these sisters to the Cardinals and Bishops (and Popes) who covered up the sexual abuse of thousands of children. Unlike the Church hierarchy, the good sisters do not take themselves too seriously or think they have an exclusive line of communication to God. Here are highlights from 365gay.com:

(San Francisco, California) With their outlandish nuns' habits, gaudy makeup, and irreverent showmanship the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are a San Francisco institution. They've raised tens of thousands of dollars for LGBT and AIDS charities in the Bay Area all the while poking a finger in the eye of the establishment - especially the Catholic Church and its position on homosexuality.

To the Archbishop of San Francisco the sisters became a personal embarrassment when the "nuns" showed up this month for Sunday mass at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in the Castro district. As Archbishop George H. Niederauer was celebrating mass the sisters lined up for communion. And received the Eucharist wafer from Niederauer. The event might have gone unnoticed had it not been videotaped. And if the tape hadn't made its way to conservative Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. O'Reilly called the stunt an "unbelievable outrage". Hundreds of angry letters and e-mails poured into the Archdiocese offices and Niederauer was forced into "damage control".

Neiderauer: "I noticed no protest, no demonstration, no disruption of the Sunday Eucharist. The congregation was devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. Toward the end of the Communion line two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. I did not see any mock religious garb. As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland," the 71 year old archbishop said.

Personally, I think Bill O'Reilly is an unbelievable outrage.

Lesbian Gangs Gone Wild

Here's an insane story mentioned by QueerSighted (http://www.queersighted.com/2007/07/05/oreillys-lesbian-gangs-part-ii/) and being put out by Bill O'Reillyand the unhinged Christian news services:

LifeSiteNews, North America's largest online Christian fundamentalist news service has taken Bill O'Reilly's insane Lesbian Terrorist Gang story to the next level and then some (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07070303.html). On July 3, these charming folks pushed out a press release with the equally charming headline:

"Lesbian Gangs Raping Young Girls, Some Attacked in School Washrooms". The press release also highlights the "fact" that these gangs are recruiting children as "young as 10-years-old" to the homosexual lifestyle. I can't recall "racist" propoganda this outrageous since the Nazis sold Germans on the notion that Jews were kidnapping Christian babies and drinking their blood during the Passover service.

Lucky for us, this means that the original O'Reilly story now has very long legs and will be delivered via Christian fundamentalist media outlets, electronic and print, to millions of our friends and families. For example, LifeSiteNews feeds its propoganda to over 16 million Southern Baptists via newsletters, newspapers, radio shows and cable TV. Lesbian terror gang discussions will soon be coming to a dinner table, family reunion or church pulpit near you.

Accoding to the reporter, John-Henry Westen: "Last week, the Fox News' O'Reilly Factor exposed the increasing trend of lesbian gang violence terrorizing neighbourhoods and schools, especially in large cities across the United States. According to FOX News crime analyst Rod Wheeler there are some 150 such gangs in the DC area alone, including Washington, Maryland, and Virginia.

I guess the moral is that no lie is too outrageous for our enemies to disseminate while showing their "Christian" love for others.