Culture Warrior

by Bill O'Reilly

  Looking to the outside world, my administration will continue to fight for open borders and unfettered free trade, because the entire world community should have access to the prosperity that, by chance, has thrived in America. We must be a generous people and commit to developing one world where decisions are made by nations working in harmony for the good of all. No longer can America expect to be the sole superpower on this earth. That is counterproductive and selfish. We are all of the human race, inhabiting one planet. We are all in this together, and exclusion can no longer be a policy for America.

  While it is true that armed conflicts continue to rage in Asia and the Middle East, my administration, in cooperation with the United Nations, continues to believe that justice and peace will be brought to mankind through the implementation of the one-world concept. I am convinced that the shifting of our foreign policy from unilateralism to a multinational strategy of “reasoned engagement” will result in more security for America and every other lawful nation.

  Spurred on by religious fanaticism, rogue countries and movements continue to attack innocent civilians here and all over the world through the use of cowardly terrorist actions. Our new plan of international cooperation will isolate these terrorists and bring the perpetrators of violence to justice in the World Court, located at The Hague. We may suffer casualties in the short term, but rest assured, we will win this struggle and see world peace in our lifetimes.

  The recent attacks on American soil are but a small price to pay for a vision that will lead to peace and harmony on this planet. All great things require suffering, but we will prevail. Our secular-progressive, one-world vision will triumph over the doubters and evildoers, of that I am sure.

  Finally, to those who disagree with the progressive vision that has taken root in America, I reach out and hope you will join us. There is no place in this country for greed, bias, judgmental behavior, aggression, religious zealotry, or exclusionary policies. We are all brothers and sisters on this planet, and we should act as such. For far too long, traditionalists, conservatives, and other misguided Americans have encouraged division by religious and economic philosophies that lead to exclusion and suffering and income inequality. Those antiprogressive forces are still among us, but they are rapidly losing influence to the enlightened followers of secular humanism.

  The new world order has indeed arrived, and I am proud to be the one to lead America into the promised land of collective prosperity and true freedom. Thank you, my fellow Americans, and may shared generosity bless America.

  Me? A cold warrior? Well, yes—if that is how they wish to interpret my defense of values.

  —MARGARET THATCHER

  President Hernandez is unquestionably a woman of deeply held convictions. That should be obvious to anyone reading her address to the nation. But, because she is committed to the secular-progressive agenda, she sees America in a far different way than the Founding Fathers saw it, although she would never admit that.

  The goals and philosophies that the President so enthusiastically stated are all in play right now in America, every one of them.

  Let’s recap:

  • A sharing of the wealth by targeting the affluent for most of the government’s revenue.

  • Lax school discipline on American children to promote their so-called liberties.

  • Naked hostility to religious values and their expression in public.

  • A “one-world” approach to foreign relations that would prevent the U.S. government from imposing a policy that would benefit America first.

  • A touchy-feely vision of our society that places individual self-expression and rights over self-sacrifice and adult responsibility.

  No politician today would dare state this secular-progressive program openly, because the country is not ready for this agenda. But believe me: The vision articulated by President Hernandez is on the drawing board. The armies of secularism are rising and the public is largely unaware of what is taking place.

  If you pay attention to the culture wars, it is clear who the shock troops are: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is the vanguard, waging a war of legal maneuvers designed to ensure secular policies without having to go to the ballot box. In the past ten years, thousands of ACLU lawsuits have blitzed the legal system, almost all of them designed to promote progressive causes and banish traditional ones.

  A few far-left billionaires finance the progressive shock troops—millions have poured into the ACLU war chest as well as into the pockets of Internet smear merchants who engage in character assassinations of perceived opponents.

  The online character assassins also make good use of the mainstream print media, which are about three-quarters progressive, by my estimation. The level of ideological commitment of the leftist media varies. Leading the way, you have the most enthusiastic secular-progressives, the New York Times and other committed left-wing papers, but you also have legions of quieter S-P sympathizers. These mainstream media enablers provide aid and comfort for the frontline troops and are invaluable in getting their message out to an even wider audience.

  Marching alongside the progressive print media are the Hollywood elite and a smattering of television people. They also help get the S-P message out and often marginalize the traditional opposition by mocking them or portraying them as wackos. Jon Stewart is a good example of someone who is not nutty left but who is clearly sympathetic to the S-P cause and who uses his nightly forum to promote it (admittedly, with a great sense of humor).

  While some Hollywood people like Barbra Streisand and George Clooney are truly progressive fanatics, most of the liberal media figures are not in that category. They are more interested in themselves, in their personal success, than in some political jihad. However, they do enable the secular-progressives by failing to challenge their radical agenda while marginalizing any meaningful opposition that tries to block the road.

