Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly is appalled by how the man who went on a vengeful killing spree in Norway is being portrayed in the liberal media (view clip). He was particularly disgusted with the headline the New York Times ran last Sunday which read "As Horrors Emerged Norway Charges Christian Extremist". O'Reilly felt it was unfair to mention that Breivik is a Christian because he believes it to be "impossible" as "no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder".

O'Reilly's position is a little odd as he did seem to be aware that Breivik had been baptised into the Protestant Church "of his own free will" at the age of 15 and later expressed an interest in converting to the more conservative Catholic faith. He also acknowledged that it was the Norwegian police who identified Breivik as a fundamentalist Christian, and therefore that it was not just something the New York Times had made up. Still, O'Reilly believes there must be an agenda behind this "angle being played up" and he offers two reasons why he thinks this is so.

The leftwing press wants to compare nuts like Breivik and McVeigh to state sponsored terrorism and worldwide jihad. Again, dishonest and insane. The second reason the liberal media is pushing the Christian angle is they don't like Christians very much because we are too judgmental. Many Christians oppose abortion, gay marriage and legalised narcotics, secular left causes. The media understands the opposition is often based on religion, so they want to diminish Christianity – and highlighting so-called Christian-based terror is the way to do that.

It doesn't help O'Reilly's argument though that Breivik's manifesto called specifically for a "Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination". But he is convinced, nonetheless, that the liberal media are wrong to bring Breivik's religion into the matter, as he believes that it was not his Christianity that motivated the killings but simply that, as O'Reilly put it, "he didn't like the Muslim intrusion into Norway and into Europe. That's what drove him, not Jesus, not being baptised.

O'Reilly discussed the matter with regular Fox News contributor Mary Katherine Hamm and Alicia Menendez. Hamm agreed with O'Reilly that the liberal media were focusing on the Christian thing because they "desperately want an equivalent to Muslim terrorists, an analogue to extremist Islam" and she blamed it on lazy reporting. O'Reilly was quick to correct this thinking, pointing out that, far from being lazy reporting, this was deliberate branding by liberal editors.

Wait, wait! I want everybody to know how this works. The editors in the New York Times sit down and they decide what their lead story is going to be, what their headline's going to be and then they put it there. The reporter had nothing to do with it. This was an intentional, without a doubt, intentional brand of a mass murderer as a Christian. It is appalling. This is a serious situation, ladies. This isn't a mistake or sloppiness or laziness. This is appalling!

Menendez pointed out that it was their side (the conservative media) who initially jumped with the story line that the bomb attack was the work of jihadists, but O'Reilly thought that was just due to sloppiness and laziness and not the same thing at all as intentionally branding the terrorist as a Christian.

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck no longer has the benefit of the Fox News research team at his disposal, which might account for his utter confusion about what happened in Norway last week, as he seemed to think it was not the killer, but the people who were killed who were the rightwing extremists (view clip).

"Well, when we heard the explosion, everyone was willing to say, 'It's Muslim extremists! It's Muslim extremists!' I don't think we made a comment on it because we didn't know other than that there was a bombing that happened, and as the thing started to unfold and then there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever. You know, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing. But anyway, so there was this political camp and some crazy man goes and starts shooting kids."

The political camp was, in fact, a Labour party youth league summer camp, which the killer specifically targeted because he objected to the party's liberal and multicultural views. Beck was also confused about the Muslim element in the attack. He knows that the killer was not a Muslim, but still felt that Muslims played a part. He pointed out that he actually foretold this event in a Fox News show last year, where he detailed the problems arising in Europe "because the cities are being overrun" (by Muslims) and because the Muslims are "getting into middle management" and are "on the city councils and board of education and everything else". He believed that it was this Muslim invasion, so to speak, that provoked the attack.

Beck actually did acknowledge that the killer was a rightwing extremist, but went to pains to explain how the European right wing differs from the American right wing, to which he belongs.

The left and right in Europe … because once they got rid of the kings, they didn't replace it with "we the people"; they had to replace it with another strong government and that's where fascism and communism came from. That's your left and right: fascism on the right, Nazis and communists on the left. And there are variations of both of those theories, but it's fascism and communism, left and right. This guy, who's the shooter, is from the right wing, different than our right wing. It is still big government. He is coming out and he is doing the work of a madman, he's doing the work of what all people that want big government always do – and that is, commit terrorist acts. They want to destroy a government so they can put another one in that they like.

With that clarification in place, Beck goes on to assure his listeners that the killer was, of course, a mad man and that there was no difference between him and the 9/11 bombers, and that he is "just as bad as Osama bin Laden".

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh was disgusted with the speech the president gave on Monday night calling for a shared sacrifice to save our nation from

going into default and losing our triple-A credit rating (listen to clip). Limbaugh does not object to the notion of sacrifice as a principle. He is fine, for instance, with the poor, the unemployed and the elderly having to sacrifice the benefits they receive. What he does object to is the notion of "shared sacrifice", which he believes is unpatriotic and unAmerican.

We do not believe in shared sacrifice! Go find it for me in the founding documents, go find it for me! Probably right there next to the book Great Moderates in American History. Shared sacrifice in America's founding? What is this!? And I'm talking about it as an intellectual concept or as a policy that people adhere to: shared sacrifice. This whole bite – once again, I think the guy [President Obama] is losing it!

What Limbaugh specifically objected to in the president's speech was his part about the wealthy having to play their part in deficit reduction. At the moment, House Republicans are refusing to back any plan to lower the deficit that includes higher taxes for the wealthy. Limbaugh absolutely agrees with this position and thinks the president must be mentally ill to suggest that the wealthy share the burden.

Look, I'm not a professional on clinical matters. I can't, of course, make a diagnosis. Something's not right here with the man, folks. He's cracking up. What sacrifices have illegal aliens made, by the way, let alone shared? He's out there talking to La Raza. Is he gonna ask the illegal aliens to sacrifice, like pay taxes and follow our laws?

Limbaugh has made clear on many occasions that he understands that not raising the debt ceiling will have catastrophic consequences for the American economy, but if the Obama presidency is destroyed in the process, that's one sacrifice he is happy to share.