Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘America’s Past’ Category

HILLIE

Welfare Leech Brags About Taking Government Assistance

author/vivek-saxena

A viral clip uploaded to the internet depicting a Brooklyn mother and welfare leech bragging about raping taxpayers of their hard-earned money is a must-see video for any naive liberal who believes unchecked welfare somehow benefits the country.

“F*** the government,” the woman, who identified herself as a mother of three, proudly hollered at the camera. “F*** Trump. I’m gonna rape that s*** sitting on my ass.”

She continued by bragging about how she lives the high life courtesy the government, all while everyone else works eight or more hours per day to eke out a living.

“What you gonna say?” she said. “Welfare b****? Food stamp b****? Well, (this) welfare b****, food stamp b**** still got more than you, b****, and you working 9 to 5, b****!”

The video may be seen in its entirety here, though be warned that it contains a litany of profanity.

The average liberal would likely shrug his shoulders at the video and falsely claim that the potty-mouth welfare leech pictured in it represents an anomaly in the welfare system. He would be wrong — very, very wrong.

Despite fraudulent assertions by the leftist media, which continues to claim welfare fraud is rare, the abuse of social services costs American taxpayers billions annually.

In Massachusetts alone, an estimated $13.7 million in welfare benefits were obtained fraudulently in 2015, according to an investigation by the state’s Bureau of Special Investigations.

“BSI examiners completed 10,784 investigations in FY15, with fraud identified in 1,131 of those cases, a 37 percent increase in fraud identification from FY14,” state auditor Suzanne M. Bump announced in a statement last year. “These cases included individuals or groups defrauding the state of public assistance benefits like: food stamps (SNAP), childcare services, health care benefits, and cash assistance.”

Four years prior to the release of this report, it became known via 2010 data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that for every $100 of a total of $130 million in welfare benefits doled out in Maryland and Virginia, $6.11 and $5.04, respectively, were given “to those not eligible” (aka fraudsters), as reported at the time by The Daily Signal.

If one were to add all the fraud that hasn’t been caught, the total money wasted would be in the billions. And the reason for all this waste would be two-fold: First, because of people like the woman pictured in the video above, and second, because of naive liberals who still think every welfare user is a deserving recipient.

WHO STOLE OUR CULTURE?

Revealing the subversive and shocking roots of ‘political correctness’

By William S. Lind
Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. In the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.
Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the ’60s feel like its a foreign country? Did it just “happen”?
It didn’t just “happen.” In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation’s history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.
What happened, in short, is that America’s traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as “political correctness” or “multicultural- ism.” It really is cultural Marxism – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America’s elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.
To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of “political correctness.”
EARLY MARXIST THEORY
Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn’t happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies. Finally, in 1917, a communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.

a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs’ cultural perspective on Marxism.

THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL
Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the “Institute for Marxism.” But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the “Institute for Social Research.” Soon known simply as the “Frankfurt School,” the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question “Who stole our culture?” is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.
At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Florkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs’ pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology.
To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer’s most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse.

ADVANCES IN CULTURAL MARXISM
With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx’s view that culture was merely part of society’s “superstructure,” which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.
Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.
Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers wereoppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. “Liberating” everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxisms main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.
Today, when Hollywood’s cultural Marxists want to “normalize” something like homosexuality (thus “liberating” us from “repression”), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.
The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments:
Critical Theory: To serve its purpose of “negating” Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called “Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the “studies” departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.
Studies in prejudice: The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as “prejudice” in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adornos immensely influential book, “The Authoritarian Personality,” published in 1950. They invented a bogus “F-scale” that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and

women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is “fascist.”
Domination: The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.
Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the “transvaluation of all values.” What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil “fascist.” That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right “attitudes” on certain questions.)
Media and entertainment: Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought “commodified” culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin’s view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism’s most powerful weapon.

THE GROWTH OF MARXISM IN THE UNITED STATES
After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.raditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and

But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book “Eros and Civilization” used the Frankfurt Schools crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only “liberate non- procreative eros” through “polymorphous perversity,” we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. “Eros and Civilization” became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.
Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).
The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: A whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.

