August 16, 2010, - 2:04 pm

O’Hypocrite: Bill O’Reilly v. Jennifer Aniston . . . & Laura Ingraham . . . & the Palins (+ VIDEO)

By Debbie Schlussel

The late basketball coach John Wooden once said, “Things turn out best for the people who make the best out of the way things turn out.”  Sadly, some ill-advised single women who reach the age of 40 think that means becoming single mothers.  On this, Bill O’Reilly is right.  It’s not a good thing.  But why is he attacking fictional single mother Jennifer Aniston and sealing his lips on FOX News colleagues Laura Ingraham and Sarah Palin, both of whom promote single motherhood and make poor examples (Palin through her daughter)?

billoreilly.jpg

Why is Bill O’Reilly Only Singling Out the Fictional Single Mothers?

As longtime readers know, I’ve always been against single motherhood, whether it was Fantasia Barrino glamorizing it on “American Idol” or a daughter of a rich quitter former governor of Alaska.  If you have a kid out of wedlock and raise it, you are selfish, even if you are Lois Lane and Superman is the dad.  Period.  There is nothing good about babymamahood, whether your name is LaKwanda Jones from the projects in Detroit or Calista Flockhart of Lalaland or Bristol Palin of Wasilla or Laura Ingraham of “I am conservative family values but not really.” Yes, it is different if your husband dies or he cheated on you and you got divorced.  But most single motherhood is a result of choices–the choice to deliberately have a kid  out of wedlock or the choice to be irresponsible.  Either way, it makes no difference:  You.  Are.  Selfish.  I don’t need to reiterate what I’ve said on this site and elsewhere for more than a decade.  But, in a nutshell, you single mothers are the single greatest cause of problems for America:  crime, drugs, out-of-wedlock births continuing the cycle you started, high school drop-outs, selfish kids with zero values, and every other thing associated with America’s dumbing down and defining deviancy down.  It is tearing this country down in a way Bin Laden could never perpetrate on his own. Enter Bill O’Reilly.  In his version of Animal Farm, all of the single mothers in the barnyard are equal .  .  . but some are more equal than others. After a gazillion movies and TV shows and real-life examples promoting single motherhood–including his own FOX News colleague Sarah Palin’s repeated promotion of her daughter Bristol’s babymama status–he suddenly discovered America.  And to him, it’s in a Jennifer Aniston movie, which debuts in theaters on Friday, “The Switch.”  In it, Aniston uses a turkey baster to become pregnant, since she is single and middle-aged, and wants to have a kid.  The plot is not much different from an awful Jennifer Lopez movie from a few months ago, “The Back-up Plan” (read my review).  Aniston, in promoting the movie, made the typical Hollywood values comments about how women are realizing that they don’t need a man to have a baby, etc.–the same kind of crap promoted in her movie and all the others like it.  Same old anti-male BS. So, now, suddenly, O’Reilly is livid.  He’s suddenly discovered, after decades of movies and TV shows, like “Baby Mama” (read my review), “Murphy Brown,” “One Day at a Time,” etc., that, hey, these actress chicks are sending a bad message.  And he’s on the attack against Jennifer Aniston for her comments and her movie (along with FOX News anti-male bimbo “analyst” Margaret Hoover, who is blaming men, just like the usual mainstream media narrative – “fair and balanced”?).

While O’Reilly is right, he’s also a hypocrite.  You have to ask yourself why O’Reilly is attacking Jennifer Aniston for telling teen girls they don’t need a man to have or raise a kid, but yet he doesn’t criticize Laura Ingraham–his chosen, permanent substitute host on O’Reilly Factor–for doing the same thing.  After being engaged to several men, Ingraham never married and decided to do it on her own.  She adopted two kids–a boy and a girl–and is raising them on her own.  Sorry, but this is no different than giving birth to them in a single-mother household.  She’s chosen the single motherhood path, whereas these two kids could have been adopted by a married couple.  Ingraham, herself, grew up in a single mother household.  She should know better, but has chosen to continue the destructive cycle.  This isn’t the ideal path–not even close–in which to raise kids.  Isn’t Bill O’Reilly sending the same bad message to teen girls–the message he claims Aniston is sending via her movie–by having Ingraham as his permanent substitute host?  Isn’t he telling them that you can raise two kids without a man and even have a glamorous hosting job on FOX News?

