Bill O’Reilly not only very dubiously suggested that he was a Martin Luther King supporter but that he also “knows” King would not have supported Black Lives Matter.
Last night, O’Reilly once again railed against Black Lives Matter. He has previously labeled them a “hate group” that he has vowed to put “out of business” along with “any media person who supports them.” He has also accused them of “killing Americans” because of a spike in murder rates.
But somehow, O’Reilly wants us to believe that if only Black Lives Matter were more like King, O’Reilly would be fine with them.
O’REILLY: Skin color is a very personal situation. Every one of my black friends has felt diminished at times because of their complexions, it’s wrong. There is no excuse for it, but it happens in every country.
The civil rights marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a pacifist, were also very effective in mobilizing public opinion against Jim Crowe laws and bias in general. Dr. King got a lot of accomplishments before he was assassinated. Now, we have another protest situation in the U.S.A. whereby many African-Americans believe that law enforcement works actively against them.
Here’s how O’Reilly contrasted Black Lives Matter with King:
O’REILLY: The key group driving violence on the streets is Black Lives Matter. After five police officers were killed in Dallas, a Black Lives Matter organizer Sir Maejor has said this according to the Associated Press.
Quote, “Black Lives Matter doesn’t condone shooting law enforcement, but I have to be honest, I understand why it was done. I don’t encourage it. I don’t condone it. I don’t justify it. But I understand.” Now, that’s a provocative statement in the extreme. Understanding terrorism? Which is what happened in Dallas—terrorism. It’s not difficult. You get an evil human being who kills people. A five-year-old can understand that. Maejor says he doesn’t condone it, so what’s the point of understanding it?
Again, a ridiculous, irresponsible statement. But we have come to expect that kind of thing from Black Lives Matter which chanted about police here in New York City, pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon. Unfortunately President Obama does not seem to understand the vitriol.
Of course, O’Reilly was cherry-picking some of the most inflammatory comments in order to suggest that’s what the entire group is all about. And considering that colleague Sean Hannity deliberately encouraged Cliven Bundy’s white violence against law enforcers in Nevada, can we then say that Fox News is responsible for the deaths of two policemen in Las Vegas at the hands of a Bundy supporter? Something tells me O’Reilly would disagree.
But it’s hard to believe that O’Reilly would not have demonized King just the way he’s demonizing Black Lives Matter now if King were alive today. Back in the day, King’s supporters were called “mobs” and prominent Democrats complained that demands for integration infringed on white people’s freedom to live with and do business with whomever they chose. Furthermore, there was plenty of violence in the 1960s unrest and King got plenty of blame for it. Can’t you just see O’Reilly now, “reasonably” explaining his sympathy with African Americans and then demonizing the demonstrators for infringing on his liberty and making race-baiting suggestions that they have too much "grievance" and are out to get whitey?
In fact, Dr. King was quite a radical at the time he was killed. As FAIR has noted, he was a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy, including the Vietnam war, and called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” FAIR also reminds us:
In his last months, King was organizing the most militant project of his life: the Poor People’s Campaign. He crisscrossed the country to assemble “a multiracial army of the poor” that would descend on Washington — engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience at the Capitol, if need be — until Congress enacted a poor people’s bill of rights. Reader’s Digest warned of an “insurrection.”
Does anyone believe that O’Reilly and Fox wouldn’t be having a field day of conniptions and finger-pointing if such a march were to be organized today?
Nevertheless, O’Reilly wants us to think that King would have repudiated Black Lives Matter… unlike our (too black) current president and the (anti-American) liberal media.
O’REILLY: With all due respect to President Obama, well-meaning activists do not associate themselves with a group that often commits violent acts and encourages violence through irresponsible rhetoric.
Dr. King would not participate in a Black Lives Matter protest. Of course, a liberal American media, largely sympathetic to the street demonstrations, even if they do turn violent. How many more times are we going to have to see Black Lives Matter protesters destroy stuff? How many more times? If you criticize the group you are branded a bigot by some far left media precincts. Do you know that shortly after the Dallas police were murdered, a cop in Missouri was shot and critically wounded by a Black man?
The above O'Reilly excerpts come from FoxNews.com's transcript. I left in the capitalization of the "B" in "Black man" in that last sentence because I thought it made its own statement.
The fact of the matter is, if Dr. King were alive today, it’s almost certain that everything O’Reilly says about Black Lives Matter, he’d be saying about King. Maybe worse.
Watch O’Reilly’s latest baloney below, from the July 11 The O’Reilly Factor.
Lie #1. MLK wouldn’t support #BlackLivesMatter. Of course, MLK would be comfortable leading #BlackLivesMatters marches. Isn’t their cause his whole point? Black lives do matter and deserve equal justice.
Lie #2. Criticizing #BlackLivesMatter will brand you a racist. No, it depends upon the nature of the criticism. Fox News is trying to turn them into a black supremacist group to maintain the unequal status quo. Right bigot Bill?
Lie #3. Understanding violence stops with the people being crazy. No, what Sir Maejor is saying is – in the spirit of MLK – protests and resistance should be non-violent but the abuse has reached a flashpoint where some people on the fringes are fighting back. The Biblical “tooth for a tooth.” Not justifying it. Just understanding the source of their anger.
Can you imagine this dope channeling MLK?
Is there any doubt to anyone if Fox News existed during the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott which brought Dr. King to national attention in 1955 where exactly Bill and your grandparents Fox News would think Dr. King along with Rosa Parks be allowed to sit on the bus?