O'Reilly Ignored Big McCain Flip Flop Story

  • 4-28-08 -- This story shows that John McCain is a massive flip flopper, and that he just says what the neo-cons want to hear since he started running for president. And it is hypocrisy too, because McCain has attacked Obama and Hillary for taking the same position today, that he had in 2005 before he was running for president.

    Yet not a word of it from O'Reilly, then he claims he has been fair to Obama, haha, that's a good one. This story was reported by MSNBC, but not by Bill O'Reilly.

    -------------------------

    McCain Strongly Rejected Long-Term Iraq Presence: "Bring Them All Home"

    When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was for the idea before he was against it.

    Three years before the Arizona Republican argued on the campaign trail that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, he decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.

    In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan -- something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign -- the senator offered nothing short of a categorical "no."

    "I would hope that we could bring them all home," he said on MSNBC. "I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."

    Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. "You've heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I've heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?"

    McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. "I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence," he responded. "And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."

    The January 2005 comments, which have not surfaced previously during the presidential campaign, represent a stunning contrast to McCain's current rhetoric.

    They also run squarely against his image as having a steadfast, unwavering idea for U.S. policy in Iraq -- and provide further evidence to those, including some prominent GOP foreign policy figures in the "realist" camp, who believe McCain is increasingly adopting policies shared by neoconservatives.

    Finally, the comments undercut much of the criticism the senator has launched at his Democratic and even Republican opponents.

    On the campaign trail, for example, McCain has accused Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of a "failure of leadership" by advocating a policy of drawing down troops. But in the MSNBC interview, McCain was arguing that U.S. "visibility" was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America's presence - positions held by both Obama and Clinton.

    Somewhere along the way, McCain's position changed. Perhaps twice. As Think Progress reported, in August 2007, as the troops surge was underway, McCain told the Charlie Rose Show that the Korea model was "exactly" the right template for U.S. forces in Iraq. Only three months later, and on the same show, he completely reversed himself.

    "Do you think that this - Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be," Rose asked in November 2007.

    "I don't think so," replied McCain.

    "Even if there are no casualties?" Rose chimed in.

    "No," said McCain. "But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws."

    Then, in the lead up to the New Hampshire primary, the senator famously said that he wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. in Iraq for a hundred years, "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." And when his political opponents used that statement against him, McCain responded by saying he was drawing an analogy to the current military presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

    And yet, when he was asked by Matthews in 2005, if he "would you be happy with [Iraq] being the home of a U.S. garrison" like Germany, McCain again said no.

    Follow up on O'Reilly & The New GI Bill

  • 4-25-08 -- In February Bill O'Reilly reported on the new GI Bill, he had two guests on to discuss it. O'Reilly said he supports it, and that he will bring the guests back on the factor every month until it is passed. He also said he will call anyone out who does not support it, and even go to their house to make them support it.

    That was before he found out John McCain and 38 other Republicans in the Senate oppose the Bill. Since then O'Reilly has not said one word about McCain not supporting the bill, and the two guests have not been back, not once, let alone each month. O'Reilly has totally ignored the story because McCain and so many Republicans are opposed to the Bill.

    Now imagine how much coverage this story would get if Obama, Clinton, and 38 other Democrats opposed the bill. It would be reported every night, and O'Reilly would hammer them for not supporting the troops. But since McCain and 38 other Republicans oppose it, O'Reilly is silent as a mouse, a biased right-wing chickenhawk mouse.

    Current Senators who SUPPORT the New GI Bill:

    Mark Pryor (D)
    Blanche Lincoln (D)
    Barbara Boxer (D)
    Dianne Feinstein (D)
    Ken Salazar (D)
    Christopher Dodd (D)
    Joseph Lieberman (I)
    Joseph Biden (D)
    Bill Nelson (D)
    Daniel Akaka (D)
    Daniel Inouye (D)
    Barack Obama (D)
    Richard Durbin (D)
    Lisa Murkowski (R)
    Evan Bayh (D)     		Richard Lugar (R)
    Thomas Harkin (D)
    Mary Landrieu (D)
    Edward Kennedy (D)
    Susan Collins (R)
    Olympia Snowe (R)
    Benjamin Cardin (D)
    Barbara Mikulski (D)
    John Kerry (D)
    Carl Levin (D)
    Debbie Stabenow (D)
    Norm Coleman (R)
    Amy Klobuchar (D)
    Christopher Bond (R)
    Claire McCaskill (D)     		Max Baucus (D)
    Jon Tester (D)
    Charles Hagel (R)
    Harry Reid (D)
    Frank Lautenberg (D)
    Robert Menendez (D)
    Jeff Bingaman (D)
    Pete Domenici (R)
    Hillary Clinton (D)
    Charles Schumer (D)
    Byron Dorgan (D)
    Sherrod Brown (D)
    James Inhofe (R)
    Gordon Smith (R)
    Ron Wyden (D)     		Robert Casey (D)
    Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
    Tim Johnson (D)
    Patrick Leahy (D)
    Bernard Sanders (I)
    Maria Cantwell (D)
    Patty Murray (D)
    Herb Kohl (D)
    Robert Byrd (D)
    John Rockefeller (D)
    John Warner (R)
    Jim Webb (D)

    Current Senators who DO NOT support the New GI Bill:

    John McCain (R)
    Jeff Sessions (R)
    Wayne Allard (R)
    Tom Carper (D)
    Mel Martinez (R)
    Saxby Chambliss (R)
    Johnny Isakson (R)
    Larry Craig (R)
    Mike Crapo (R)
    Chuck Grassley (R)
    Sam Brownback (R)
    		 Mitch McConnell (R)
    Jim Bunning (R)
    David Vitter (R)
    Thad Cochran (R)
    Roger Wicker (R)
    John Ensign (R)
    Judd Gregg (R)
    John Sununu (R)
    Elizabeth Dole (R)
    Richard Burr (R)
    George Voinovich (R)     		Tom Coburn (R)
    Arlen Spector (R)
    Jack Reed (D)
    Lindsey Graham (R)
    Jim DeMint (R)
    John Thune (R)
    Lamar Alexander (R)
    Bob Corker (R)
    Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)
    John Cornyn (R)
    Orrin Hatch (R)     		Pat Roberts (R) Robert Bennett (R)
    Russ Feingold (D)
    Mike Enzi (R)
    John Barrasso (R)
    Ben Nelson (D)
    Jon Kyl (R)
    Richard Shelby (R)
    Ted Stevens (R)

    What say you Billy?

    When are you going to live up to your word, and call John McCain, and the other Republican Senators out for not supporting the new GI Bill?

    Political Alert: The Simple Arithmetic of Republican Failure

  • 4-21-08 -- Every night O'Reilly and pretty much everyone at FOX news tell you how bad it would be to elect a Democrat president in November. Yet they never show you the stats for past presidents, and which party has done a better job as president. That's because they don't want you to know the truth, they want you to believe their lies that Republicans are better presidents, when the facts show the exact opposite.

    The next time you hear O'Reilly say how bad things will be if Obama or Hillary become the next president, remember these numbers, and remember that he is lying to you.

    Numbers tell a story. Especially over time. They compel us to focus on results, success, and failure. Over the short term, maybe a few years, numbers can be manipulated or give false signals. But not over decades, and not over a generation.

    The numbers over the past 30 years are not refutable. When it comes to creating jobs and managing the nation's finances, Democratic presidents demonstrate more success while Republican presidents show less success.