A COUNTER-STRATEGY
Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it?
We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the uni

versities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.
There is another, more promising strategy. We can separate ourselves and our families from the institutions the cultural Marxists control and build new institutions for ourselves, institutions that reflect and will help us recover our traditional Western culture.
Several years ago, my colleague Paul Weyrich wrote an open letter to the conservative movement suggesting this strategy. While most other conservative (really Republican) leaders demurred, his letter resonated powerfully with grass-roots conservatives. Many of them are already part of a movement to secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms’ products. If Brave New World’s motto is “Think globally, act locally,” ours should be “Think locally, act locally.”
Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a “long march through the institutions.” Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the “inevitable forces of history” were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours?

William S. Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth in 1%9 and received a Masters in History from Princeton in 1971. A military historian, Lind is the author of the “Maneuver Warfare Handbookco-author; with Gary Hart, of “America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform* and co-author, with William H. Marshner, of “Cultural Conservatism: Toward a New National Agenda”
The preceding is excerpted from Dr. Ted Baehr and Pat Boones “The Culture-wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World

CAN WE SUCCEED IN AFGHANISTAN?

In Afghanistan, we’re the Redcoats. And for a substantial portion of the country’s ethnic-Pashtun majority, the Taliban, however cruel and odious we find them, are the Minutemen.

The stock response you’ll get from any US general is that “the Afghans hate the Taliban.” If that is so, how is it that, after 16 years of US and NATO expenditure of blood and treasure, the ragtag Taliban, backed only by Pakistan, dominate or contest half the country?

Even our politically correct counterinsurgency doctrine — which has not achieved enduring success anywhere — acknowledges that insurgencies require the support of the population to succeed. Since 2001, the Taliban have faced as many as 140,000 US and NATO troops (the peak number in 2011). And no one supplied the Taliban with helicopters, artillery, armored vehicles and training, as we did for the Afghans.

Yet, the Taliban continue to defeat the Afghan National Army, on which we have lavished so much money and training. They could not do this without active support and passive tolerance from the population. Nor can we insist that the population only cooperates because they’re afraid.

Pashtun sons still join the Taliban, despite the heavy casualties we’ve inflicted.
One of our most-revered generals has told me repeatedly over the years that the Taliban are inept on the battlefield. Mimicking his Vietnam-era counterparts, he misses the point. No, Taliban fighters can’t compete one-on-one with US troops. Yet, they keep on fighting, against terrible odds, while the Afghan forces we back seek to avoid battle.

Isn’t it time to stop lying to ourselves?
Now President Trump must decide whether to send several thousand more US troops to Afghanistan to serve as trainers and facilitators (we currently have 8,400 troops in the country). Shouldn’t we ask ourselves how a total of 14,000 US troops (plus a few thousand allies) will achieve what 140,000 US and NATO troops could not?

Consider just a few of the problems we face:
* Our military leadership clearly doesn’t grasp the principle of “sunk costs,” that you can’t redeem a failed investment by investing more.

* While fighting the Taliban we continue to raise the prospect of bringing Taliban elements into a unity government. Is that what our troops died for over 16 bloody years? We’re failing, and we’re desperate.
* Then there’s the complaint that “If we leave, we’ll have to go back.” Well, going back and whacking terrorists every decade or so would have proven a lot cheaper than trying to turn Kabul into Denver. Strategic raids work — precisely what we initially did in Afghanistan in 2001. Nation-building in traditional cultures doesn’t work — what we tried from 2002 on.

* Knowing the risks, young Afghans volunteer to fight for the Taliban but are reluctant to serve in the Afghan National Army — where officers sell ammunition to the enemy and steal the money intended to feed their troops. Meanwhile, we defend a shamelessly corrupt elite whose thieving of billions we enabled out of expedience. Why would Afghans fight for a government that robs them?

* If Afghans won’t unite to save their own country, we cannot do it for them, no matter how many troops we send, how much we spend or how long we stay.