  The ACLU, on the front lines, is extremely aggressive and well funded, as I have stated. That means they are serious people. On my programs, I have called this crew a “fascist organization” because they seek to impose their worldview on America—not by the popular vote, which is the way it is supposed to be done in a democracy, but by “gaming” the legal system. Because they know that they will never, ever achieve their goals on Election Day, their strategy is to rely on activist left-wing judges to bring about secular changes in our laws.

  The most notorious example of this strategy is the gay-marriage ruling in Massachusetts. The ACLU helpfully pointed out to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth that the state constitution had an apparent loophole: That is, the document failed to define marriage specifically as between one man and one woman. Presto! With the stroke of a pen, the liberal court wiped out more than three hundred years of legal traditional marriage going back to the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The ACLU was in ecstasy.

  To this culture warrior, gay marriage is not a vital issue. I don’t believe the republic will collapse if Larry marries Brendan. However, it is clear that most Americans want heterosexual marriage to maintain its special place in American society. And as long as gays are not penalized in the civil arena, I think the folks should make the call at the ballot box. Traditional marriage is widely seen as a societal stabilizer, and I believe that is true.

  But if you are trying to secularize American society, gay marriage is a good place to start—thus the ACLU’s fervor on this issue.

  By the way, it is worth noting that Massachusetts is home ground for the ACLU. It is in this state where that organization volunteered to represent the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) pro bono in a civil case after a particularly brutal and (you would think) indefensible crime in Cambridge. I’ll give you more details in the chapter on protecting children, but, briefly, a ten-year-old boy named Jeffrey Curley was raped and murdered by two men, who were caught and convicted. One of the killers had written in his diary that NAMBLA literature, which encourages adult rape of
children, gave him some incentive to assault the boy. The killer has said he gained access to the NAMBLA material at the Boston Public Library. It was easy enough. He simply went there and punched up NAMBLA’s Web site on a library computer.

  Outraged as well as brokenhearted, the Curley family sought to avenge their young son and prevent any further heinous crimes by filing a $200 million federal lawsuit against NAMBLA. That gave the ACLU another chance to do what it often does: defend and promote harmful conduct based on a theoretical argument that any kind of censorship is bad. Think about it. What if Jeffrey Curley had been your child? Can you imagine the suffering and horror this boy had to undergo? And here comes the ACLU, guns blazing, ready to defend free of charge an organization that promotes the rape of children.

  Too harsh? Not in my view. I have given you the no-spin truth. This is why I am fighting this culture war. This is why there is such conflict in America. Don’t forget Jeffrey Curley—he is one of the main reasons the secular-progressives must be defeated. I truly believe the ACLU and its supporters are extremely dangerous. If these people win the culture war, the United States as we have known it for 230 years will cease to exist. This is the crux of the culture war: saving traditional America from those who want to change the country drastically—not by popular vote, but by judicial fiat.

  I guess I have always been a traditionalist. As a history major at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York, I admired how the Founding Fathers crafted a Constitution that allowed individual achievement to be protected and rewarded. I saw the United States then, and now, as a generous, brave country that has liberated millions of human beings all over the world from tyranny. I admired the discipline and energy of a country that, in a relatively short period of time by historical standards, has become the strongest and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen.

  But it has not been all good. There is no question that slavery and the systematic annihilation of Native American tribes are troubling, and each demands clear-eyed, honest introspection from those who love America. There is no excuse for either. If John Quincy Adams, who defended the rebelling slaves in the famous Amistad case, knew enslaving human beings for profit was an abomination, then Thomas Jefferson and George Washington should have known. And I believe they did. But the Virginians put their own economic security and comfort above justice. Washington owned more than three hundred slaves and they helped make him rich. Jefferson was also a slave owner, despite denouncing the institution as “the most unremitting despotism.” Both Washington and Jefferson demonstrate the fallibility that every one of us carries.

  The failings of America’s great leaders mirror the failings of all human beings. All of us are sinners. But most sinners are also fundamentally good people, and so it is with America. It is a noble country, a place where 300 million citizens have more freedom than anywhere else in the world. Trust me. I’ve been to sixty countries; I know what I’m talking about.

  So I believe we must strive to improve America, but we must also keep faith with the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy and competitive capitalism that the country was founded on. That’s why I march under the banner of traditionalism. The brilliant men who forged the Constitution understood that Americans should have the opportunity to pursue happiness without government interference. They also believed for both moral and practical reasons that the greater good must always take precedence over individual selfishness.

