James O’Keefe Defends Being A Loathsome, Cretinous, Scumbag

Fox News James O'KeefeIt’s been five days since the Fox News pimp, James O’Keefe, was caught trying to “seduce” CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau. He has finally come out with a statement on the web site of his mentor, Andrew Breitbart. And, as would be expected, it is a thoroughly dishonest exercise in self-justification.

But before we get to O’Keefe’s comments, let’s take a look at what Breitbart had to say about him:

“From what I’ve read about this script, though not executed, it is patently gross and offensive.”

That’s the view of the man who supported O’Keefe through his equally offensive escapades as a pimp. Now Breitbart thinks O’Keef’e antics are gross. He even denied in a tweet that he was associated with O’Keefe. However, he still gave him a platform to publish his response. And in that response O’Keefe begins by acknowledging the low level of ethics he and his comrades have:

“If you were to roam through my personal emails there are many outrageous plans, some parts of which I may approve of in principal [sic] with an ‘I like it’ in an email thread. But I may well object to a host of things about the plan, though I like the objective.”

Taken at his word, O’Keefe is admitting that he liked the objective of the CNN Caper. But this is someone who can never be taken at his word. He is a compulsive liar whose word has no value. Here is how he soft-peddled his version of the the plot against Boudreau:

“She would have had to consent before being filmed and she was not going to be faux ‘seduced’ unless she wanted to be.”

That is utterly false. He never sought the consent of his previous video victims. Why should we accept his assertion that he was going to start seeking consent now? If he was going to seek her consent, then why did the plan call for hidden cameras at the scene? And what would make him think that she would ever grant such consent to be filmed on his boat? And can anyone even tell me what he means by suggesting that the faux seduction would not have occurred “unless she wanted” it? What an arrogant and disgusting remark.

He goes on to assert that he was repulsed by parts of the plan and had no intention of going through with it. He offers as proof of this the fact that none of the things that were described in the script actually took place. Of course, the reason they didn’t take place is because his plan was foiled in advance by an accomplice with integrity pangs. This would be like the failed shoe bomber insisting that he never intended to blow up the plane by saying, “See? The plane isn’t blown up.”

To offer as a defense his assertion, after the plot fell apart, that he didn’t really plan to do it, is laughably absurd. He still needs to explain why his accomplice, Izzy Santa, was in the house, right where the script called for her to be, and he was still on the boat, right where the script called for him to be, and right where Santa was supposed to direct Boudreau. The plot was obviously in effect when Santa decided to pull the plug and O’Keefe cannot credibly claim otherwise.

The fact that it took O’Keefe five days to come up with an excuse this lame tells us a lot about what an ignorant slob he is. And if any media outlet gives this twerp a passing mention for whatever BS he produces in the future they should lose their license to broadcast.

Is Rupert Murdoch Funding Al Qaeda?

A couple of recent revelations regarding the charitable proclivities of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp are now raising chilling questions for which there has been no answer to date.

It was widely reported a few weeks ago that News Corp made a $1 million donation to the Republican Governor’s Association. Reaction to that report was swift and damning. The notion that News Corp, parent company of Fox News, is bankrolling the campaigns of people they are also purporting to cover in their newspapers and on their TV networks, is appalling and unprecedented. To make matters worse, Fox continues to give positively biased coverage to GOP candidates without disclosing their contributions.

Last week another story emerged that revealed another $1 million contribution by News Corp, this time to the pro-GOP US Chamber of Commerce. This has the same potential for conflict of interest as the gift to the GOP governors and, again, Fox puts a muzzle on its reporters to suppress the story.

Now Ben Smith at Politico reports what may be the worst part of this scandal of all. Responding to a query as to why News Corp would make these donations that overtly contradict their claims to fairness and balance, and further damage their already mutilated journalistic credibility, Smith reports that…

“A person close to News Corp. told me this week the company didn’t realize its $1 million to the RGA would become public. And the $1 million to Chamber of Commerce was supposed to be secret as well.”

That explains a lot. If Murdoch never believed that these donations would become public he would have no reason to be concerned about the blowback. But what is even more troubling is this: If Murdoch made these donations with the expectation that they would be kept secret, what other donations might he have made whose secrecy has actually been preserved?

Could Murdoch have contributed to the Tea Party Express or other AstroTurfers like FreedomWorks? Could he be bankrolling the operations of Sarah Palin’s PAC or Glenn Beck’s Holy Rollover Revue? Since the Citizen’s United decision by the Supreme Court earlier this year, the ability of corporations to sink unlimited resources into politics has been greatly enhanced. It created an open door for multinational corporations to influence American elections

Murdoch’s business connections have deep roots in many financial and political matters around the world. He is closely tied with Saudi oil and media barons and billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. Alwaleed is a backer of the Park51 project to build a Muslim community center a couple of blocks from ground zero in Lower Manhattan.

What other Muslim initiatives might Murdoch be connected to? Could he have an interest in the affairs of Al Qaeda? There is presently reporting on Fox News about the escalated terror alerts in Europe. Murdoch could be seen as being a beneficiary of this because it could reflect badly on President Obama’s national security policies. And Murdoch is always happy to see this President in decline. What contributions might he have made to bring about this or any other event that accrues to his benefit?

Seriously, the problem here is that we have no way of knowing what sort of enterprises Murdoch (or any other corporate baron) is financing. If we only find out by accident, there is a very real prospect that there are far worse things that have not yet been revealed. And the new legal interpretations make it harder, if not impossible, to acquire this information.

Is Rupert Murdoch funding Al Qaeda. Probably not. But that’s not the point. Who is he funding (besides the GOP governors and the Chamber of Commerce) that is still being kept secret from us? His scope of influence, due to his position and wealth, makes him a significant figure on the political landscape. The fact that he runs an international media empire makes his political contributions relevant to his readers and viewers. And the fact that he is making donations that he presumed would be secret suggests that he may have made others that still are.

Murdoch needs to either come clean about his political largesse or stop making contributions altogether. He cannot operate a media enterprise that he asserts is unbiased without greater transparency, especially in light of what has become known already. And the rest of the media must stop treating Fox News and other News Corp operations as if they were legitimate journalists. Fox News is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. Their partisan reporting has made that more than clear, and their financial activities prove it again and again.