More Slander from the Murdoch Empire

He has, on the occasion of the wedding of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge no less, slandered the British Royal Family as robbers, presiding over an empire built on theft, tonight that bold, fresh piece of excrement Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel turned his hateful ignorance against the martyred Queen of France, Marie Antoinette. The subject at issue was a doctored satirical picture of Michelle Obama portrayed as the late Queen and the reaction of many Democrats that the picture was "racist". O'Reilly didn't think it was racist (nor do I) but he did think it was unfair to compare Mrs Obama to Marie Antoinette because the Queen was, in his words, a real "villain" and of course he brought up the old, "Let them eat cake" line which -as has been stated countless times- has been proven by eminent historians to be an absolute lie. This willing ignorance infuriates me to no end. If the comparison of Michelle Obama to Marie Antoinette was offensive or unfair to anyone it would be the late Queen herself. The Queen was as far from being a snob as anyone of her background could possibly be. She was not villainous, she was not uncaring and she died a pious and heroic death at the hands of godless, bloodthirsty traitors. I am not one of those monarchists who despises the United States or Americans on principle (some do, even American monarchists) and I even allow them their republican fussing because I know they can't really help it -to some extent they have to be that way or they have no reason to exist. However, I get fed to the teeth with this sort of drive-by royal bashing. It seems particularly outrageous when Americans (especially the ultra-patriotic sort) target King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette of France considering that without the intervention of His Most Christian Majesty the United States would almost certainly not exist at all.

To Bill O'Reilly, here's a "Fox News Alert" for ya: WISE UP YOU PINHEAD!!!

(breath...in...out...in...out...okay...)

O'Reilly Update

For those of you who didn't watch, I am very pleased to say that a majority (53% to 47%) considered Bill O'Reilly a pinhead for bashing the British monarchy. I send my personal thanks to all of you who voted, bombastic Bill even promised to be more respectful toward the monarchy "if that's what you want". I am also very pleased that Texas was on the right side of the issue, voting 55% to 45% that O'Reilly's insults of the monarchy were pinheaded.

Call a Republican a Pinhead

I don't often do this sort of thing (because of past experience) but the poll has been extended for another day and I cannot resist. I urge every monarchist who reads this blog to go to http://www.billoreilly.com/ and scroll down toward the bottom of the page and vote in the "Pinheads & Patriots" poll to tell Bill O'Reilly he is a pinhead for insulting the British Royal Family and the British Monarchy as a whole on the occasion of the upcoming royal wedding. Few do, I don't know why, but do monarchy a favor and go vote, don't underestimate public support for the monarchy. I know more than a thousand people a day visit The Mad Monarchist and if everyone would vote it would certainly make a difference. The stated reason for extending this poll was that it was "very close" which tells me that opinion was slightly against Mr. O'Reilly and he wants to give his minions time to pull his chestnuts out of the fire. So, go vote! Even if you usually like O'Reilly, he is definitely being a pinhead (and just plain rude) on this subject. I don't often ask favors of my readers, but do me a solid and strike a minor blow for the British monarchy and tell O'Reilly he's a pinhead!

O'Reilly's Swipe at Royal Support

Just a short note -I could not stop myself- concerning last night's episode of "The O'Reilly Factor" on the Fox News Channel. In a story about the latest fiasco involving Sarah Ferguson Fox News (part of the Rupert Murdoch media empire) commentator Bill O'Reilly made an off-hand comment which suggested that loyalty to the British Royal Family is basically confined to a small core of English patriots. I agree with O'Reilly fairly often but this was simply ridiculous. First he stated that the Irish hate the Royal Family; which is probably overstated but not totally unfounded if one has in mind only the citizens of the Irish republic. However, though they may not consider themselves "Irish" the Unionists of Northern Ireland are among the most loyal subjects Her Majesty the Queen has. He also dismissed the Scots -also untrue as even the Scottish National Party (with whom The Mad Monarchist is not in sympathy) supports retaining Her Majesty as Queen of Scotland and there are of course loyal subjects of the Queen across the Commonwealth; certainly not as many as I would like, but present in considerable numbers. The British Royal Family may have its detractors (who must be opposed fiercely) but the Royal Family, I would wager, is more popular across the U.K. than probably any president or sitting government in any modern western republic -thank God.

Bill O'Reilly's Elastic Definition of Terrorism

Tonight on "The O'Reilly Factor" Bill O'Reilly went pretty far overboard in his definition of "terrorism". Most of the time, I don't bother with this stuff too much because a) O'Reilly often says things simply to irritate the "right" in order to back up his claim of being "independent" and b) the pro-America hurrah! hurrah! attitude much of this stems from doesn't bother me that much. What happened cannot be changed and every country needs some kind of founding myth to rally around when the population has virtually nothing in common. However, sometimes things can be taken too far. Case in point, O'Reilly comparing the controversy over lawyers who defend Muslim terrorists to John Adams defending some of the British soldiers who participated in the so-called "Boston Massacre" which, O'Reilly said was 'surely an act of terrorism'.

Hold the phone Bill! First of all, it was no "massacre". Only 11 people were shot, only 5 of whom died and the shooting came at the height of a very ugly confrontation between a mob of some 300 to 400 Bostonians and a mere 7 or 8 British soldiers who were being pelted with snowballs, rocks, sticks and insults as well as being dared to shoot by people in the mob. All of these were regular soldiers in the British army, in uniform, standing on guard duty as they had been for some time. By no stretch of the imagination could these men be called terrorists or the shooting an act of terrorism. In fact, the subsequent trial of several of those involved found mostly in favor of the British.

Lest the British feel too picked on here, O'Reilly, later in the same broadcast, also compared the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to an act of terrorism. A much more horrible affair no doubt about it, but again, hardly an act of terrorism. The Japanese were regular military men, flying in marked planes and attacking military targets. In fact, when the flight commander returned to Japan, HIM Emperor Hirohito, who rarely spoke at such meetings, questioned him directly to ensure that no civilian areas had been hit in the attack. In the course of the war other very horrible things were done but in all the hyper-sensitivity of the "War on Terror" we do need to keep in mind that not every tragedy, not every surprise attack and not even every war crime is an act of "terrorism".