  Pursuant to that end, the Founders acknowledged that religion and spirituality could be effective bulwarks against anarchy and crime, so they encouraged a society “under God.” But now all of that has been rejected by the secular-progressive movement, which holds that a widespread belief in a higher power is one of the causes of social injustice. In S-P land, “under God” is now “under legal review.”

  You would think the S-Ps would not have a prayer (sorry) of imposing their agenda on America. After all, the polls show that most Americans are traditionalists and the secular-progressives are heavily outnumbered. In fact, when polled, some 84 percent of Americans describe themselves as “Christians,” and whenever things like gay marriage are put on the ballot, those things are voted down in even the most “progressive” states, like California and Oregon.

  The frustration of the culture war is that the traditional army is largely on leave. Many Americans are disengaged from the conflict; in fact, they don’t even know it’s under way. Go to any shopping mall and ask people what they think of the secular-progressive movement and its impact on their lives. You’ll likely get a blank stare followed by the inevitable “What?” But ask about the latest American Idol sensation and you’ll have a detailed, open-ended conversation.

  Now, I’m not being an arrogant wise guy here, because this is too important. Escapist entertainment has its place in a healthy life, but unless traditional Americans wake up and pay attention to important things like the culture war, they are going to arise some morning and find their old country has vanished—replaced by the politically correct utopia President Hernandez so kindly laid out for us in her stirring State of the Union speech.

  And while the folks are otherwise occupied, one powerful and battle-ready brigade is very aware and actively engaged on the S-P side. That would be the aforementioned secular media—broadcast and print. The “image” aspect of the culture war is being furiously waged there. Unaware Americans are in real danger of believing all that they read and watch, and that would be disastrous.

  Based on my thirty years of dealings with the national media, I believe the large majority of journalists sympathize with the S-Ps. Let me cite an example. That shrill, pitiful, and hateful far-left radio network Air America was welcomed at its debut with huge media attention—more than twenty positive articles in the New York Times alone. Of course, most of the press was deliriously supportive of AA. And it remained so even after Air America collapsed in the ratings and was involved in a dubious loan situation involving a children’s charity in New York City.

  It is fair to say that the print press desperately wanted Air America to succeed. Meanwhile, conservative talk radio is a huge success just about everywhere in the United States. How many newspaper articles have you seen about that? Chances are, none lately.

  There is no question that the vast preponderance of America’s newspapers have a liberal editorial philosophy. Papers like the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Miami Herald, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Kansas City Star, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, the Denver Post, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Oregonian, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, the Los Angeles Times, and on and on and on. In fact, the only national paper with a conservative editorial page is the Wall Street Journal. Locally, liberal papers outnumber conservative sheets about ten to one.

  Some newspapers, like the St. Petersburg Times, no longer even try to hide their secular slant. Factor viewers may remember how angry I was when Florida prosecutor Brad King refused to charge three individuals who helped the killer of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford evade capture. King’s action was as disgraceful a law-enforcement decision as I have ever seen. Little Jessica was brutally murdered by John Couey, who initially confessed to holding her captive for days in a small mobile home just yards from Jessica’s house before suffocating the girl. Subsequently, Couey wrote me a letter stating that the others did help him evade police and, according to Couey, one of his “roommates” even knew Jessica was being held captive. But Brad King let the three go.

  After I reported that terrible story and slammed King, the St. Petersburg Times attacked me personally. It is my opinion that the paper was totally in the tank for King, and its far-left editorial posture bled over onto its news pages. How dare O’Reilly make judgments about this case? He’s just a conservative windbag. Let’s get him. So they tried. To this day, I consider the St. Petersburg Times to be the nation’s worst newspaper. There is no se
nse of fair play in the paper at all, and ideology slants its hard-news coverage. It’s disgraceful.

  If you still don’t believe that the American media slants left-secular, then I’ll try one more time to convince you. A media study based at UCLA and released in December 2005 concludes: “Almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.”

  The coauthor of the study, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose, summed up his study this way: “I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left, because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican. But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”

  The other coauthor, University of Missouri economist Jeffrey Milyo, was also blunt: “There is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all [the media] lean to the left.” The UCLA study identifies The CBS Evening News, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times as the most liberal news operations in the country (I know, you’re shocked). Only Brit Hume’s program on Fox News and the Washington Times were found to tilt right.

  By the way, if you dispute the UCLA study, let me throw one more set of facts at you. In addition to being ultrasupportive of the secular-progressive movement, the New York Times uses its opinion pages to savage powerful people with whom it disagrees (almost always conservatives). And we’re not talking polite debate here, either; we’re talking “rip their throats out” verbiage.