But not a peep out of O’Reilly about Ingraham.  Or about his FOX News colleague Sarah Palin.  Palin negotiated a $300,000 cover story and 8-page spread for Bristol Palin in People magazine, glorifying her daughter’s single motherhood and how “proud” she is of her.  Then, she did it again, negotiating another $300,000 payday for herself and her daughter posing on the cover of “Life & Style” with their respective sons.  Then, there were the appearances together on Oprah.  Then, the video and photo shoot and “tea party with Tripp” designer ballgown spread for Bristol in Harper’s Bazaar, earlier this summer.  Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching . . . all of it glamorizing single motherhood and showing us how Bristol can do it without a man.  Say what you want about the father, Levi Johnston, but there’s the same message here from the Palins in real life–and from Laura Ingraham in real life–that he’s decrying from a hackneyed plot in a Jennifer Aniston movie.

What Kind of Message About Single Motherhood Does This Video Send? . . .

Yes, the message in the Aniston movie is likely terrible (haven’t screened it yet, so I can’t say for certain).  But so are the real life messages of FOX News’ Laura Ingraham and Sarah Palin.

And Bill O’Reilly is quite O’Hypocritical here (definitely not the first time for him).  What was that he said about his show being the “No Spin Zone”?

Seems O’Reilly is spinning the heck out of whose single motherhood is and isn’t acceptable.

It’s funny: in the late ’80s, Dan Quayle was mercilessly ridiculed by the left for attacking the fictional single motherhood pimped on TV’s “Murphy Brown.” The right defended him. In 2008, I was mercilessly ridiculed by the right for attacking real-life single mother Bristol Palin and her mother, Sarah’s non-stop pimping of her. Now, Bill O’Reilly is attacking Jennifer Aniston for pimping single motherhood in a movie, and the right is defending him. But neither he nor they will say a word about their real-life heroines who are pushing the same.

Get this straight, America. Single mothers are bad for America, whether they are inner city kids on welfare or FOX News hosts and FOX News contributors daughters.

Baby Mamas are loathsome . . . even when there is an R or the word, “conservative” after their names.  In the culture war, they are on the same side.  The wrong side.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

59 Responses

Didn’t Ingraham have a bout of cancer to deal with? Maybe that played a part with her marriage woes? Levi turned out to be a manish boy. It makes no sense to get married to a boy just to get married.

O: Pls. stop making excuses for these people. You are part of the prob when you do that. Ingraham was already in her 40s when she got cancer. Bristol Palin and her mother are glamorizing her single motherhood. Levi Johnston has nothing to do with her endless babamama promotion on the covers of People, Life & Style, inside Harper’s Bazaar, on FOX News, Oprah, etc. It’s hilarious to hear Bristol Palin say Levi Johnston is obsessed with the limelight. Um, look in the mirror, honey. DS

Oscar on August 16, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    It reinforces the notion that men are little more than sperm banks. Where’s the father? No one seems to defend him in our society except on this site. Now its true there are absent Dads – but more than half the problem is created by the view men owe little more than to make a woman a baby and provide the woman with the checks.

    Who needs a family when a babymama can be both the mom and the dad? Conservatives claim they like to defend the traditional family but conveniently look their other way when their own heroines have a non-traditional family arrangement. What makes them different from the Left in our culture wars? I’d love to know the answer.

    NormanF on August 16, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    Excellent post Debbie and I hadn t seen it from your perspective,but you are so right,I used to listen to Ingraham,but I soon realized how abrasive she was,conductive an interview or making her point,then her inconsistencies,criticizing the libs or Maddona,not that I d ever buy a Madonna cd,while she didn t see anything wrong with her adopting kids a la Hollyweird style as if they were the latest toys… so I just don t listen or watch her anymore,if you think about it ,these so called “conservatives”are dangerous bc they say one thing and do the opposite,Hollyweird people they tell you and do what they do openly and honestly.

    Juan on February 4, 2012 at 1:59 pm

Well, the Laura Ingraham thing shows that many conservatives are more upset about premarital sex (sin of fornication) being culturally accepted than actual single motherhood. As far as Bristol Palin goes … well you have black women on welfare living in the inner city (and voting Democrat) versus “self-reliant hard working white people with good values” that live in (zero percent black or Hispanic) Alaska. That basically explains why James Dobson made a decade out of bashing inner city teen mothers but stated that Bristol Palin deserved evangelical prayers and support (and votes for her mother).

With respect to Bill O’Reilly, we all know what he would say were it Sasha or Malia Obama to get pregnant instead of Bristol Palin. Or were it Elana Kagan to adopt a kid as opposed to Ingraham.

Incidentally, I have long heard that LOTS of socially conservative pundits, politicians and activists don’t exactly lead socially conservative lives, that the mainstream media knows this, and that is a major reason why it views the whole social conservative scene as a bunch of hypocrites. Or, at the very least, for the social conservative crowd, it isn’t so much about how you actually live your life as it is your political views and your cultural background. That’s how, for instance, no one talks about Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich having 7 wives between them (among other issues). They have the right politics and the right “cultural background” … they aren’t black Democrats from the inner city so it makes whatever they do “OK”.