* Horrid though the Taliban are to us, we must accept that many Afghans just don’t want what we want them to want. We won’t accept that people choose to live in devotional squalor and torture their women, but they do.

Sending a few thousand more troops to Afghanistan sounds like small change, but it would tie down many more. That matters because Afghanistan is strategically worthless to us, even as we face a grave challenge from North Korea, an all-but-inevitable clash with the Revolutionary Guards holding Iran and the Middle East hostage, and a civilizational threat from Russia’s reinvigorated barbarism.

What should we do? A reasonable compromise would be to reduce US troop numbers in Afghanistan to those essential for targeting Islamic State in Khorasan (the local ISIS franchise) and al Qaeda. Use contractors to train Afghan forces. Continue to equip those forces — but under strict anti-corruption guidelines.

And if Afghans won’t fight for their own country, be ready to leave completely.
During our Revolution, the wealthy Tories of Manhattan supported the Crown because it served their interests. Today, corrupt Afghans in Kabul whom we have enriched support our presence and tell us everything we want to hear. But the ill-armed, shabby rebels are out there, determined to win.

DHS: More than 700,000 foreigners overstayed US visas last year

House Votes On Whether Or Not To Allow Sharia Law In America….Here Is The HUGE Decision

Former president Barack Obama and his Democrats wanted us to believe that Muslims are good and kind, that they’re just a bunch of unfortunate people forced to leave their homelands.

Obama wanted you to think that these poor people are just here to assimilate and leave the American dream. No, they don’t want to live the American dream, but take it. Most Muslims come to this country to shoot and run over innocent people just because they want.

America went through hell during Obama’s presidency, because the former president didn’t fight against terrorists. Moreover, he armed them. Have you ever seen Obama do anything to blast terrorists? No, he supported Muslims and gave them more rights than Americans will ever have.

Now Muslims are trying to plant their Sharia law in every institution across the country. Is this what Obama referred to when he said that “Muslims are here to assimilate?”

This law is the most terrible of them all. According to this law, you can get killed for being a gay, and rape victims can’t do anything to punish rapists. Can you believe this? President Donald Trump will never allow anything like this, and he was clear about this during his presidential campaign.

The good news is that the House passed a new bill that bans “the application of foreign law.” Democrats and Muslims aren’t quite happy about it, and they complain that the new bill only targets Muslims, and approves xenophobia and racism. Really?

“We’ve heard a lot of discussions about this being a religious law and specifically directed at preventing Sharia law and I just don’t read it that way,” explained Republican Theresa Hamilton.

Sandy Montgomery had a similar opinion. “We have allowed legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and now refugees to take advantage of our law and culture to take up their own agendas. They have no intention to abide by our laws, nor are they interested in assimilating to our culture,” she said.

 

Snowflake

House Votes On Whether Or Not To Allow Sharia Law In America….Here Is The HUGE Decision

Former president Barack Obama and his Democrats wanted us to believe that Muslims are good and kind, that they’re just a bunch of unfortunate people forced to leave their homelands.

Obama wanted you to think that these poor people are just here to assimilate and leave the American dream. No, they don’t want to live the American dream, but take it. Most Muslims come to this country to shoot and run over innocent people just because they want.

America went through hell during Obama’s presidency, because the former president didn’t fight against terrorists. Moreover, he armed them. Have you ever seen Obama do anything to blast terrorists? No, he supported Muslims and gave them more rights than Americans will ever have.

Now Muslims are trying to plant their Sharia law in every institution across the country. Is this what Obama referred to when he said that “Muslims are here to assimilate?”

This law is the most terrible of them all. According to this law, you can get killed for being a gay, and rape victims can’t do anything to punish rapists. Can you believe this? President Donald Trump will never allow anything like this, and he was clear about this during his presidential campaign.

The good news is that the House passed a new bill that bans “the application of foreign law.” Democrats and Muslims aren’t quite happy about it, and they complain that the new bill only targets Muslims, and approves xenophobia and racism. Really?