    Job Creation

    Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 10.5 million new jobs
    Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 11.6 million new jobs
    Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 12.4 million new jobs

    Total: 33.6 million jobs created over 12 years, or 2.8 million jobs per year

    Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 5.2 million new jobs
    Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 10.8 million new jobs
    George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 2.6 million new jobs
    George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.2 million fewer jobs
    George W. Bush 2005-2007: 5.5 million new jobs

    Total: 24 million jobs created over 19 years, or 1.3 million jobs per year

    Government Spending

    How much did the government spend for every dollar of revenue?

    Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: $ 1.16
    Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: $1.25
    Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: $1.01

    Democratic Average: $1.16

    Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: $1.31
    Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: $1.38
    George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: $1.34
    George W. Bush 2001-2004: $1.27
    George W. Bush 2005-2007: $1.24

    Republican Average: $1.29

    The difference between $1.16 and $1.29 may not seem like a lot, but the impact on the national debt is huge, especially when you consider that $1.29 applies to 19 years, and the budgets under this president are so much larger.

    Increases in Government Debt

    Growth In Debt Held By the Public [$US trillions]

    Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.2
    Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.7
    Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: -0.3

    Democratic Total: 0.6

    Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.6
    Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.7
    George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.9
    George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.9
    George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.1

    Republican Total: 4.3

    The financial markets only pay attention to the amount of debt held by the public. This is the number that helps drive down the value of the dollar and makes bankers nervous about inflation down the road.

    Growth of Debt Held By "Government Accounts" [$US trillions]

    Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.00
    Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.4
    Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 0.8

    Democratic Total: 1.3

    Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.1
    Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.3
    George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.5
    George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.8
    George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.4

    Republican Total: 3.0

    These numbers prove that Democrats make better presidents, that is why you never see them reported by Bill O'Reilly, or anyone at the FOX news network. Instead you get spin, and right-wing talking points, that try to fool you into thinking Republicans have been better presidents.

    O'Reilly also claims you will lose money in the stock market if a Democrat is the next president. The facts show the exact opposite, which is why you never see them reported by Bill O'Reilly, or anyone at FOX news.

    In October if 2006 the Van Kempen and Ned Davis research company did a study on the market to see how it performs under presidents from each party, here are the results.

    Gains in (%) for Stocks by Party of the President and Congress- From -- 03-04-1901 to 10-23-2006

    Democratic President - Stocks gained an average of 7.19 percent.
    Republican President - Stocks gained an average of 3.85 percent.

    Democratic Congress - Stocks gained an average of 6.46 percent.
    Republican Congress - Stocks gained an average of 3.51 percent.

    Democrat President with a Democrat Congress - 6.53% gain.
    Democrat President with a Republican Congress - 9.60% gain.

    Republican President with a Republican Congress - 1.54% gain.
    Republican President with a Democrat Congress - 6.37% gain.

    These numbers not only show the stock market performs better with a Democrat President, they show how biased Bill O'Reilly truly is. He is so biased against the Democrats he will lie to you, and say you will lose money in the market if a Democrat gets in the White House in November.

    Think about this: Bill O'Reilly has invested his own money in the market, and he will make more money in the market if a Democrat is President. Yet he lies to you when he says everyone will lose money in the market if we elect a Democrat in November.

    This shows beyond a doubt, that Bill O'Reilly is so biased against the Democrats he will lie to you about stock market gains by party, when he knows the markets go up more under Democrat Presidents than with Republican Presidents. It's just more proof that Bill O'Reilly is a liar, and that he is a BIASED REPUBLICAN.

    Dishonest And Unethical Journalism From Bill O'Reilly

  • 4-20-08 -- Here is a great example of dishonest and unethical Journalism from Bill O'Reilly. Funny how O'Reilly says it's wrong to do this when someone else does it to him, or another Republican, but somehow it's ok when O'Reilly does it.

    On April 2nd, 2008. Bill O'Reilly sent one of his Producers to Chicago to get some ambush gotcha clips about Pastor Wright. Well he got more than he could handle when he talked to Rev. Michael Pfleger. Instead he got almost nothing, Rev. Pfleger defended Wright with articulate and intelligent answers.

    The Pfleger interview shows how O'Reilly plays video clips that are cherry picked and out of context. In the interview Pfleger tells it like it is, something O'Reilly's Producer was not ready for. One of the comments about the video on you tube said this:
    Wow....this priest is sharp! The little Fox reporter wasn't expecting someone this studied. "Was Bill O'Reilly a Marine?".......I'm speechless, this guy is good!
    In fact, Rev. Pfleger was so good O'Reilly could only use 15 seconds of the video from the 9 minute and 59 second interview. That was about all he could cherry pick and use, because in the rest of the 9 minutes and 44 seconds, Rev Pfleger destroyed O'Reilly's Producer and his nonsense un-American gotcha questions.

    Here is the un-edited interview by O'Reilly's producer, with the Catholic priest Rev. Michael Pfleger. In the interview Pfleger stood there and answered every single question from O'Reilly's ambush Producer.



    He defended Pastor Wright, and he said if Wright hates America why did he join the Marines and fight to defend this country, then he asked if O'Reilly was ever a Marine, and if O'Reilly ever fought to defend the country, but he got no answer from O'Reilly's Producer, or Bill O'Reilly.

    Because when it came time for O'Reilly to serve, he chickened out, and dodged the draft two times. O'Reilly would have been drafted for the Vietnam war, but he used teaching and education to avoid the draft, not once, but two times. The first time he went to college in London for two years, then he came back when he thought the draft was over. Wrong, they ran another draft called the Mansfield Amendment, so O'Reilly took a teaching job in Florida to avoid the draft for a second time.

    So what O'Reilly did was take a 10 minute interview, and cherry pick 15 seconds of it to make Rev. Pfleger look bad, it was dishonest, unethical, against all Journalism rules, and just plain wrong. If that's not bad enough, after O'Reilly aired the out of context cherry picked 15 second clip on the factor, he went on to do a full 6 minute segment discussing whether or not Rev. Pfleger should be sanctioned by the Catholic Church!

    Here is what O'Reilly put on the air on April 4th, 2008. The whole 15 seconds:



    This is what O'Reilly calls honest Journalism, when it's as dishonest and unethical as it gets. O'Reilly tells his viewers that he is the only honest Journalist in the media, and you should only believe what he says because everyone else is lying to you.

    When O'Reilly is the dishonest Journalist who lies and spins, puts out nothing but right-wing propaganda, and biased out of context cherry picked video clips. An honest un-biased Journalist would have played more than 15 seconds from a 10 minute interview, or put the man on the air and let him defend himself. O'Reilly did neither, this is what dishonest Journalism looks like, you are looking at it, from Bill O'Reilly.

    O'Reilly Caught Lying About GI Bill Guests & Ignoring John McCain

  • 4-19-08 -- On the 2-7-08 O'Reilly Factor Billy announced his support for a new GI bill, he did a talking points memo on the bill, then he had two guets on to discuss it. FOX News military analyst Colonel David Hunt, and Republican Congressman Peter King.
    2-7-08 -- O'REILLY: Tonight, we have a major announcement, and that is a new GI bill is needed in the country. And we will work hard to make that happen this year. "The Factor" has partnered up with Senator John Kerry in the Senate and Congressman Peter King in the House to forward legislation that will reward our fighting men and women when they leave the service.

    It's long past time to expand the GI bill to give vets more health, education, and housing benefits. That is the right thing to do and would help recruiting, which the country desperately needs. "Talking Points" believes Congress will pass, and President Bush will sign a new GI bill. And we'll do everything we can to make that happen.
    Later in the show O'Reilly said this during the interview of Col. Hunt and Congressman King.
    O'REILLY: Well, you guys all get together. And I'm sure you'll work out a bill that is fair and balanced. And we don't want any pork in it. We don't want any bridges in it.

    KING: Right.

    O'REILLY: Or any of that. Just the military. Where is it in the process though? I'm going to bring you guys back once a month until it gets passed.

    KING: Right.

    O'REILLY: Where are we now?

    KING: The bill is getting drafted. Obviously, I'll be coordinating with Senator Kerry. Our offices have been talking. I would say it will probably be ready to be introduced by the end of this month.

    O'REILLY: Excellent.
    O'Reilly said he would bring them back on the show every month until it gets passed. That was on February 8th, 2008. To this day they have not been back, not once a month, not ever. I suspect they have not been back because John McCain is still not supporting the bill. And O'Reilly does not want to draw attention to the bill because he might have to talk about McCain not supporting the bill.

    But either way, O'Reilly lied about bringing them back once a month, every month, until the bill is passed, and that is a cold hard fact.

    Then near the end of the interview O'Reilly said this.
    O'REILLY: Now Congressman King, I got to tell you one thing. You need to tell us if there's somebody blocking you, or somebody not doing the right thing, because Colonel Hunt and I are going to their house. We're going to show up. And nobody wants that. Nobody wants that. We saw what happened in New Hampshire.

    KING: You two will be the first to find out.

    O'REILLY: OK. And we'll see you in one month. And Senator Kerry, we hope, will be on the TV side at that time.

    HUNT: Thanks for doing this.

    O'REILLY: And - sure, listen, it's my privilege to do it.
    Right there you see that O'Reilly promised to bring them back in one month for the 2nd time, and yet they have never been back. Not only that, you see that O'Reilly told Congressman King to tell him if anyone is blocking it, or not doing the right thing and support it.

    This was in early February, a full 10 weeks ago. John McCain has not supported the bill that whole time. And to this day John McCain does not support the bill, and has not signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both support it, and they are both co-sponsors of the bill.

    So let's recap, O'Reilly broke his promise to have Hunt and King back on the factor every month until the bill passes. Then in the 10 weeks since then he has said nothing about McCain not supporting the bill, even after he said he would go after anyone who did not support the bill, and said he would go to their house. Not only has he not gone to McCain's house, he is silent about McCain not supporting the bill.

    Just imagine what O'Reilly would say if Obama or Clinton were not supporting the bill. He would do numerous segments on it every night and hammer them relentlessly. This is 100% proof that Bill O'Reilly has a bias for John McCain, and that he will resort to any measure he can to cover up for John McCain.

    Barack Obama says voters are bitter, and O'Reilly does a whole show on it. Yet he ignores the non-support of the new GI bill by John McCain, even after he promised to go after anyone who did not support it. If this is not right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly, then there is no such thing as bias.

    O'Reilly is always screaming about liberal bias in the media, yet here he is guilty of total right-wing bias be not saying a word about McCain not supporting the new GI bill. It's total right-wing bias, and everyone can see it with their own eyes.

    O'Reilly Redefines 'Fair And Balanced'

  • 4-18-08 -- Last night, Bill O'Reilly offered the newest definition of Fox News's "Fair and Balanced" slogan: Bring on guests who hate both Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL).

    Following a segment with Karl Rove -- who trashed Obama -- O'Reilly introduced conservative pundit Dick Morris to trash Clinton:
    O'REILLY: OK now, Karl Rove doesn't really like Barack Obama as a political figure in this country. It's obvious. And you really don't like Hillary Clinton as a political figure in this country. So we figure we'd balance off the debate.
    Click Here to See The Video

    And who decided to have Karl Rove on to trash Obama, and Dick Morris on to trash Clinton, Bill O'Reilly of course. The same Bill O'Reilly that recently said he was a non-partisan Independent, who will be fair to both sides.

    And as expected, neither Rove nor Morris said anything about Sen. John McCain. And not one word was said in the entire hour about the, Economy, Jobs, The Iraq War, The Housing Crisis, Health Care, Immigration, Foreign Policy, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any issue facing America today, not by O'Reilly, or any guest. It was all partisan biased political attacks on Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

    No fairness, and no balance, almost the entire show was a right-wing smear job on the two Democrats running for President.

    O'Reilly Attacks Obama (Part 20)

  • 4-18-08 -- For about the 20th time in the last month O'Reilly once again devoted almost the entire show to one sided biased partisan attacks on Obama, or his Pastor. And there were no attacks on Obama wednesday night, at least not from O'Reilly, because he took the night off and E.D. Hill filled in for him.

    The TPM was Obama Gotcha Time. It was 2 minutes of O'Reilly smearing Obama with right-wing propaganda spin talking points. Billy also talked more about Pastor Wright, and played another video clip of the Pastor (about 10 seconds of it) then smeared him some more.

    In the past O'Reilly has said it is wrong and unethical to cherry pick partial out of context quotes about him, but somehow it's ok for him to do it to everyone else. And believe me, he is going to spend the entire summer cherry picking Pastor Wright video clips, 10 seconds at a time, all summer long. Because he thinks it hurts Obama, which it dont, and the polls show it.

    Then after that O'Reilly had Karl (dirty tricks) Rove on to trash Obama, Hillary, and Pastor Wright even more. They talked about William Ayers, Pastor Wright, & a little about Hillary. With no Democrat (or any liberal) to provide the balance to all the right-wing spin.

    It was nothing more than a biased, one sided, right-wing propaganda smear job on Obama and Hillary, by Karl Rove and O'Reilly. But it's nothing new, nobody is ever allowed on the factor to counter anything Rove says. O'Reilly always lets Rove spew out his biased right-wing propaganda with nobody to question any spin or lies he has to say.

    Then we had even more Obama attacks with Dick (the hooker toe sucker) Morris. O'Reilly and Morris spent another 4 minutes hammering Obama, near the end of the segment they somehow found a little time to trash Hillary too.

    The next segment was even more attacks on Pastor Wright, his home, and his finances. This time O'Reilly had FOX news Jeff Goldblatt on to continue the, one sided, biased, partisan, political smear job, on Obama and his Pastor.

    Good job Billy, you managed to do 30 minutes straight of Obama/Wright/Clinton bashing, with no balance at all, and not one person to give the counterpoint to your right-wing propaganda.

    Later in the show O'Reilly had even more attacks on Obama with Bernie and Jane. So pretty much the entire show, except for maybe 10 minutes, was devoted to non-stop one sided biased attacks on Obama, with a few minutes of Hillary bashing for good measure.

    And that's fair and balanced Journalism, how?

    Billy, Bernie, and Jane also had more attacks for Bill Maher. Earth to Billy, Bernie, and Jane. Bill Maher is a comedian, his job is to tell jokes, making Pope jokes is not news, especially when they were made by a comedian, move on to real news, if that's possible.

    There was a short segment on legal matters with Megyn Kelly, a short segment on the polygamist cult, and a short segment with the right-wing biased townhall.com editor about the internet.

    Just a normal 50 minute attack Obama factor, nothing new, move along. Then O'Reilly wonders why he does not get any respect from anyone other than Republicans. When you do one sided right-wing biaed shows every night, you will not get any respect from anyone, and you dont deserve any.

    Then in Pinheads and Patriots of course a liberal was the Pinhead (they always are) because O'Reilly cant seem to find a liberal who is a Patriot.

    Billy named Dick Cheney the Patriot, why you ask?

    For doing Obama, Pastor Wright, and Hillary jokes at the Journalist convention in Washington. O'Reilly played a video clip of Cheney making insulting jokes about 2 people who are running for President.

    Yet if a liberal makes a joke about a Republican somehow that's hate speech, wrong, and disrespectful, in the world of O'Reilly anyway. But if a Republican makes a joke about a liberal that's not only ok with Billy, it makes them a Patriot.

    I have one question to that, how in the hell does making jokes about Democrats make you a Patriot?

    Especially when it's Dick Cheney, the man who authorized torture, lied us into a war that has led to over 4,000 young Americans getting killed, and over 30,000 wounded. Cheney should be in jail for violating the Constitution, authorizing torture, and war crimes. Not being named a Patriot (on a biased fake cable news show) by a right-wing partisan idiot named Bill O'Reilly.

    O'Reilly Attacks Obama & His Pastor Again

  • 4-16-08 -- The O'Reilly Factor Obama Attackfest contines, 3 weeks after the Obama Pastor story died, Billy the biased Republican is still trying to keep it alive. It's all Obama all the time on the factor, and if O'Reilly can not attack Obama for something he said, he attacks his Pastor for what he said.

    The name of the show should be changed to the Obama Factor, because that's about all O'Reilly talks about anymore. And it is biased one sided right-wing propaganda.

    After the TPM on the Pope and Bill Maher, O'Reilly had Newt Gingrich on to talk about it. Newt agreed with all of O'Reilly's lies, and then they attacked Obama and his Pastor. The both attacked Obama over his philly comments, and misrepresented what he meant when he said what he did.

    Then O'Reilly did another segment on Pastor Wright and the size of the house he is building. Billy had a right-winger from townhall.com on to attack the Pastor. O'Reilly was shocked that Pastor Wright has such a big house. He implied there was something wrong with that, and said he would investigate it.

    Yet he never says a word about the size of Pat Robertson's house, or Jerry Falwells's house, and he does not plan to investigate them. It's total bias, hypocrisy, and a double standard. It's a biased right-wing political smear job by O'Reilly, plain and simple.

    Later in the show O'Reilly contined the Obama attacks with Dennis Miller, they attacked Obama and his pastor. About half the show was devoted to attacking Obama, or his Pastor. Nothing was said about John McCain, or any Republican.

    O'Reilly Gets The Bronze in Worst Persons

  • 4-16-08 -- From last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

    Time for COUNTDOWN's worst person in the world.

    The bronze to Bill-O, who is coming apart like a cheap suit. Talk about cheap rivets. Trying to tie the parent company of MSNBC and NBC, GE, to, wait for it, dead Americans in Iraq.

    GE Chairman Jeff Immelt notes correctly that most orders the company used to receive in Iran were from European companies working there, but that by 2005 shareholders and the executives had had enough of Iran, and stopped accepting new business in or from Iran.

    By the end of June of this year, all the existing contracts will have expired and GE will officially be doing absolutely no business there. So the Frank Burns of news goes on and calls this explanation parsing and says, how many dead before Immelt gets out of there. If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt.

    Firstly, Bill-O, after all of the shilling and ass kissing you did for this administration before this phony war, you are more personally responsible for the 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq than all of America's corporations put together.

    But back down to Bill's level on this; he claims his rants are about right and wrong and Iran and Iraq, and they aren't. He didn't care about Americans dead or alive in Iraq.

    This is about me. He really thinks people do not know that his bosses have promised my bosses that he will stop talking about Jeff Immelt or GE or NBC if I stop talking about him.

    My bosses have said to me full steam ahead, buddy. And they have said to Bill's bosses, we think your guy is a clown.

    Tell him to keep it up, because he keeps providing Keith such great material. It's a good company here.

    O'Reilly Hypocrisy on Criticizing The Pope

  • 4-16-08 -- Last night O'Reilly attacked Bill Maher for criticizing the Pope, and the so-called liberal media for saying nothing about it. Yet in 2002 when O'Reilly called the Pope senile, and said he was not lucid, nobody in the so-called liberal media reported anything about what O'Reilly said either.

    But O'Reilly claims it's liberal media bias because nobody in the media said anything about Maher's comments about the Pope. When they also ignored what O'Reilly said when he criticized the Pope in 2002. What Maher did was criticize the Pope, and the catholic church, for not doing anything to religious leaders after they molested kids. They were not kicked out of the church, just moved to another church and allowed to molest more kids.

    O'Reilly claims Bill Maher hates religion, that's a lie. He only hates how the Pope and others in the catholic church allowed their people to molest kids. What's funny is hearing O'Reilly criticize someone for going after the pope, besides the total hypocrisy, O'Reilly once called the former pope senile, and said he was not lucid, and that he dont know what is going on, then he denied he said it.

    Here are the actual transcripts of O'Reilly where he denies he said it, then you see exactly what he said, in his own words right from his own transcript. O'Reilly calls media matters vile liars, when all they do is publish his very own transcript, it's his own words, he said it. And this is a fact, yet O'Reilly denies it, and calls them liars for publishing his transcripts.

    O'Reilly Denied Calling The Pope Senile

    In response to a caller on his radio show, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that he "never said the pope was senile." In fact, in 2002, O'Reilly called Pope John Paul II "too senile to know" about the damage Cardinal Bernard Law, former archbishop of the Boston Archdiocese, had caused by allegedly covering up incidents of sexual abuse of children by priests in the archdiocese.

    O'Reilly blamed the caller's "propaganda" first on the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, then on Media Matters for America.

    From the April 8 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

    [CALLER]: Thanks for takin' my call, Bill. Well, I think -- you know, you're doing a lot of really good work in terms of spirituality and protecting the young. But one of the things I had a question for you -- is about 12 to 18 months ago you were saying that the Pope was also autocratic and senile. And you didn't like him.

    O'REILLY: And senile? Is that what you said?

    [CALLER]: You did say that --

    O'REILLY: No, I didn't. Well, look, you're takin the Catholic League -- you're taking their pronouncement, correct? Am I correct, [caller]?

    [CALLER]: Now, I don't know anything about the Catholic League pronouncement.

    O'REILLY: Whadda you takin' then, Media Matters?

    [CALLER]: No, I'm not takin that either.

    O'REILLY: All right, well, you're takin some kinda propaganda cause I never said the pope was senile. And you know, I criticized the pope when he shoulda been criticized, and that is for not being proactive enough in the pedophilia scandals here in the USA, and in failing to put off a cogent policy to fight terror.

    Now, I wrote a column -- this column's posted right now. And I have said that and been very consistent. I have not changed my mind. Now, you've got crazy left-wing nuts who distort what's said on this program every day.

    And, they spit stuff out -- Catholic League picked it up. Attacked me this week. You know, the usual propaganda. So, you wanna buy into that, [caller], and live in that land, you go right ahead.

    But anybody listening to me and watching The Factor knows I've been very consistent about the pope, and two areas I felt his pronouncements were wrong, and otherwise, I admired him as a very holy man who had a deep respect for life. And that's the truth of that matter.

    And now the truth!

    From the December 12, 2002, O'Reilly Factor, in a segment with Philip Moran, general counsel for the political advocacy group Catholic Alliance:

    O'REILLY: Well, wait a minute. Hear me out. We all know, everybody knows -- even Law knows. Everybody but the pope, who's too senile to know, and I say that with all due respect. I don't think the pope is lucid, I don't think he knows what's going on, and I say that because Law's been in Rome for five days, has not seen the pope, has not even talked to the pope, and this is the worst scandal in a century.

    MORAN: He's going to meet with him.

    O'REILLY: In the Catholic Church, and the pontiff can't talk to you, and you're there for five days. There's something going wrong there. But, anyway, everyone knows, including Cardinal Law, that because of his actions as leader of the dioceses of Boston, children -- children -- hundreds of them -- were damaged for the rest of their life. Now everyone knows that. You can hide -- you can say the legalisms, tort, depositions, civil. Everybody knows that.

    www.mediamatters.org/items/200504120005

    So I guess it's ok for O'Reilly to call the Pope senile, but if Bill Maher says something about the Pope (which is true) that's not ok. It's hypocrisy, bias, and a double standard from O'Reilly, especially when what Bill Maher said was not as bad as what O'Reilly said.

    Maher just said the Pope did nothing to guys who molested kids, and criticized him for it. O'Reilly called the former Pope senile, which is worse than what Bill Maher said.

    O'Reilly Attacks Obama & Pastor Wright Again

  • 4-15-08 -- O'Reilly attacked Obama over his Philly remarks, as a good little Republican he joined the rest of the dishonest media in misrepresenting what Obama meant. Everyone knows what Obama meant, he just did not say it the way he wanted it to come out, basically he mis-spoke.

    Funny how O'Reilly defended John McCain (in one segment on one show) when he misspoke and got things wrong about Al Qaeda and Iran. But when Obama misspeaks O'Reilly attacks him, does half the show on it, and spends a week talking about it.

    O'Reilly also attacked Pastor Wright once again because he talked about FOX news. Then during the 1st segment he said Obama just cant get rid of the Pastor story. Yeah because dishonest and biased right-wing idiots like O'Reilly and FOX news keep the story alive.

    Then Billy pretended to have some advice for Obama and the Pastor, he said the Pastor should go away until December of 2008. How can he go away when you and FOX news talk about him every fricking night.

    O'Reilly acted like he wanted the Pastor story to go away, when the truth is he is going to keep talking about Pastor Wright as much as possible, all the way until the election. And keep attacking Obama, while saying nothing about McCain. If he actually wanted the Pastor story to go away he would not report on it every night, or have 20 talking points memos on him in a month and a half.

    O'Reilly has made a living keeping the Obama Pastor story alive, 3 weeks after it died in the rest of the media, and O'Reilly even took credit for breaking the story when Brian Ross at ABC news actually broke the story on a thursday morning before O'Reilly broke it, and the NY Times broke it a year ago.

    One thing for sure, is it will be non-stop Obama smearing on the Factor, all the way until the election, and you can bet on that. Because O'Reilly is a biased, one sided, unfair Republican.

    O'Reilly is The New Sgt. Schultz - I Hear Nothing, I see Nothing, I Know Nothing

  • 4-11-08 -- Last night Billy had a reporter from the Politico on to discuss the groups on the left that have organized to raise money to unseat the Repulblican incumbents, of coure the name George Soros came up and Billy said he was 10 times worse than the Anti-Christ.

    Then Moveon.org was mentioned and the vile David Brock, the only thing vile about him seems to be that he exposes the hypocrisy and distortions of FOX and Bill O'Reilly. Billy acted as if he had never heard of any organized efforts of the right to do the same thing, even though there has been book after book after book written about them.

    And these groups have been in existence for a long long time, but somehow Billy had no knowledge of the likes of Richard Mellon Sciafe, Rupert Murdoch, The Heritage Foundation, Human Events, AEI, PNAC, Grover Norquist, Reverend Moon, The Federalist Society, The Manhattan Institute, not to mention all the conservative foundations, right-wing policy institutions, conservative scholars, and academic programs, etc.

    So "Billy" is crying about (legally made) donations to moveon.org by George Soros, and he claims it is going to ruin America and harm people the left disagrees with. That is garbage, they use that money to promote liberal ideas and a progressive agenda to help the American people.

    This was nothing but a biased one sided right wing propaganda segment with nobody from the left to provide the balance. Not to mention they never said a word about the Billions wealthy conservatives donate to far right foundations and groups. And in fact O'Reilly said he does not know of any Conservatives giving big money to Republicans. Then he said if you know of any tell him and he will report it.

    Guess what Billy, here it is, now report it:
    In 1994, a core group of 12 conservative foundations controlled more than $1.1 billion in assets; from 1992-94, they awarded $300 million in grants, and targeted $210 million to support a wide array of projects and institutions.

    Over the last two decades, the 12 have mounted an impressively coherent and concerted effort to shape public policy by undermining and ultimately redirecting what they regard as the institutional strongholds of modern American liberalism: academia, Congress, the judiciary, executive branch agencies, major media, religious institutions, and philanthropy itself.

    They channeled some $80 million to right-wing policy institutions actively promoting an anti-government, unregulated markets agenda. Another $89 million supported conservative scholars and academic programs, with $27 million targeted to recruit and train the next generation of right-wing leaders in conservative legal principles, free-market economics, political journalism and policy analysis.

    And $41.5 million was invested to build a conservative media apparatus, support pro-market legal organizations, fund state-level think tanks and advocacy organizations, and mobilize new philanthropic resources for conservative policy change. The strong role that conservative foundations have played in shaping national and state policy debates reflects not only impressive cash reserves, but also a sophisticated funding strategy.
    Read more here:

    Right Thinking, Big Grants, and Long Term Strategy

    Funny how O'Reilly does not have a problem with Republicans pouring Billions of dollars into think tanks and foundations, to support conservatives, he only has a problem with Democrats spending Millions to support liberals. Not to mention it's legal, it's called Democracy, you give money to people and groups you agree with.

    That's how a Democracy works in a free country, but for some reason O'Reilly only has a problem with it when wealthy liberals give money to Democratic persons and groups.

    And O'Reilly claims he is a non-partisan Independent, if anyone believes that after last night you need your head examined.

    O'Reilly Ignores Big Breaking News Torture Story

  • 4-10-08 -- I guess he is too busy attacking Democrats for raising money (when it's perfectly legal) for funding groups that support liberal issues. I guess he is too busy reporting on girls that get drunk on spring break, or 12 year old strippers, or 13 year old prostitutes.

    This is real news, and big news, yet not a word about it from O'Reilly the so-called non-partisan journalist.

    ABC Report: Bush's 'Principal' Advisers OK'd Torture

    April 9th, 2008 -- ABC News reported last night that President Bush's most senior and trusted advisers met in "dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House" beginning in 2002 to approve the use of "combined" interrogation techniques (the joint use of harsh interrogation techniques). Those tactics included whether detainees "would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding."

    Members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee -- Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft ? approved the use of these techniques. "Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved." According to ABC's report, Ashcroft indicated he was troubled by the meetings:
    According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
    Marc Ambinder writes, "It remains one of those hidden secrets in Washington that a Democratic Justice Department is going to be very interested in figuring out whether there's a case to be made that senior Bush Administration officials were guilty of war crimes."

    It's proof that the top officials in the Bush administration approved torture, and those officials may go on trial for war crimes one day. Yet Bill (the journalist) O'Reilly never said a word about the story that broke yesterday, not a word, from the so-called no spin zone, how pathetic is that?

    Radio Factor Proves O'Reilly Conservative Bias

  • 4-10-08 -- A couple days ago I listened to the Radio Factor for the first time. I have watched the TV Factor every night for about 8 years now, but I had never listened to the Radio Factor because it is not on any radio station here in Peoria. So I found a live stream on the internet, and listened to the Radio Factor.

    Actually I should say I tried to listen to the Radio Factor. I listened to O'Reilly on the radio factor for about 15 or 20 minutes, and I have to say I could not listen to any more of it, and turned it off. It's 10 times worse than the tv factor, and I can barely handle watching that.

    The radio factor is non-stop O'Reilly right-wing propaganda, it's all him. And all he does is put out right-wing propaganda with nobody to question anything he says. It's no different than listening to Rush or Hannity, which we get here on the radio, listening to the Radio Factor is like listening to Rush, it's the same right-wing propaganda with a different voice.

    O'Reilly did take a few phone calls, but only from right-wingers who agree with him, when he talked about a caller who disagreed with him, that person never even got on the air. O'Reilly read his question for him, then gave a right-wing spin answer to his question, and called him a left-wing loon.

    Anyone who disagrees with O'Reilly is not allowed on the air to ask their question, or give a follow up answer to O'Reilly's answer to him. Dissenting questions are only read on the air by O'Reilly, they are not actually allowed on the air.

    This is done to protect his listeners from liberals getting on the air and actually saying the truth. So then O'Reilly has total control over what gets on the air during his radio show, and all freedom of speech is gone.

    Nothing but right-wing propaganda gets out on the Radio Factor, so his listeners never hear anything but what O'Reilly wants them to hear. That is the kind of radio show you might hear in Nazi Germany when Hitler controlled all forms of media, not in a country that has free speech.

    There is no free speech on the radio factor, only O'Reilly speech. All other views are filtered through him, and any dissenting views are not allowed on the air. So I dont think I will be listening to the radio factor again, if I want to hear non-stop one sided right-wing propaganda on the radio, i'll just listen to Rush.

    And this is not just my opinion, here is what Sandman wrote about the radio factor in a forum posting:

    He sounds just like every other far right-wing republican propagandist on the radio, but he tells his TV audience a different story. He tries to convince them that he isn't like D-Kos, Huffpost, MMA, Air America, or even the regulars like Rush or Hannity, but listening too just a couple hours of his show will shed the true light on his lies!

    He's a rightwing bully who doesn't like being challenged about his dishonesty. Pick-up the phone Bill, it's your conscience on line 1!

    I don't mind if these pundits like O'Reilly want to have their shows and want to share their thinking and ideas with the rest of us, but I only ask that they be "honest."

    And clearly they are not! Worse yet, they aren't lying by accident, they are doing it with a purpose to deceive mass populations of people. People who VOTE.

    Listen to O'Reilly's radio show and ask yourself "How is it that this "charleton" is on 400+ radio stations across America?" It isn't because of the quality of the show!

    Somebody is hiring him and paying him too lie for a living.

    How sad and pathetic is that?

    Sandman

    O'Reilly Calls Out Race Baitors

  • 4-8-08 -- O'Reilly claims that millions of Americans of all colors are fed up with race baiters and accusations of racism. Last night he said this in the TPM:
    O'REILLY: The white backlash against Reverend Wright and racist accusations. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

    As we've been reporting, millions of Americans of all colors are fed up with race baiters and accusations of racism. This vile stuff has been going on far too long. And now with the Wright controversy, critical mass has been reached.

    Liberal icons Senator Joe Biden and Geraldine Ferraro have both been branded racist. Comedian Bill Maher was called racist by his former girlfriend Nancy Johnson, who sued him.

    The list goes on and on.

    The result of all this garbage is that millions of white Americans will no longer even think about discussing race with blacks. It is far too dangerous. Any slip of the tongue can lead to big trouble.

    So what should be done? Well, full exposure of the race baiters is No. 1. They will be challenged here.

    We'll continue to do that in the No Spin Zone because no-spin people come in all colors. But you race hustlers out there, you race baiters, you better watch it. We've got your number, and the gloves are off.
    What Bill O'Reilly is really saying, is that no black person should ever say anything about a white man (or white woman) who makes racist comments. And if you do, he is going to go after you with the gloves off, and call you a race baiter.

    And the "million of Americans of all colors" who he claims are fed up with race baiters, are all Republicans. I am a white liberal, and I do not know one white person who is fed up with the people O'Reilly calls race baiters. In fact, it is just the opposite.

    Everyone I know support the Arican Americans (or anyone) who speak out against racism when they see it. We do not see them as race baiters, only O'Reilly and his Republican friends do. We see them as good Americans, who are trying to stop racism by exposing the racists, and reporting on the racist statements they make.

    Basically O'Reilly is crying foul because people call him (and other racists) on their racist comments, and he is trying to shut them up by threatning to go after them if they dont. Because O'Reilly and the Republicans want to use race to attack Obama, and other people who speak out against them.

    O'Reilly is just mad because people call him a racist when he makes racist statements, and he is mad that he and other Republicans are called racist when they engage in racist attacks against Senator Obama. Billy and all his right-wing friends want to be able to make racist attacks against Senator Obama without people calling them a racist.

    Sorry Billy, that's not how it works in 2008, maybe you could have got away with it 20 years ago, but not today pal. If you make racist comments, and you play the race card, you will be exposed as a racist, plain and simple. And I will report on it, and take the gloves off myself.

    If you stop the racist attacks on Senator Obama, and stop playing the race card, nobody will call you, or your right-wing friends racists. So if you want people to stop calling you and your Republican friends racists, stop saying racist things, and stop playing the race card against Senator Obama, it's that simple Billy.

    Factor Talking Points Archive Bias

  • 4-8-08 -- If anyone thinks I am crazy when I say that Bill O'Reilly has unfairly attacked Barack Obama by doing non-stop one sided biased attacks against him, his Pastor, and othert liberals, just look at a recent listing of Factor Talking Points.
    -- White Backlash Against Rev. Wright and Racist Accusations
    April 08, 2008
    -- Martin Luther King, Jeremiah Wright and Hollywood
    April 07, 2008
    -- Sticking Up for Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan
    April 04, 2008
    -- Worse Missteps: Obama or Clinton?
    April 02, 2008
    -- Shooting at Hillary Clinton
    March 26, 2008
    -- Uncivil War Within Democratic Party
    March 25, 2008
    -- Obama Strikes Back
    March 21, 2008
    -- Race in America, Starring Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson
    March 20, 2008
    -- Obama Speaks on Rev. Wright and Race in America
    March 19, 2008
    -- Obama Replies to Pastor Controversy
    March 18, 2008
    -- Obama Pastor Controversy Continues
    March 17, 2008
    -- Race Hammer in Play Again
    March 14, 2008
    -- What Will Happen if Far-Left Secular Progressives Achieve Power in America?
    March 10, 2008
    -- Is There Turmoil Within the Democratic Party?
    March 07, 2008
    Notice anything missing? Not one TPM on any Republican for anything, especially John McCain. It's non-stop Obama/Clinton/Liberal bashing. And O'Reilly wonders why people think FOX is a right-wing news network, and he wonders why no Democrats want to do his show, or any FOX show.

    Just open your eyes Billy, look at the talking points archives, every one is an attack on Obama, his Pastor, Hillary Clinton, or some other liberal. This is not journalism, it's biased, one sided, partisan right-wing propaganda, pretending to be journalism.

    More John McCain News O'Reilly Has Ignored

  • 4-6-08 -- O'Reilly can not find time to report any of this information about John McCain, but he sure can find a lot of time to spend 3 weeks talking about Obama's Pastor, 12 year old strippers, 13 year old prostitutes, bad plastic surgery, and guys who talk to dogs.

    In 1983 John McCain voted against a bill to create a holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Then in 1987 John McCain supported Arizona governor Evan Mecham when he rescinded the holiday in the state. When then-governor Evan Mecham rescinded the holiday, McCain said Mecham was "correct in his decision."

    Fast forward 25 years, McCain gives a speech on MLK Jr. day and says he made a mistake when he voted no. So for 25 years he was not sorry, and he only said it was a mistake while he is running for president.

    And his support of civil rights issues has been tepid, and at times, offensive. Some highlights:
    Honoring the Confederate flag: In 2000, McCain called the flag "offensive." Later, he lauded it as a "battle flag" and a "symbol of heritage."

    Honoring racists: In 2000, Richard Quinn, McCain's South Carolina spokesperson in 2000, called the MLK holiday "vitriolic and profane." McCain defended Quinn, calling him a "respected" and fine man, refusing to fire him. McCain?s current campaign has paid the firm Richard Quinn and Associates $180,000.

    Skipped African-American debate to campaign: McCain joined Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson in September 2007 in skipping the PBS presidential debate, which featured "a panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color."

    McCain expresses regret for his earlier opposition to MLK Day, but his delayed judgment is noteworthy, as the 1983 vote was nearly 15 years after MLK was assassinated. McCain also opposed the 1990 Civil Rights Act.
    It's just another flip-flop for McCain, and pandering to the African American vote by saying it was a mistake during his run for president. If he really thought it was a mistake, why did it take 25 years for him to say so, and then only say it while he is running for president.

    New GI Bill Follow up: John McCain has still not signed on to the new GI Bill, and O'Reilly has not said a word, even though he said he would call anyone who did not support it out, and name names.

    Democratic Senator Jim Webb is leading the charge on a new "21st Century GI Bill" that will dramatically expand the scope of education assistance provided to returning veterans who served after Sept. 11. While John McCain has thus far declined to support Webb's bill.

    In an interview, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who supports the bill, explained McCain's absence:
    We have talked to John, Hagel said, which would remove the buy-in cost for veterans to receive greater education benefits. John as you know has been involved in other pursuits. He has taken a close look at it, his people are. Both Webb and I had hoped he would get on it. Obviously Obama is on it and Clinton, three out of four Vietnam veterans in the Senate are on it, people like John Warner and James Inhofe are on it.
    Indeed, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both co-sponsored Webb's bill even though they also have been "involved in other pursuits."

    Will O'Reilly Call McCain Out on New GI Bill?

  • 4-3-08 -- During the 2-8-08 O'Reilly Factor, Billy said "Tonight we have a major announcement, and that is a new GI bill is needed in the country. And we will work hard to make that happen this year."
    O'REILLY: The Factor" has partnered up with Senator John Kerry in the Senate and Congressman Peter King in the House to forward legislation that will reward our fighting men and women when they leave the service.

    Enough is enough. It's long past time to expand the GI bill to give vets more health, education and housing benefits. That is the right thing to do and would help recruiting, which the country desperately needs.
    O'Reilly said he was going to call out anyone in Congress who did not get on board with this new GI bill, he said he would name names.

    As of today (4-3-08) John McCain has not supported the bill. The only way to ensure Senate passage of the GI Bill is to get 60 co-sponsors. more than 50 Senators -- including many Republicans -- have already signed on as co-sponsors.

    And yet, surprisingly, one of those Senators who has not yet offered his support is John McCain.

    The Bush administration has also resisted the legislation. White House officials say that giving soldiers such an strong incentive to leave the armed forces would result in low retention rates. Soldiers sign up and -- after two years -- leave the army in droves to get their free education.

    Will O'Reilly call out the Bush administration for their lack of support?

    Will O'Reilly call out McCain for his lack of support?

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both support the bill, can you imagine what O'Reilly would say if they did not support it. Billy would do a week of shows on it and hammer them hard. Yet (as of today) the Bush administration and John McCain have not supported it, and O'Reilly has not said a word about it.

    I am guessing he meant he'd only call out only the "liberals" who might not be on board. Billy has been giving McCain a huge pass while criticizing Obama and Clinton every night. Is he going to give McCain a pass on this issue too? Even after he said he would call out anyone who did not support the bill.

    What say you Billy?

    Political Alert: Lies, Lies, And More Lies

  • 4-2-08 -- Here are two reasons why you should never believe what Republicans say on tv and radio, and why you should never vote Republican in any elections.

    Tony Snow Falsely Claims Obama Voted Present 160 Times As U.S. Senator

    On Dennis Miller's radio show last Friday, former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama has voted present 160 times as a member of the United States Senate.

    Miller tried to correct Snow, saying that it was "in the Illinois Senate" that Obama had made a series of present votes, but Snow refused to budge, saying, "no, no, in the United States Senate."
    TONY SNOW: What Obama always tries to do, is to do what looks to be respectable and to avoid trouble. So when he's in the United States Senate, he's voted present, what 160 times.

    DENNIS MILLER: In the Illinois Senate, I believe.

    SNOW: No, no. In the United States Senate.

    MILLER: Oh, I thought when he was down in the house of Illinois that he voted present.

    SNOW: He's done both. He's done both. He has cast more present votes in the United States Senate over the last three years than anybody else in the chamber.
    Wrong, Obama has never voted "present" as a U.S. senator, not one time. The Obama campaign even confirmed that the senator has never voted "present" in the U.S. Senate.

    It's possible that Snow is referring to missed votes rather than "present" votes, but even so, Obama has missed fewer votes during the current Congress than John McCain, who missed 297 votes in this Congress. In the previous Congress, Obama missed 11 votes while McCain missed 58.

    In the Illinois Senate Obama voted present 130 times, not 160, so Tony Snow even got that wrong, and that 130 present votes was out of more than 4,000 votes, which means he only voted present 3 percent of the time.

    Cheney Swore Off Moderate Campaign Promises a Month After 2000 Election

    In his new book, former Rhode Island Republican senator Lincoln Chafee reveals that even before President Bush was sworn into office after the 2000 elections, Cheney had rejected the "moderate course" laid out in their campaign:
    The former Senator describes a December 2000 meeting of Republican moderates with Vice President-elect Cheney. Chafee listened as Cheney swore off the moderate course he and Bush had just finished championing in their campaign.

    Hearing Cheney say "the campaign was over and that our actions in office would not be dictated by what had to be said in the campaign," Chafee writes, was "the most demoralizing moment of my seven-year tenure in the Senate."

    In his book, Chafee angrily adds about the incident, "Mr. Cheney tore our best campaign promises to shreds and the moderates acquiesced instead of pelting him with outrage."
    What Chafee reveals is that Bush and Cheney lied their ass off during the 2000 presidential campaign, with their promises to be a moderate administration. And as soon as they got elected it was to hell with the American people we made promises to, we will move to the far right and do whatever we want.

    Their entire 2000 campaign was all lies, and dont just believe me, go back and look at what they said during the campaign, you will see they did not keep one promise they made, except to cut taxes, and most of those tax cuts went to the top 5 percent.

    O'Reilly Ignoring Real News to Smear Obama & Clinton

  • 4-2-08 -- The top issues facing America today are, The Economy, The Iraq War, Health Care, The Housing Crisis, Terrorism, The Stock Market, Jobs, Global Warming, Illegal Immigration, and Foreign Policy. Yet O'Reilly did not say a word about any of it. Because all these problems are happening with a Republican in the White House, and reporting on those issues makes Bush and the Republican party look bad.

    Last night O'Reilly once again made the 2 week old Obama Pastor story, and the Clinton Bosnia sniper story, the lead story on the factor. He did the talking points memo on those 2 stories, then had a full 4 minute segment to discuss them after the TPM.

    The O'Reilly factor has turned into the no news factor, it's nothing but a Democratic smear zone now, with some tabloid trash stories mixed in between the Democratic attacks. The first 15 minutes of the show was devoted to the 2 week old Obama Pastor story, and the 3 day old Clinton Bosnia sniper story. The rest of the media has moved on from these stories, except for O'Reilly and FOX.

    When O'Reilly is not reporting on botched plastic surgery stories, or guys who talk to dogs, he is reporting on 12 year old strippers, or girls gone wild, so he can run video of half naked girls on the beach or in a strip club. The rest of the time it's a non-stop smear job of Obama and Clinton. While at the same time never reporting one bad word about John McCain, if he does mention McCain (which is rare) he calls him a big winner.

    If that's a non-partisan Independent no spin zone, I'm Elvis.

    Thanks to Keith Olbermann Wal-Mart Changes Their Mind

  • 4-2-08 -- Eight years ago, Wal-Mart employee Debbie Shank was hit by a semi-truck, leaving her severely brain damaged and confined to a wheelchair. Last September, her son was killed in Iraq -- a fact she has to be constantly reminded of since the accident left her virtually without any short-term memory.

    Wal-Mart paid for her medical fees, but after Shank won $1 million from a lawsuit against the trucking company, her former employer sued her to recoup its medical expenses, despite the fact the settlement left her only $417,000 after legal fees:
    But a clause in the retailer's benefits agreement says the store can recoup medical fees paid if an injured employee receives damages from a lawsuit. Wal-Mart, which earned more than $11 billion in profits last year, sued Shank for $470,000, and won.
    Last week MSNBC's Keith Olbermann started a campaign against Wal-Mart, tagging the company one of his "Worst Persons in the World" for four straight nights. Olbermann says he will keep reminding people of "what they're supporting when they go to Wal-Mart. And we'll do it nightly, and indefinitely."

    Yesterday it was reported that Wal-Mart said in a letter to the family of Deborah Shank it will no longer try to collect money the Shanks won in an injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident. So thanks to Keith Olbermann Wal-Mart has done the right thing and let her keep that money, which was only $277,000, the amount she has in her account now.

    And to Bill O'Reilly, thanks for nothing, you did not report this story at all. Maybe if you had reported it, Wal-Mart would have changed their mind sooner. And saved this family the pain and suffering of thinking Wal-Mart was going to take every dime they had to pay for her medical care.

    So I say Bill O'Reilly, you are also the worst person in the world for not reporting the Debbie Shank story.

    More Obama Pastor Attacks on Tuesday Factor

  • 4-1-08 -- Billy did the TPM on the Obama Pastor story and the Clinton Bosnia sniper story. Even though pretty much the rest of the media (except FOX) has dropped the Obama Pastor story O'Reilly continues to keep it going.

    I am guessing it gets high ratings from his right-wing viewers so he will continue to keep the story alive. After attacking Obama and Hillary, O'Reilly said McCain was the big winner, what a shocker.

    In the 1st segment after the TPM, O'Reilly had two Democrats on to dicuss both stories, and he asked which one hurt which candidate more. Both Democrats said the Hillary story would hurt her more because it was something she said, and something she lied about. Unlike Obama who was being attacked for what his Pastor said, not what he said.

    Of course O'Reilly disagreed and said the Pastor would hurt Obama more, and that the story would not go away. When it has gone away, except on the factor, and FOX. And the polls show the Obama Pastor story has not hurt him at all, O'Reilly just can't admit it. A new Gallup poll yesterday had Obama 10 points ahead of Hillary, which is a bigger lead than he had over her before the Obama Pastor story broke.

    Clearly the Clinton sniper story has hurt her more, because it was something she said, and what she lied about, yet O'Reilly refuses to admit it. Even when the polls prove it. Not to mention Obama is only 5 points down to Clinton in Pennsylvania now, when 2 weeks ago he was 17 points down. That also shows the Pastor story has not hurt him because he has gained on Clinton in PA.

    O'Reilly just wants the Obama Pastor story to hurt him, because he is worried Obama will beat McCain in November. So Billy is trying to hurt him as much as possible to help McCain.

    Nobody cares what Obama's Pastor said, except for O'Reilly, his Republican friends, and the FOX News Network. It's a non-story with everyone but right-wing nuts who want to try and use it to hurt Obama. Guess what Billy, you failed, and it did not hurt Obama.

    The folks have moved on to real issues like the war, gas prices, the economy, health care, etc. So you can trash Obama all you want, the only people watching you are right-wing nuts who will not vote for him anyway, so you can not hurt him with your constant biased attacks.

    O'Reilly Ignoring McCain Flip-Flops

  • 4-1-08 -- Remember back to 2003 when John Kerry ran against George W. Bush for president. Kerry had changed his positions on a couple issues and he was branded a flip-flopper by the media, and especially by the Republicans in the media and Congress.

    O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, etc. used the flip-flopper term to describe Kerry 24/7 for months, they hammered it day and night non-stop. Fast forward to 2008, have you seen O'Reilly, or anyone in the media, or any Republicans use the word flip-flopper to describe John McCain.

    Of course not, and O'Reilly has not said a word about any of the McCain flip-flops, when he hammered Kerry more than anyone for his flip-flops.

    Here is a list of McCain flip-flops:
    -- McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain said if he were a "read my lips" candidate, no new taxes, no matter what referring to George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, "I'm not making a read my lips statement, in that I will not raise taxes."

    -- McCain's campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign's policy.

    -- In February 2008, McCain abandoned his opposition to waterboarding.

    -- In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the "nature of the society in Iraq" and the religious aspects of the country make it inevitable that the United States "eventually withdraws." Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he's prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.

    -- McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty's behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

    -- McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants kids who graduate from high school. Now he's against it.

    -- On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

    -- In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving "feedback" on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

    -- McCain said before the war in Iraq, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough."

    -- McCain said he was the "greatest critic" of Rumsfeld's failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as "a mission accomplished." In March 2004, he said, "I'm confident we're on the right course." In December 2005, he said, "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course."

    -- McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

    -- McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage should not be allowed.

    -- McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks.

    -- McCain used to oppose Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February 2008.

    -- On a related note, he said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were "too tilted to the wealthy." By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

    -- In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

    -- McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

    -- McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

    -- McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

    -- McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he's pro-ethanol.

    -- McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

    -- McCain decided in 2000 that he didn't want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he "would taint the image of the Straight Talk Express." Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
    Here is the main point: John McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned almost every position he used to hold. The problem isn't just the flip-flops; it's the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the flip-flops.

    News You Will Never Get on The Factor

  • 4-1-08 -- Yesterday another corrupt Bush administration official announced his resignation, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson said Monday he was resigning after seven years on the job. Jackson, 62, is under criminal investigation and has been fending off allegations of cronyism and favoritism involving HUD contractors for the past two years.

    Jackson is a longtime friend and neighbor of president Bush from his days in Dallas. He was nominated in 2001 by George W. Bush to be the HUD secretary.

    The FBI has been examining the ties between Jackson and a friend who was paid $392,000 by Jackson's department as a construction manager in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Jackson said he needs time to attend to personal and family matters.

    He did not take questions or elaborate on the family reasons he cited for the decision. Jackson resigns at a time when the nation's housing industry is in a crisis so serious that it has imperiled the nation's credit markets and led to a major economic slowdown.

    And of course you will never hear this reported on the factor by Bill O'Reilly. Because he is a Republican and he is covering for all the corrupt Republicans in the Bush administration. Basically O'Reilly is covering up the corruption involving Bush and the Republicans because it might hurt McCain in November, and so he can use the whole hour to smear Obama and Clinton.