Well, at least now you know why the Tea Party isn’t focusing on social issues. Conservatives got tired of all of their “family values” heroes getting ensnared in sex scandals. But the Tea Party heroes who support porkbarrel projects, MediCare and Social Security? Well I suppose that is the next phase …

Gerald on August 16, 2010 at 2:55 pm

I agree with you about selectively persecuting single mothers based on their political affiliations, but when you wrote, “If you have a kid out of wedlock and raise it, you are selfish” what alternatives are you advocating? In my opinion anything is better than abortion.

M: Putting the kid up for adoption. In Tripp Johnston Palin’s case, the kid would be far better off. That will be one messed up bastard. DS

Matt on August 16, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Debbie, I am aware that “bastard” is the technical term but calling a baby that is disgusting and reprehensible. Tripp didn’t ask to be born. If he’s messed up it won’t be because he’s got one parent. It will be because of the messed up Grandparents he has. I have a granddaughter who was given for adoption. It was the hardest thing my daughter ever did and it has scarred her. It’s an open adoption and my Granddaughter is turning 21 in a couple of weeks. Had my daughter felt safe in telling me at the time she was pregnant, I would have done everything in my power to help her with the fait accompli. I bear some of the responsibility for having a Grandbaby out of wedlock but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t help fix it. I know plenty of screwed up kids with both birth parents and I know some wonderful adults who lost their fathers early thru death. It makes no difference why the father isn’t there. It DOES make a difference how the mother and her family handle the circumstances that made her a single one.

    mk750 on August 16, 2010 at 5:28 pm

      Wondering what you mean by “fait accompli” – not the translation, but what you are referring to by using it.

      mnl79 on August 17, 2010 at 11:45 am

      mk750,
      It makes a big difference to a child if his or her father abandon him or her or has passed on.If the father has passed on he or she tends on average to doe as well in life as a child w/ both parents.

      One theory is that a desceat father can be used as an authority still.Your father wouldn’t approve of that etc. etc.

      Gordito on August 17, 2010 at 12:09 pm

Dear Laura, Bristol and Jen:

I know ya’ll be talking up being a Baby Mama but can I get some props for singing ’bout the struggles of real Baby Mamas. All you skinny thangs probably aint got no stretch marks to prove it is yo kid.

Signed
Fantasia

P.S. And one Ya’ll better have my Baby Mama song on yo iphone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WDOmHcJQJA

CS: I wrote about that in 2005:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6086/american-idol-whos-your-babydaddy/
DS

CaliforniaScreaming on August 16, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Hrmmm… it seems that while Laura Ingraham is living the life of a single mother, and Sarah Palin is doing what she can to protect her daughter, who got knocked up by a lout, and is now exposed to a cruel press, Jennifer Aniston is actively PROMOTING the lifestyle. She stands to make tens of millions of dollars by doing so, through her new movie. Hers is the most damaging example.

If you’ve ever actually WATCHED O’Reilly, you would know that he’s a passionate defender of children and their rights. He would NEVER assail Sasha and Malia (both children), if they got in trouble. OR Bristol (underaged when she came on the scene). More importantly, he would never try to inflict harm on the children of these women, as he might if he attacked his friend, Laura Ingraham.

Give the guy a break. He’s saying a message that you agree with, but he’s not destroying everyone around him to get it out? How is that hypocrisy?

BR: How the heck is pimping your single mother daughter to every celebrity magazine cover that comes along–as Sarah Palin has–“protecting her daughter”? Hilarious. Uh, sorry, but Bristol and Sarah Palin are ACTIVELY promoting her lifestyle every single chance (and dollar) they get. Wake. The. Heck. Up. Oh, and here’s a tip: Bristol Palin wasn’t raped. She willingly slept with the guy. It isn’t just him that made the baby. Stop making excuses for these frauds and hypocrites. You just make my point more and more about partisan hypocrisy. Either single motherhood is wrong or it isn’t. Stop making distinctions without a difference. DS

Bob Redding on August 16, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    The point is its not very different from what ghetto project moms do. The man is conveniently erased from the picture. You are a sexist, despite being a man and you ought to know better that single motherhood is not good for the children in the long run!

    NormanF on August 16, 2010 at 5:11 pm

Debbie,

You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

Signed,
Bill O’Reilly

CaliforniaScreaming on August 16, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Oscar:

Ingraham didn’t get married for the same reason why so many liberal women didn’t: careerism. When a liberal woman does it, we call it “feminism.” But when a conservative woman does like Ingraham does (passes down several chances to get married but becomes a mother to 2 kids) well we just don’t talk about it. Seriously, were Ingraham some single 40-something Hollywood celebrity raising a couple of adopted African kids, the right would state “there goes that feminist liberal PC Hollywood lifestyle!” But Ingraham (and Palin) need a man like a fish needs a bicycle, and it’s OK?

Again, no different from talking about Limbaugh’s letting Elton John sing at his FOURTH marriage. If it were George Clooney (assuming Clooney would ever get married in the first place), we’d talk about how it is a mockery of the institution of marriage and how Hollywood is destroying our culture. But since it is Limbaugh, even talking about it means that you are “invading his personal life and practicing the politics of personal destruction.”

Double standards all …

Gerald on August 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Gerald. I assume Ingraham provided this information to you first hand? If not, you are just speculating.

    Oscar on August 16, 2010 at 5:59 pm

Did someone say ‘Baby Mama’ up in here!?

Signed
Gabrielle Sidibe (aka Precious)

http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/gabrielle-sidibe-2010-2-26-21-24-47.jpg

CaliforniaScreaming on August 16, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Deb,

I have to disagree with your characterization of adoption being the same as out of birth wedlock. Adoption is not selfish, it is incredibly brave, especially when a birth mother can step in and claim back a child that you raised. How do you know that the children Ms. Ingraham adopted would have ended up in a 2 parent home? What if they had never been placed at all and ended up being shuffled from foster home to foster home? Adoption is not the same as deciding you want to get pregnant and give birth without a man.

D: She is raising two kids without a man. Period. That’s single motherhood. Doesn’t matter how they got there. She made the choice to become a single mother. Many couples who can’t have children would love to adopt kids and have gone to foreign lands. I have (MARRIED) cousins who adopted a Russian daughter. Ingraham took that chance away for married parents in the case of those two kids she adopted. And she took away the chance for those two kids to have a father. DS

Dave on August 16, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    If you want kids, do it the old-fashioned way – get married and then start a family. If you need companions, get a dog or a cat. And compromising your own values isn’t the way to strengthen marriage and the family at a time when it needs all the support it can get.

    I don’t think gay marriage is as much an issue as it is conservatives not walking the talk on the values they claim to hold dear. If you can’t attack doing the wrong thing even when other people have an “R” beside their name, then its best to remain mercifully silent.

    NormanF on August 16, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    Baloney Debbie, your cousins wanted a blond, blue eyed as close to infant as possible. There are plenty of non-white, slightly older kids in america longing to be adopted and who will spend life in foster home after foster home and come out totally messed up. Why didn’t your cousin go to China where they still murder babies for being one too many? Anyway, what did this perfect little aryan specimen cost them to get from Mother Russia?

    You said it, it doesn’t matter how they became single mothers, the kids are missing something and it’s tough but it’s not the end of the world. I agree with you about the Palins being publicity hounds and trying to make a career of Bristol’s motherhood but you are unfair and cruel to thousands of women who used bad judgment one time.

    mk750 on August 16, 2010 at 5:39 pm

      So you think DS is cruel and mean because of her thoughts? Puh-leeze! Not near as cruel as these dopes having babies out of wedlock and with no Dads. That’s the REAL cruelty.

      For crying out loud, even kids who have sperm-donor Dads from a ferkakteh sperm bank are looking for the sperm donors!! Nope, you don’t want to acknowledge that but make excuse after excuse for the REAL terrible deed.

      It’s not the end of the World? Have you noticed any of the corrosion of our American culture? WAKE UP. YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

      Skunky on August 16, 2010 at 6:06 pm

        NO Skunky, the corrosion of American “culture” is due to the sexualization of that society in the past 40 or so years. I’m not saying a woman should choose to go and be a single mom because she wants a baby doll to play with. I’m saying that once a young girl does the stupid, what are the options? Having adoption in my family for that reason, is not always the answer. My Granddaughter got a good family but she was so thrilled to initiate a relationship with me, even more than with my daughter, her birth mom. My daughter has gone on to marry a man who would have accepted her daughter and have 4 more children, all sons. This girl could have been part of that larger family had my daughter not been afraid of what she thought were my strict rules about such things and just confided in me. Of course I don’t approve of premarital sex not even with the pill, but once it happens you deal with the consequences. I think Adoption agencies could do a better job of finding intact families but I’d much rather see a baby adopted by a single mom than wind up in foster care. I had an aunt who lost her husband when her third child and I were infants. She did a remarkable job of raising them well, getting them thru college and turning them out successfully. She was neither educated or highly paid. She was just motivated to do the best she could for her kids.

        mk750 on August 17, 2010 at 4:39 am

          should read “IT is not always the best option”

          mk750 on August 17, 2010 at 4:42 am

          mk750 ,
          The fact that your grand-daughter was more thrilled to start a relationship with you then her birth-mother is proof that her adoption was a good thing.A woman can never have a big enough circle of loved ones.And everyone could use another grand-mother.
          Men who have been adopted by a loving couple don’t seek out there birth parents at the same rate as women do.My sister keeps in touch w/ thired cousins that I couldn’t even reconize in the street.
          It seems your obsession is a little selfish.You wanted your daughter to raise a daughter and you didn’t get that so the rest of us who want to pass the wisdom down about the importance of mothers and fathers are just selfish bigots who are as bad as racist that adopt Russian babies.OK

          Gordito on August 17, 2010 at 1:54 pm

          Pardon,
          Should be People who are racist because they adopt russian babies

          Gordito on August 17, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        Skunky,
        My mother became a lesbian when I was about 9.Everytime I was around kids of lesbians and the lesbians where out of ear shot it seemed that most of the kids would dwell about finding there father or what little they might have been told about him let us know about.
        Alot of the lesbians would be really militant and nag us (also scare us)into silence on the issue of wanting a father.They really were militant bullies and even today most of the people I grew up w/ won’t publically say what they ey will tell you in private.
        The public bullies you too.I don’t know how many times I was out in public and strangers would come up to me and till me how lucky I was to have 2 people who loved me.They didn’t know me from Adam and they felt free to make come up to me to make a judgement on my life.Alot of the time it was a girl my mother just started seeing or a friend of hers.

        But let’s not pass wisdom down to our kids because it might make some grown women feel bad.Can we agree women wouldn’t do anything wrong if it wasn’t for men.Let’s continue passing that down

        Gordito on August 17, 2010 at 1:27 pm

      mk750,
      You don’t think your being cruel to millons of us bastards by saying it didn’t matter we didn’t have fathers because it might have made your daughter feel bad if she kept her baby.We’re not to pass wisdom down to our kids because it would have made your daughter feel bad.
      You don’t think your being cruel to billons of men in saying there like calling cards ,unnecessary.Teaching boys all they need to be is sperm doners and if they choose to work bill payers .Anything else is unnessary.

      Women can’t be called on there mistakes but Men sure as hell can.Isn’t that a bit sexist.WHEN YOUR KIND TO THE CRUEL YOUR CRUEL TO THE KIND

      Gordito on August 17, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    There are hypocrites. They don’t care if its proper or not.

    What they do care about is other people being judgmental.

    That is the very worst sin one can commit in today’s society and Debbie is guilty of it. How dare she pass judgment on them!

    I think that’s a far more salient issue than whether being a babymama is wrong.

    NormanF on August 16, 2010 at 8:10 pm

The type of man women choose to have babies with have changed because women see the roles as ever changing because men are not up to the task as stated by the anti male narrative. So these women compete with each other by raising children on their own; running a business something else that requires a lot of work, intelligence, time and energy; and staying beautiful/a sex symbol. I know these type of women and they have several good looking beta males that they keep for sex. The dumb good looking beta male is the 21st century alpha male. The women do not want to spend the rest of their life with a real responsible Alpha male because in their eyes they think it makes them look weak and they don’t want to share any responsibilities. These new Alpha women to make the cake, keep all the cake for themselves, eat the cake, and work overtime/have sex with dumb good looking beta males to burn off the calories from the cake.

I’m 31 and an alpha male and I’m only attracted to alpha females who have the qualities above like intelligence, beauty, a sense of humor, good moral and values, good motherly instincts, ect.., which used to be all well and good until this new trend started decades ago. I see it over and over again, these type of women these days are setting a trend to be single and go it alone or marry a beta male, i.e marrying down, and walking all over him and cheating on him.

I know this because I have been engaged 3 times and all three times the girl called it off because she wanted to remain single and free to do what she wants and saw marriage as an impediment to her goals, i.e. competing with other alpha females doing the same thing.

All I have to say is all this social engineering is destroying the nuclear family and our country with it. And these women who should be strong wifes and mothers in a marriage are acting flat out selfish while using the narrative that all the good man are gone and men are lazy.

I know all this from person experience, observing, and talking to many women who have always opened up to me my whole life. These women today feel like it takes several men to make up their “perfect man” and they actively seek out these weak betas who don’t mind being just a piece of these womens’ puzzles.

Thanks Sex in the City… Idiocracy here we come.

soyphobia on August 16, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Soy, if you really are an alpha, I feel for you. You are right. I was having this discussion today with a religious Jewish woman and even in the very Orthodox community it is happening. But the men are to blame too. They want thin, beautiful, smart, and caring. They won’t look at not so thin, plain, average intelligence but with a warm heart and nurturing soul. Women think they “can have it all” and men find that exciting until the wedding draws near as it did for you 3 times and they realize their alpha status is in jeopardy. You should want an alpha woman but the definition of that has changed. It changed 40 years ago when I was pregnant and being called a parasite because I decided to make wife and motherhood my career. It was that pressure, including from my now ex-husband, that created the ambivalence that caused me to not set a good example for my daughter which led to her being pregnant outside of marriage at 18. BTW my ex seemed very Alpha when we first married. It was afterwards he couldn’t understand how I could “stand to be home all day with a kid.”

    mk750 on August 16, 2010 at 5:54 pm

      you missed the entire point of my post. all women want are sperm donors, sex toys from their bot toys, and men to buy them expensive stuff and to raise their socio-economic status. the only men that are willing to fall into that trend are beta males.

      BTW you painted me in the wrong light because I think being a good mother is the most important and hardest job on earth which I highly respect… so does being a good wife. Why would I want to marry and have children with a woman who is not intelligent and does not take care of herself mentally and physically? why would I want to spend my life and and children with a woman who is just average in my eyes? Being a good mother and wife are the most beautiful traits a woman can have in my eyes BTW.

      soyphobia on August 18, 2010 at 9:46 am

Wow! So rare that I find someone even more stringent on single-motherhood…which I abhore. It is destructive, fraudulent and selfish to the nth degree. It makes me sick and I feel the children lose out not having a Dad.

I like Ingraham and I guess I never had a problem with her adoptions because the only exception I saw in these is if they were adopted from countries where the child’s life in known to be bleak…like Guatamala and Russia. HOWEVER, lately I have been feeling like she cheated the children out of a Dad…and that is not good. Just watch the children pine away as they age. That’s the truth peeps sweep under the rug.

Then again, my argument is flawed…see that nasty, haggy, slag Madonna and her two adopted Malawi children. Anyone with a brain knows that having that nutter as a mom has to suck. I viewed her differently than Ingraham, but perhaps I shouldn’t. Anyone with a brain knows old slag Madonna adopted not her own personal edification, but to seem (like a Liberal is wont to do) more caring than she actually is. The PC babies are just props. Disgrazia!

Anyway, I think I have been 100% converted to DS’s opinion. It is just selfish. Great. Peeps didn’t like my opinion then and now that it is so much more hardcore, I reckon they’ll hate it even more. Too bad. The truth hurts. In the end, the children come first so DS is right!

Skunky on August 16, 2010 at 4:48 pm

I hafta add…Jennifer Aniston is dopey and seems like a mess mentally since Brad left her for Skankelina (I feel for her that way but by now she should have gotten some dignity and straightened up. She is prolly so needy and annoying that being with her is untenable).

Also, although I am not a Palin-hater (but must admit those accusing her of being a media whore seems more believable these days) I have always felt that peeps taking her to task due to her dopey daughter (who I believe really has strong issues with her Mom)getting knocked up is 100% fair…even if taken to task by Liberal hypocrites. Sorry, if you adopt a lifestyle choice and can’t live up to it…you gotta weather those slings and arrows. If you can’t hack what you believe in, get out of it…especially if you’re a conservative!

Her daughter is way dopier than Paris Hilton. How sad is that?

Skunky on August 16, 2010 at 5:13 pm

I don’t believe that single men can adopt kids from other countries but I may be wrong. does anybody know if single men can adopt kids?

If not then that should be corrected or single women should not be able to adopt either IMO.

soyphobia on August 16, 2010 at 5:15 pm

I don’t think single people of either sex should be allowed to adopt a child. Ditto for gay people. A child is too important to be deprived of a dad and mom just because some people need them as an accessory. A child is not a grown-up toy!

NormanF on August 16, 2010 at 5:39 pm

Cynical person that I am, I also think, that in addition to the selfishness of indulging their whims to raise single children, there may be a marketing or self-promotion aspect as well. As nominal conservatives, Palin and Ingraham are limited in the number of women they can reach. They may feel that this is a good way to ‘humanize’ their image; raise or support the raising of single kids to show how human they are, and increase their viewership, readership or political influence, and get more money in this indirect way through larger listenership/influence, in addition to the direct way of articles, etc.

And their cynical disregard of conservative values needs to be generalized. If they disregard them here, for opportunistic reasons, they will disregard them anywhere else they find expedient. And as a number of comments to this post show, they have little danger of losing their faux-conservative base.

Little Al on August 16, 2010 at 5:54 pm

That’s what is great about America.. Everybody gets an opinion.

shaon on August 16, 2010 at 6:05 pm

Hey Bill O’Reilly is a windbag. If he claims “The Spin Stops Here” then he should call out Laura Ingraham. Let me see Ingraham claims to have converted to Catholicism. Well, what does the Pope say about choosing single motherhood? I kind of think she is following the Madonna school of motherhood and we are not talking The Madonna (Mary, mother of Jesus). So O’Reilly calls out a fictional Baby Mama (Jennifer Anniston) instead of a real Baby Mama (Laura Ingraham). Got Cajones? The man has been shown to BS on so many issues that his show is now comedy to me rather than information. OK, Bill gonna have one more of those shows warning parents ’bout the ravages of Spring Break with video of girls frolicking in G-Strings and Bikinis? Remember this is all done in name of safety and public service. Riiiiightt, Bill. Memo to Bill if you are gonna be a Horn Dog admit it dont hide behind the “in the name of public safety for parents.”

As for the Palins, Bristol is just a high class HO!! OK, Bristol gets knocked up has the baby out of wed-lock and chooses life. Well, we can forgive her. Then like most trashy, low self-esteem girls allows her man to run her down and then takes him back when he says, “Baby, I miss you and want you back.” Well,instead of making him wait for maybe a year or two she hitches an engagement behind Queen Sarah. Oh, by the way this Levi d-bag had already knocked up another chick. Calling Jerry or Maury we have a problem. Hey Bristol your baby has a half brother coming into the world. Gonna like the family reunion on this one. Well, she got her money and fame.

CaliforniaScreaming on August 16, 2010 at 6:47 pm

I completely agree w/DS. Working in Chicago public school system, I meet many single mothers…kids need both father & mother to learn how to navigate life.
Crime, poverty, jails, drugs, gangs, highschool dropouts are all a result of single motherhood. Bring back nightly family dinners!

meg on August 16, 2010 at 10:29 pm

Laura Ingraham is a bore and sounds like a man. Maybe she should try out for the wnba.

tyler on August 17, 2010 at 12:26 am

Why is everyone ignoring the MASSIVE FINANCIAL COST to
taxpayers? In his devastating new book, “National Suicide”,
Martin Gross reveals a well-hidden fact, that a family of
four living completely off government, costs us $90,000
per year!!!!! Also, the mainstream media never points out
that poverty stats do NOT include non-cash benefits as income. If they did, the poverty rate would certainly shrink, and the vast bureaucracies running this corrosive scam of encouraging destructive behavior, would be exposed for the parasitical frauds they most certainly are.

Kara Lane on August 17, 2010 at 2:43 am

“the same kind of crap promoted in her movie and all the others like it. ”

You know as well as I do that, by the end of the movie The Switch, Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston will fall in love, get together, and raise the child as a family. Same thing for The Back-Up Plan – by the end of the movie, Lopez’ character ended up with that hairy dude and they were all one big happy family, rather than her being a single mother.

All of these movies you criticize end exactly the same way, with the single mother ending up with a male partner. If anything, they’re anti-single mothers, not for them.

Dave on August 17, 2010 at 3:13 am

Social security for single mothers = subsidizing anti-social behavior

Bronson on August 17, 2010 at 7:12 am

Debbie, methinks your expectations of O’Reilly in this instance carry to far. They remind me of the child who draws a picture of a horse and immediately below it writes H O R S E for those who may not be sure what he or she had drawn. The fact is that we know exactly what O’Reilly’s thoughts are on this issue. They couldn’t be clearer and need no reinforcing in the manner you may have been expecting.

On the issue of single mothers your judgment is absolutely spot on. But even here there are degrees of severity. Everything is relative, of course, but the child who knows who his or her father is has a rather better foundation for positive growth than the child of a single mother who had availed herself of the services of a sperm bank.

Arn on August 17, 2010 at 8:42 am

Debbie is spot on with this. To CHOOSE to be a single parent is extremely selfish.

There was a good article yesterday in MSNBC about the children of sperm donors and how they have been cheated:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38679526/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/wid/38682865

jimmyPx on August 17, 2010 at 9:50 am

I have noticed that Ms. Aniston, in her own comments to reporters during the publicity junket for her new movie, has come across more sounding like old hag – er, New York Times columnist (same thing) Maureen Dowd who’d infamously written a book entitled “Are Men Necessary?” and whose entire philosophy towards the opposite sex seems embedded in that book’s pages.

ConcernedPatriot on August 17, 2010 at 10:00 am

If you have a kid out of wedlock and raise it, you are selfish. Period.

Well, I have to disagree with this one being a single mother myself. I made a poor choice to trust a man with my own birth control so that made me stupid and irresponsible. However, I believe we all make mistakes and it is how we pay for them that counts. Caring for another human being is never selfish but selfless. It takes MANY sacrifices to raise one well (not on public assistance and without one dime of child support). I will prefer to be called “SELFISH” over a murderer for aborting an innocent any day of the week. With that said, I have learned that children need fathers more than you know and I do not approve of the way the women today do it carelessly, get on the govt dole, and exclude men needlessly. It does damage the child so you are right on that one, but adtoption is not for everyone so you have 2 choices. Let’s not judge for choosing life over murder okay?

CJ on August 17, 2010 at 11:57 am

    CJ: You didn’t perhaps act as responsibly as you could have BUT you didn’t do this as a deliberate life decision to be a single parent. And I would agree that I would rather be labeled selfish than seeing you abort an unplanned pregnancy. Children are never a mistake. Just our actions.

    Musiccgirl on August 17, 2010 at 1:25 pm

I couldn’t agree more. My husband’s sister stereotypically filled the role as the single, black female with 3 kids from 2 fathers. She did support them financially but the fathers have not. But she also relied heavily on her brother (my husband), parents and grandparents. Some financial support but mostly filling the void of lacking of the second parent. This was magnified when she was diagnosed with cancer and finally succumbed to it Sept. 2006. She left 3 kids with no parents and no will or instructions. Suffice it to say these kids have carried the burden of this series of really bad decisions and crap circumstances. We have one graduated and on to college but 2 more to go. The drama continues as they are still being played in a tug-of-war between family members. My husband and I wanted them all but due to our inter-racial marriage, many in the family objected (at least that is my opinion and my husband has never confirmed or denied it). After all, a white woman cannot raise black kids, right? So now we just watch from the sidelines as the family continues to make bad choices for these great kids. What is my point you ask? My point is being a single mother is not and should not ever be glamorized and should not be encouraged. It is unfair to the kids and to the families who end up picking up the slack. Can it be done? Yes. Should it be a first choice? HELL NO!!!!!!!

Musiccgirl on August 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm

Righ about Laura Ingraham, she doesn’t look very feminine, she looks so masculinized.

Lex on August 17, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Debbie I agree with you but not in the case of Ingraham. Adopotion IS different. I think that the “baster” method is the most selfish, creating a life outside of the natural as though you were ordering a handbag online. Bristol Palin, still selfish, but it was accidental not pre-planned and heavily financed like a “baster” mom. And lets be honest, Bristol could have easily aborted that baby and never told a soul and be done with it, instead she chose life, very un-selfish. This whole artifical way of making babies that is so en vogue with middle aged woman is very scary to me and really shows the shallowness they are approaching motherhood with. While I agree that adoption is best when there is a loving couple involved, Ingraham’s adoption is leaps and bounds above the “baster” method in class and integrity.

C on August 18, 2010 at 11:20 am

Jen is so a reserve type of person which i find it interesting to her. She`s the sexiest of all in hollywood people, she`s gifted with her beauty & body. It was good she`s separated with Bradd, she deserve better! To Jen, keep up the good work & God bless you more!

Shawn Fitzke on September 13, 2010 at 4:22 am

Debbie, talk about hipocrits. “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” You make a career of it, so you must consider yourself perfect? Do you really think all criminals come from single parent families? Wow.
The American government has been promoting then by sending all those fathers off to be killed.

Paul Smith on January 8, 2011 at 12:02 am

Regarding children adopted by single mothers, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Children adopted by single mothers are as well adjusted as those adopted by two parents.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a904833535

Lili on April 27, 2011 at 11:57 am

I get what you’re saying, and I agree, but I can’t agree with the misuse of language. O’Reilly is merely being inconsistent in his criticism of his peers — hypocrisy is not the word because that denotes one practicing what one preaches against. He’s not being hypocritical.

larz blackman on July 4, 2012 at 1:44 am

Well fucking said!

Jen Etic on February 26, 2014 at 1:03 pm

You are just an elitist b*** who doesn’t know any history or hasn’t done any research and just follow the negative stereotypes that are perpetuated by the media. Get a grip over your own womb before you try to tell others when and where and without who do have children with. DO SOME RESEARCH. The only selfish one is you. Oh, you probably one of those women who thinks she needs a man to complete her too.

Juju on May 3, 2014 at 12:18 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field