“We’ve heard a lot of discussions about this being a religious law and specifically directed at preventing Sharia law and I just don’t read it that way,” explained Republican Theresa Hamilton.

Sandy Montgomery had a similar opinion. “We have allowed legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and now refugees to take advantage of our law and culture to take up their own agendas. They have no intention to abide by our laws, nor are they interested in assimilating to our culture,” she said.

Bill Nye Turns Crybaby When Global Warming Hoax Exposed by ACTUAL Scientist on CNN

by Andrew west

If there’s one thing that Bill Nye the “Science” Guy knows, it’s how to keep his name on the tip of the liberal media’s tongue.

The engineering school graduate, who has magically become an expert on complex scientific issues such as climate change, has recently been on a tear throughout the press as his new Netflix-only series premieres this week.

Nye, who is riding a millennial wave of nostalgia into a second chance at an entertainment career, has fallen victim to the same bunk science that propelled liberal colleagues Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore into lucrative global warming hoax films.  Now, when confronted with an actual scientist who refutes the left’s stance on climate change, Bill Nye has been forced into the same pattern of behavior that has permeated the liberal movement:  Whining and crying.

Bill Nye on Saturday accused CNN of doing a ‘disservice’ to viewers by bringing a climate change skeptic onto the network for a panel discussion.

“‘I will say, much as I love CNN, you’re doing a disservice by having one climate change skeptic, and not 97 or 98 scientists or engineers concerned about climate change,’ Nye said during an appearance on CNN’s ‘New Day.’

“Nye was participating in a panel discussion on the network with May Boeve, the executive director of the environmental group 350.org, and William Happer, a physicist and climate change skeptic.”

Much like the liberal rioters of Berkeley, California, Bill Nye would rather bemoan and censor those who he disagrees with than be confronted with a differing opinion.  This, my friends, is no way to effect change in our great nation.  The First Amendment will always win out.

Bill Nye, your revolution, and likely your career, is over.

Fox News Has Decided Bill O’Reilly Has to Go

  The Murdochs have decided Bill O’Reilly’s 21-year run at Fox News will come to an end. According to sources briefed on the discussions, network executives are preparing to announce O’Reilly’s departure before he returns from an Italian vacation on April 24. Now the big questions are how the exit will look and who will replace him.

Wednesday morning, according to sources, executives are holding emergency meetings to discuss how they can sever the relationship with the country’s highest-rated cable-news host without causing collateral damage to the network. The board of Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox, is scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss the matter.

Sources briefed on the discussions say O’Reilly’s exit negotiations are moving quickly. Right now, a key issue on the table is whether he would be allowed to say good-bye to his audience, perhaps the most loyal in all of cable (O’Reilly’s ratings have ticked up during the sexual-harassment allegations). Fox executives are leaning against allowing him to have a sign-off, sources say. The other main issue on the table is money. O’Reilly recently signed a new multiyear contract worth more than $20 million per year. When Roger Ailes left Fox News last summer, the Murdochs paid out $40 million, the remainder of his contract.

According to sources, Fox News wants the transition to be seamless. Executives are currently debating possible replacement hosts. Names that have been discussed include Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, and Tucker Carlson, who would move from his successful 9 p.m. slot and create a need for a new host at that time. One source said Sean Hannity is happy at 10 p.m. and would not want to move. Network executives are hopingto have the new host in place by Monday.

The Murdochs’ decision to dump O’Reilly shocked many Fox News staffers I’ve spoken to in recent days. Late last week, the feeling inside the company was that Rupert Murdoch would prevail over his son James, who lobbied to jettison the embattled host. It’s still unclear exactly how the tide turned. According to one source, Lachlan Murdoch’s wife helped convince her husband that O’Reilly needed to go, which moved Lachlan into James’s corner. The source added that senior executives at other divisions within the Murdoch empire have complained that if O’Reilly’s allegations had happened to anyone else at their companies, that person would be gone already.

Spokespersons for 21st Century Fox and Fox News did not respond to requests for comment, nor did O’Reilly’s agent, Carole Cooper.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor